Americans will never Dominate 'Pool' again and here's why

The game is for the fans, not to appease the pros

If you asked NFL receivers to make the rules, they would get a flag for interference on every play.

If you let LeBron dictate the NBA, he would never be called for a foul.

A 30 second shot clock is reasonable and keeps the game moving.
 
BeiberLvr said:
You and the majority of AZB should not be the target market.

Going after non pool players should be the primary goal, and the first step is to increase the speed at which the game is played. Mind you, it's not the only step, but an important one nonetheless.

Also, please understand that there is a difference between speeding up the game and playing speed pool. The latter is a gimmick we should try to avoid at all costs.
Click to expand...

Correct, on both points.
 
Danimal said:
If you asked NFL receivers to make the rules, they would get a flag for interference on every play.

If you let LeBron dictate the NBA, he would never be called for a foul.

A 30 second shot clock is reasonable and keeps the game moving.
Click to expand...

Correct. Players demand what's in their own best interests. This is why the most successful sports have strong governing bodies, who think strategically and long term. No player is bigger than the game.
 
You lose something with a shot clock.

This shot took one minute ten seconds, yet it is one of the most famous shots in pool history and brought the audience to their feet. What would have been lost if he had to fire in 10 seconds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxZtYALqIrE

You say we shouldn't be focused on what AZB wants, but instead what the public wants...then you talk about a hypothetical public that just happens to agree with your own opinions. And yet you state them as facts, as if you had done extensive market research or traveled 30 years into the future. I have no problem with you having your opinion and voicing it. But at least acknowledge it is an opinion and that a 20 second shot clock puts you are in the minority.

As for what the public wants, it is far from scientific. Hole card cameras made texas hold'em explode into a world wide phenomenon. Not a shot clock. In fact, some of the most entertaining moments in poker was watching someone make a tough decision for all of their chips and going into the tank, analyzing the hand, prodding their opponent for information. It was suspenseful and if you were rooting for one player or the other it was one of the most enjoyable parts of the broadcast.

As for me, I personally would struggle with even a 30 second shot clock. I played bar table 8 ball yesterday for about 4-5 hours getting ready for a tournament. I had my break dialed in and have never run so many racks from the break in my life. I ran 4 racks several times, and more 2s and 3s than I could count. I'd imagine my break and run percentage was over 60%, probably in the 70s. If I didn't run 50 racks total from the break, I was closer to 50 than to 30. I say this because while I'm not an elite player, I know the game. And yes, most of my shots were played pretty quickly. But after the break I might take some time, if I got into trouble and had to figure out which way to break open the balls, etc. I didn't play slow, but I know my game would've dropped drastically had I been playing with a 30 second shot clock. My goal is to play my best, and I don't see the need to sabotage myself for some fictitious public audience that isn't going to watch either way.
 
Desmondp said:
It really is a tribute to the game of American pool that more and more people worldwide want to play it.

A few decades ago, the best European cueists played snooker or English pool. English pool has effectively died off and only so many can survive on the brutally tough snooker tour so that has lead to many more european cueists playing american pool

That is a huge compliment to America.

Things will never be the same again, the US knowledge 'headstart' has now well and truly been eroded.

There are a few comparisons in the combat sport world. In Muay Thai, Thais used to dominate, they had the history, the knowledge but as westerners became more proficient (especially the dutch), there are less and less Thai champions. There used to be a time when the thought of a westerner going to Thailand and beating the Thais at Muay thai was unheard of, now it happens often.

Same in Taekwondo, koreans used to dominate, but when it became an olympic sport, worldwide interest grew and grew , now you can see gold medalists from all over the world.

Muay Thai used to be a Thai sport, now it's a worldwide sport

WTF rules Taekwondo used to be a korean sport, now it's a worldwide sport

US rules pool used to be a USA and asia sport, now it's truly worldwide

That is something everyone should be happy with but it does mean that the talent pool will never again be dominated by one country.

If we go back to the Mosconi Cup. When the Cup started, the US players had all the knowledge of the game, the Europeans almost none, snooker players making their way through half blind.

Now that there is parity in the knowledge base, i actually think USA v Europe is unfair

It should be USA v the UK or USA v Holland.etc


Anyway for the US there should be less focus on trying to recapture the conditons of success from the past (because that was a different playing field) and more about creating future success in the new worldwide demographic
Click to expand...

An interesting thought. Well devised analogies as well.

However, I offer a counter proposal. Remove the Mosconi Cup entirely, and put more effort into growing the World Cup of Pool. Have the WCP be comprised of three person teams rather than two, and each country gets only one team. A single qualifier will be played in each country open to all who wish to participate be they male or female, no games spotted for women, and the people who finish 1-3 are the country's WCP team.

The WCP format would be changed to the current team match format of the MC. Each person plays one rack by themselves, with each player following in succession of 1-3 playing the following rack. Winning team breaks, all ball fouls, 9 on the spot, 3 foul rule in effect.
 
Tin Man said:
You lose something with a shot clock.

This shot took one minute ten seconds, yet it is one of the most famous shots in pool history and brought the audience to their feet. What would have been lost if he had to fire in 10 seconds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxZtYALqIrE

You say we shouldn't be focused on what AZB wants, but instead what the public wants...then you talk about a hypothetical public that just happens to agree with your own opinions. And yet you state them as facts, as if you had done extensive market research or traveled 30 years into the future. I have no problem with you having your opinion and voicing it. But at least acknowledge it is an opinion and that a 20 second shot clock puts you are in the minority.

As for what the public wants, it is far from scientific. Hole card cameras made texas hold'em explode into a world wide phenomenon. Not a shot clock. In fact, some of the most entertaining moments in poker was watching someone make a tough decision for all of their chips and going into the tank, analyzing the hand, prodding their opponent for information. It was suspenseful and if you were rooting for one player or the other it was one of the most enjoyable parts of the broadcast.

As for me, I personally would struggle with even a 30 second shot clock. I played bar table 8 ball yesterday for about 4-5 hours getting ready for a tournament. I had my break dialed in and have never run so many racks from the break in my life. I ran 4 racks several times, and more 2s and 3s than I could count. I'd imagine my break and run percentage was over 60%, probably in the 70s. If I didn't run 50 racks total from the break, I was closer to 50 than to 30. I say this because while I'm not an elite player, I know the game. And yes, most of my shots were played pretty quickly. But after the break I might take some time, if I got into trouble and had to figure out which way to break open the balls, etc. I didn't play slow, but I know my game would've dropped drastically had I been playing with a 30 second shot clock. My goal is to play my best, and I don't see the need to sabotage myself for some fictitious public audience that isn't going to watch either way.
Click to expand...



This shot which is more impressive than Efren's Z-Kick only took a smidgen over 30 seconds.

An even more impressive shot from Efren himself, which clocked in at a whopping 29 seconds.

Oh, and then there's this power stroke shot that took all of 24 seconds


So there's 3 shots. All amazing. All difficult. And all made under 40 seconds. So please continue believing that pool players need a lot of time when 90% of the shots they'll take are easier and much more standard than these.
 
BeiberLvr said:
This shot which is more impressive than Efren's Z-Kick only took a smidgen over 30 seconds.

An even more impressive shot from Efren himself, which clocked in at a whopping 29 seconds.

Oh, and then there's this power stroke shot that took all of 24 seconds

So there's 3 shots. All amazing. All difficult. And all made under 40 seconds. So please continue believing that pool players need a lot of time when 90% of the shots they'll take are easier and much more standard than these.
Click to expand...

Setting aside the issue of whether or not we should have a shot clock, the shot by Jimmy White was nowhere near as impressive as Efren's Z-kick. Efren's kick safe, though, against Boyes I think was probably more impressive than the Z-kick. Efren's accuracy and speed on that kick-safe were both impeccable.
 
Just watched the 93 Sands Finals with Fusco vs Davenport. Kim plays pretty quick, Jim wasn't quite as fast because it was his first time in a major title match finals for many, many years. With pressure like that he had to regroup a few times here and there. Anyway, it went 14-14 in a race to 15. They had a great safety battle that involved some very hard decisions for the match. There were multiple options several times. Go for the shot or duck? Bank the ball? Etc. There were 8 shots in total before Jimmy got control over the table, and all of them were 1 - 2 1/2 minutes before the trigger was pulled.

I was pulling for Jimmy (I didn't know who won) and even though this match was recorded 23 years ago I felt nervous like I had bet $500 on the match. It was an awesome safety battle. In the end Jimmy got there and won a life changing title for him.

I grew up with Accu-stats and learned to play watching Varner, Hall, Siegel, Rempe, etc. This is how I've always felt the game should look. Quick when the balls are lying routine, then weigh options and compose yourself when the balls are laying tough. I'd hate to see that go.
 
PoolBum said:
Setting aside the issue of whether or not we should have a shot clock, the shot by Jimmy White was nowhere near as impressive as Efren's Z-kick. Efren's kick safe, though, against Boyes I think was probably more impressive than the Z-kick. Efren's accuracy and speed on that kick-safe were both impeccable.
Click to expand...

Set'em both up and see how many times you make them out of ten tries.
 
Tin Man said:
Just watched the 93 Sands Finals with Fusco vs Davenport. Kim plays pretty quick, Jim wasn't quite as fast because it was his first time in a major title match finals for many, many years. With pressure like that he had to regroup a few times here and there. Anyway, it went 14-14 in a race to 15. They had a great safety battle that involved some very hard decisions for the match. There were multiple options several times. Go for the shot or duck? Bank the ball? Etc. There were 8 shots in total before Jimmy got control over the table, and all of them were 1 - 2 1/2 minutes before the trigger was pulled.

I was pulling for Jimmy (I didn't know who won) and even though this match was recorded 23 years ago I felt nervous like I had bet $500 on the match. It was an awesome safety battle. In the end Jimmy got there and won a life changing title for him.

I grew up with Accu-stats and learned to play watching Varner, Hall, Siegel, Rempe, etc. This is how I've always felt the game should look. Quick when the balls are lying routine, then weigh options and compose yourself when the balls are laying tough. I'd hate to see that go.
Click to expand...

Personal feelings are not reason enough to go without change.

And please stop assuming you must take ages for a shot to be incredible. I've already proven that to be false with my post above.
 
BeiberLvr said:
Personal feelings are not reason enough to go without change.

And please stop assuming you must take ages for a shot to be incredible. I've already proven that to be false with my post above.
Click to expand...

I am very confused by how you discuss things.

What, other than your personal feelings, are you offering to support the idea of radical change to a hyper aggressive shot clock?

Also, I never stated ALL shots must take ages to be incredible. I simply pointed out that many situations come up that can easily exceed 20 seconds.

See, the problem with a shot clock is that you have to play 100% of your shots within 20 seconds. So you can't "prove" it is possible by showing some shots that take less than 20 seconds. And all I have to do to "prove" otherwise is to show just a few shots that take longer that would be lost.

Now, you can make the argument that it's worth losing the shots that take longer than 20 seconds in the interest of the vast audiences the new game would bring in. But it's pretty stubborn to imagine that it's the same game.

I'll let you all get the last word here. I'll still read your posts but I think I've said what I needed to in any case. I can respect your opinion that the 20 second shot clock would be good for the game.
 
Hear Hear!

Desmondp said:
It really is a tribute to the game of American pool that more and more people worldwide want to play it.

A few decades ago, the best European cueists played snooker or English pool. English pool has effectively died off and only so many can survive on the brutally tough snooker tour so that has lead to many more european cueists playing american pool

That is a huge compliment to America.

Things will never be the same again, the US knowledge 'headstart' has now well and truly been eroded.

There are a few comparisons in the combat sport world. In Muay Thai, Thais used to dominate, they had the history, the knowledge but as westerners became more proficient (especially the dutch), there are less and less Thai champions. There used to be a time when the thought of a westerner going to Thailand and beating the Thais at Muay thai was unheard of, now it happens often.

Same in Taekwondo, koreans used to dominate, but when it became an olympic sport, worldwide interest grew and grew , now you can see gold medalists from all over the world.

Muay Thai used to be a Thai sport, now it's a worldwide sport

WTF rules Taekwondo used to be a korean sport, now it's a worldwide sport

US rules pool used to be a USA and asia sport, now it's truly worldwide

That is something everyone should be happy with but it does mean that the talent pool will never again be dominated by one country.

If we go back to the Mosconi Cup. When the Cup started, the US players had all the knowledge of the game, the Europeans almost none, snooker players making their way through half blind.

Now that there is parity in the knowledge base, i actually think USA v Europe is unfair

It should be USA v the UK or USA v Holland.etc


Anyway for the US there should be less focus on trying to recapture the conditions of success from the past (because that was a different playing field) and more about creating future success in the new worldwide demographic
Click to expand...

Well observed and well said! :thumbup:
 
Nobody cares about pool in the USA so how in the world could we dominate? I don't know exactly what the original poster meant by dominate, but if he means go back to the way it was in the 80's for example, that'll never happen again because other countries are actually playing pool now.

But, I believe if pool payouts were like they are in golf, America would be one of the dominant forces within 10 years with respect to per country (why does Europe get to be wrapped into a single entity btw, we could do the same thing with say North America here). I actually believe the numbers would follow somewhat closely what they do in golf, and that's the majority of the players are from the USA. Philippines would obviously have the best number of representatives per capita. Now, if we were to take population sizes into account of course, that's a whole other argument. But, if the money was crazy good in pool, and say pool was an Olympic sport, in ten years I think it would be the USA, Philippines and of course a handful of other countries in contention for gold. Our population is just too dang big for us not to be producing high numbers of top talent if the incentives were there.

Pool is an absolute joke though. How can you expect people to train like you need to in order to dominate world class opponents with no finacial backing or incentive? Only a handful of the population can even do that ( people with no bills, no wives or kids no apartment, and a good backer lol, we're down to like .00001% of the population). Quite simply, we'd have tons of great players in no time if there were any sort of ability to make a good living playing the game.

Look at it this way, which is sorta backwards but it proves the point. Why are there so many good Philippinos? The answer is money! If a Filipino wins a tournament in the USA and brings the money back to pi it is a total jackpot. You don't think USA players would be coming out of every single city in the USA if they would win a single tournament and pay their living expenses for the next ten years? Make no mistake about it the reason Filipinos play good is money. It is kinda akin to why the USA has good basketball players... it's sort of a dream and a way out for all these legions of kids so they work their asses off to be good enough and look at what we produce! Exact same thing would happen in pool if the money was there, which it never will be so it's a moot point.
 
Last edited:
1. Wrong. Shitloads, and i do mean shitloads, of people play, care about, and will continue to play and care about American pool despite the American pro pool slump.

2. Thank you captain obvious. If the money was better....zzzz

3. Good luck with that username.
 
Mr. Bond said:
1. Wrong. Shitloads, and i do mean shitloads, of people play, care about, and will continue to play and care about American pool despite the American pro pool slump.

2. Thank you captain obvious. If the money was better....zzzz

3. Good luck with that username.
Click to expand...

It's hard to respond to statements like that because there are no real assertions in there, but by shitloads I suppose you mean we have the same percentage of our population putting everything they have into pool as do say the Filipinos.

Ok, well you are completely wrong. But, if the money was there you would have a shotload (as you put it), of Americans come out of the woodwork and try their hand at pool. And, wow, some of them might even find they have a knack for it and realize they could reach a level like tiger woods for example if they kept it up.

People here are going to college and doing things that will make a reasonable life for themselves. Pool can't be a priority for any reasonable person essentially. In the pi it can be.

In pool there are established, current great players that assert over and over again that they just can't play and travel to compete because of the lack of financial incentives. So I'm not sure why you can't self diagnose how wrong you are.

Answer this, why in the world would pool be any different from any other sport there's money in? You do know we outmetaled every county in the last olympics? If you can answer that first wuestion then you're onto your way to an actual argument.
 
Last edited:
If pool is indeed a joke to you, then you have made up your mind already and we have nothing much further to discuss. Unless you're a fan of history.
Good day to you sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top