You are correct. They can do whatever they want to do. Maybe this will be the new trend in pool.
Shoot outs SUCK!
- Thread starter dnschmidt
- Start date
And that will prove what? Some like it, some don't. I think that's pretty well established so far. I'm sure CSI/Pred is getting a lot of feedback on the format. My bet would be that it will change/evolve before too long. BTW, you can do a poll yourself. Click 'post thread' and then click 'poll'. Follow the prompts. Not hard.
Last edited:
It's not the two races to for that are the problem. It's the Spot Shot shootout. I don't mind the format. It's something a little different. But I think it will we evolve into either three races to 4, or two races to 4 with a sudden death. The last round would have to be an odd number such as 3.
That wouldnt be much of a problem as it's a bunch of amateurs. Pro's should be held to less-lucky standards.
PracticeChampion
Well-known member
As said before I enjoy the sets rather than long races but agree the spot shot shootout just looks like amateur level stuff
,
Your conclusion that the format is "absurd" is based on the premise that it's entirely bad for the game that a given format gives a weaker opponent a better chance at beating a stronger opponent. But I question this premise. Sure, we may not want such formats for world championship-caliber events, such as the World 9 ball, US open, International Open, etc.), but maybe such formats that 'even the playing field' has its place in the competitive pool world which would actually get pool to grow.
You think that it's absurd that Seaman got this far in the event. Personally, I think it's rather exciting to watch a relative unknown who works a normal job having a chance being successful in a tournament.
In the third set, if the lag winner breaks and runs, the opponent then has the chance to do the same.
Three racks would be better. With one rack, there is too much "chance" as some of you put it, to break dry, or have no shot at the lowest ball.
The only place in the competitive pool world suitable for formats designed to level the playing field is at the amateur level. There should be no "field leveling" at the professional level; regardless of the size and stature of the event.
Don't twist my words. I did NOT say it was absurd Seaman got that far. I'll leave that assessment once I've seen his overall won-loss record over the course of the event and how many "matches" he won via shootout. The absurdity I referenced is he won less games over the course of the two sets and almost defeated a much stronger opponent shooting spot shots.
Last edited:
I'd even be okay with a break and run challenge to decide the match but would prefer a 3rd set.
This is a very well considered post.
The chance for a skilled, but relatively unknown, player to emerge in a pro event is a positive, not a negative, and the sport needs even more of it if participation is to grow substantially. I would prefer that the game itself be modified, rather than frequently breaking a tie with something as ridiculous as a spot shot shootout. Ten ball last, ten doesn't count on the break, and call shot are all examples of rules that reduce the chance of weaker players beating stronger players. These rules, which pros will argue are necessary to ensure that the best players have the advantage they deserve, actually discourage growth in participation. The recent World 10-ball championship took elitism in the sport to a truly embarrassing level when it seeded Stage 2 based on WPA ranking rather than performance in that event.
Poker has shown that if amateurs who perceive themselves as competent feel they have a chance to take down a substantial prize, they'll show up in a big way for the chance. Pool is more committed than ever before to ensuring that few amateurs will feel justified in rolling the dice on participation in pro events. The delusional feel that a chance to mix it up with the best is a sufficient lure for the longshots, but it doesn't draw that many participants. There won't be a Chris Moneymaker type story in pool, in which a relative unknown takes down a very prestigious event, and yet every person who makes a living at poker will tell you how much growth in poker resulted from Moneymaker's improbable but truly memorable win.
Jeremy Seaman's deep run was, indeed, good for our sport.
Last edited:
A "break and run challenge" tiebreaker would have the same problem as the spot shot shootout tiebreaker. It removes far too many of the skills that define a winning ten ball player. Ten ball without defense, kicking, two way shots, push outs, etc., isn't ten ball or anything approaching ten ball.
That's why we would both prefer a third set.
I remember when TK beat Archer in the Open. It was awesome. Granted, if they matched-up over any length of time Archer would be a big favorite but to see Tommy bouncing off the walls and making everything was great for pool. Seaman and Poteet are relative unknowns but both can flat play.
All valid points, just providing an alternative solution to those that want a "sudden death" ending. Although it isn't true 10B for the reasons you pointed out, a BNR is a tougher task to accomplish vs a spot shot and a challenge more befitting a professional player. That being said, the 3rd set is where it's at.
Last edited:
I watched the streamed matches with seaman and there was nothing absurd about him getting as far as he did. He earned it as much as anyone else did.
I'm all for finding a better way to determine the winner of tied matches, but I have to say that there's no reason to discredit the hard work and good play of a man because you don't like the format. (not saying that you did, just speaking in general).
Jaden
The playing field should always be level, even more so at the professional level because the integrity of the game is paramount. This applies to all sports. We can have differning views about formats all day long but the playing field should always be as flat as flat can be.
CSI & Predator are trying to grow the sport by appealing to the non-pool players. If the existing formats and streams were able to attract the non player, then streams wouldn't be at current levels and have numbers to be back on TV. People fail to see this, which is why like broken records, we see a repeat of new postings asking and complaining why Cornhole is more popular with ESPN viewers than pool every couple of weeks.
John Schmidt has a video where he ran 626 balls. He broke a record that stood for over 70 years. Why isn't he rich from marketing off of that video? John has other videos, such as where he ran 421 balls. It's posted for free, in it's entirety un-cut, on Youtube. Why hasn't it garnered millions of views, despite being free? What about the humble-brag from others claiming they could beat the record, but isn't worth their time? Rather than being supportive, some threads on AZ downplay his accomplishment.
Predator & CSI have a vision where pool should be up there with televised golf or football. There was a time when professional baseball players had to take a job in the off season. Same in other sports that saw popularity exploded with television.
Chris Melling 8-ball run-out garnered 22 million views. You need to ask yourself, who are the 22 million views and why aren't they watching any of the existing pool streams?
John Schmidt has a video where he ran 626 balls. He broke a record that stood for over 70 years. Why isn't he rich from marketing off of that video? John has other videos, such as where he ran 421 balls. It's posted for free, in it's entirety un-cut, on Youtube. Why hasn't it garnered millions of views, despite being free? What about the humble-brag from others claiming they could beat the record, but isn't worth their time? Rather than being supportive, some threads on AZ downplay his accomplishment.
Predator & CSI have a vision where pool should be up there with televised golf or football. There was a time when professional baseball players had to take a job in the off season. Same in other sports that saw popularity exploded with television.
Chris Melling 8-ball run-out garnered 22 million views. You need to ask yourself, who are the 22 million views and why aren't they watching any of the existing pool streams?
When pool is played at the highest level the casual observer thinks, "Doesn't look difficult at all. I could do that!" That's the inherit problem and why the Melling run received so many views. The casual observer watches that and thinks Melling is the best pool player of all time, seemingly hitting multiple kick shots with ease. Those of us who play know there was a fair amount of luck in it. For pool to be mainstream, there needs to be education involved in the broadcasts to demonstrate just how difficult what they are watching is. Instead of Tips from the Pro's (common during ESPN coverage of the Camel Pro Billiard Series) they could have a "How Hard Can It Be" segment where say, a three ball run is set up and a casual player is tasked to complete the run like the pro player did the rack before. Something like this may garner greater appreciation for what they are watching.
Last edited: