14.1 Hail Mary Shots

[Will Maynard]

It seems to me that back when 14.1 was king, up through the 1960s or so, the best players (Mosconi, Greenleaf, Caras, Lassiter, Crane, etc.) tended to play safe when the shooter got out of line and without a reasonable shot. Hard to say as there aren't many videos of those times. Today it seems that the pros just hate giving up the table and they are more likely to take a lower percentage "Hail Mary" shot than play safety.

What do you think? Were there some of the old great players that took plenty of high risk shots? Does the fact that the current equipment makes it easier to break the balls shed any light?

This game is still my favorite and I practice often. I get out of line more often than I'd like so I don't hesitate to look for a Hail Mary shot to keep the run going. I have nothing to lose. Finding these shots are good for the imagination and they're fun to try.

Here's a video of about 30 of these shots, all made on the first attempt.

 

[DynoDan]

That’s my problem. Going for (and making) too many risky shots when practicing can be habit forming (when the better option in a match is really playing a safety). Much like with slot machines (which the smart gambler KNOWS are only for suckers), all it takes is hitting one big jackpot, and you’re hooked.
Could a background of more 9-ball (and less 14.1) be responsible for the overly aggressive style of modern players?

 

[Will Maynard]

That’s my problem. Going for (and making) too many risky shots when practicing can be habit forming (when the better option in a match is really playing a safety). Much like with slot machines (which the smart gambler KNOWS are only for suckers), all it takes is hitting one big jackpot, and you’re hooked.
Could a background of more 9-ball (and less 14.1) be responsible for the overly aggressive style of modern players?

You make a good point about habit-forming risky shots. Playing safeties in practice certainly pays dividends for future tournaments.
Thanks.

 

[measureman]

Old school great players for the most part played a lot of safes because usually the opponent would be capable of massive runs.
Just the way it was back then.
Today most of the real good ones play with a 9 ball mentality and go for it.

 

[Cameron Smith]

I think it’s mostly due to not being very confident in the 14.1 safety game. These guys play matches maybe once or twice a year and in practice they may or may not be spending any time working on safety play. So I think they are just competing how they are practicing. Trying to run 150 and out.

For me personally, I only ever play the game alone so I have two options. Find a combo in the stack or rack up and try again.

 

[Will Maynard]

Old school great players for the most part played a lot of safes because usually the opponent would be capable of massive runs.
Just the way it was back then.
Today most of the real good ones play with a 9 ball mentality and go for it.

I think it’s mostly due to not being very confident in the 14.1 safety game. These guys play matches maybe once or twice a year and in practice they may or may not be spending any time working on safety play. So I think they are just competing how they are practicing. Trying to run 150 and out.

For me personally, I only ever play the game alone so I have two options. Find a combo in the stack or rack up and try again.

These comments make sense.
Thanks

 

[Bob Jewett]

I think that a lot of the 1970s players would not take a 70% shot and would instead play safe. When you have been playing a lot of 99%+ shots, a shot you might miss one in three looks pretty scary. However, if you instead go into a safety battle with no lock-up safety to start with, you are probably around 50% to get the first runnable position. That is a mistake. You should take the 70% path rather than the 50% path.

 

[DDiabolico]

Nice video, you made some pretty creative shots.

I agree with Bob though. It's a percentage play. Most of the time you play safe when there's no open shot after potting the break ball. The problem is, with a big cluster around the rack area still intact there's always the possibility for a hidden combination, especially when you have to hit a ball in the cluster to play save. As you've already shown, there are not that many areas where you can safely put the cue ball without risking the chance that you're leaving or creating a possible combination for your opponent. BUT if there's a chance for a dead on lock-up safety, then I'll guess most players will go for it instead.

 

[Ratta]

I think that a lot of the 1970s players would not take a 70% shot and would instead play safe. When you have been playing a lot of 99%+ shots, a shot you might miss one in three looks pretty scary. However, if you instead go into a safety battle with no lock-up safety to start with, you are probably around 50% to get the first runnable position. That is a mistake. You should take the 70% path rather than the 50% path.

Well Bob- this should be a sticky in each part of this forum site
So much heavy iron in your words- Excellent posting!

 

[kanzzo]

Nice video.
One can learn a lot from going for creative shots (you have nothing to lose in training). Picked up some ideas from your video.

I think that a lot of the 1970s players would not take a 70% shot and would instead play safe. When you have been playing a lot of 99%+ shots, a shot you might miss one in three looks pretty scary. However, if you instead go into a safety battle with no lock-up safety to start with, you are probably around 50% to get the first runnable position. That is a mistake. You should take the 70% path rather than the 50% path.

and I definitely agree, that going for a 70% shot is the right way as opposed to a safety battle. I guess Ortmann was the first to show, how this approach beats the safety play when going for US Open Straight Pool titles

(And most shots after a safety battle against a good opponent won't be 99% also. Some difficult cut ball up table with CB frozen on the bottom rail is often your best option, so it's 80% best. I always feel lucky, if my opponent goes for safety instead of running out. No matter the game we are playing.)

 

[alstl]

It seems to me that back when 14.1 was king, up through the 1960s or so, the best players (Mosconi, Greenleaf, Caras, Lassiter, Crane, etc.) tended to play safe when the shooter got out of line and without a reasonable shot. Hard to say as there aren't many videos of those times. Today it seems that the pros just hate giving up the table and they are more likely to take a lower percentage "Hail Mary" shot than play safety.

What do you think? Were there some of the old great players that took plenty of high risk shots? Does the fact that the current equipment makes it easier to break the balls shed any light?

This game is still my favorite and I practice often. I get out of line more often than I'd like so I don't hesitate to look for a Hail Mary shot to keep the run going. I have nothing to lose. Finding these shots are good for the imagination and they're fun to try.

Here's a video of about 30 of these shots, all made on the first attempt.

The best video from that era that I'm aware of is Crane's 150 vs Balsis in 1966. If you watch that run you will see twice he had no apparent shot and studied the rack and found a multiple ball combination to continue the run. I don't think for him it was a "risky" shot. He wasn't guessing the ball might go. Ability to read the rack and find a wired ball is a skill.

 

[Will Maynard]

I think that a lot of the 1970s players would not take a 70% shot and would instead play safe. When you have been playing a lot of 99%+ shots, a shot you might miss one in three looks pretty scary. However, if you instead go into a safety battle with no lock-up safety to start with, you are probably around 50% to get the first runnable position. That is a mistake. You should take the 70% path rather than the 50% path.

Nice video, you made some pretty creative shots.

I agree with Bob though. It's a percentage play. Most of the time you play safe when there's no open shot after potting the break ball. The problem is, with a big cluster around the rack area still intact there's always the possibility for a hidden combination, especially when you have to hit a ball in the cluster to play save. As you've already shown, there are not that many areas where you can safely put the cue ball without risking the chance that you're leaving or creating a possible combination for your opponent. BUT if there's a chance for a dead on lock-up safety, then I'll guess most players will go for it instead.

Nice video.
One can learn a lot from going for creative shots (you have nothing to lose in training). Picked up some ideas from your video.


and I definitely agree, that going for a 70% shot is the right way as opposed to a safety battle. I guess Ortmann was the first to show, how this approach beats the safety play when going for US Open Straight Pool titles

(And most shots after a safety battle against a good opponent won't be 99% also. Some difficult cut ball up table with CB frozen on the bottom rail is often your best option, so it's 80% best. I always feel lucky, if my opponent goes for safety instead of running out. No matter the game we are playing.)

Nice discussion covering lots of the pros & cons of safety play vs taking a shot. Bob's comment "When you have been playing a lot of 99%+ shots, a shot you might miss one in three looks pretty scary" makes me realize how important it is for you to know your own shot percentages under match conditions and after a safety battle vs being in dead stroke, e.g.

Thanks

 

[Will Maynard]

The best video from that era that I'm aware of is Crane's 150 vs Balsis in 1966. If you watch that run you will see twice he had no apparent shot and studied the rack and found a multiple ball combination to continue the run. I don't think for him it was a "risky" shot. He wasn't guessing the ball might go. Ability to read the rack and find a wired ball is a skill.

I'll be viewing that video again. I always thought Crane had no aversion to playing safe after short runs if he didn't have a high percentage shot. Maybe I'm wrong. This video is a good one.
Thanks

 

[Will Maynard]

Do you think that today's equipment has any bearing on the frequency of safety play vs shooting away? In the Mosconi era and before the cloth was napped and slower and the balls didn't break up as easily as today.

 

[Cameron Smith]

Do you think that today's equipment has any bearing on the frequency of safety play vs shooting away? In the Mosconi era and before the cloth was napped and slower and the balls didn't break up as easily as today.

I have to believe that modern equipment would result in higher runs. If we think about snooker, players in the 80s and before that would play a much more defensive game. Stephen Hendrys open attacking game was made possible by the faster cloth and better balls.

If 14.1 was still king, I think we’d see a mix between the old style and the new. Attacking shotmaking mixed with tight patterns. As good as current snooker players are they keep it simple with simpler patterns. I think you’d see something similar in straight pool.

 

[DDiabolico]

Do you think that today's equipment has any bearing on the frequency of safety play vs shooting away? In the Mosconi era and before the cloth was napped and slower and the balls didn't break up as easily as today.

I don't wanna start a discussion like in the 'Jayson Shaw 714' thread, so my answer specifically addresses your post here. I'm sure that modern equipment is indeed a factor for creating higher runs, especially faster cloth and good balls. What's even more important though, nearly all of the top tier players today are serious athletes and they are extremely consistent in terms of technique and shotmaking ability. To counter this, the tables used on pro tours or in pro tournaments became pretty tight over the last few years. Tight tables don't really benefit straight pool in general, unless you're a top pro player. I hope you understand what I want to say. In my opinion today's pros would have a hard time competing with the pros of the 60's on their equipment and vice versa.

 

[Will Maynard]

I don't wanna start a discussion like in the 'Jayson Shaw 714' thread, so my answer specifically addresses your post here. I'm sure that modern equipment is indeed a factor for creating higher runs, especially faster cloth and good balls. What's even more important though, nearly all of the top tier players today are serious athletes and they are extremely consistent in terms of technique and shotmaking ability. To counter this, the tables used on pro tours or in pro tournaments became pretty tight over the last few years. Tight tables don't really benefit straight pool in general, unless you're a top pro player. I hope you understand what I want to say. In my opinion today's pros would have a hard time competing with the pros of the 60's on their equipment and vice versa.

I didn't realize that pro tables are getting tighter, though I've heard that Diamond tables are tough. I agree that today's pros would probably have a tough time with 60's conditions, but given that the 14.1 pros of old shot mostly high percentage shots, I doubt that tighter pockets would have hurt them much.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[DDiabolico]

I didn't realize that pro tables are getting tighter, though I've heard that Diamond tables are tough. I agree that today's pros would probably have a tough time with 60's conditions, but given that the 14.1 pros of old shot mostly high percentage shots, I doubt that tighter pockets would have hurt them much.

Thanks for your thoughts.

The pro's of the 60's would also have to deal with extremely fast cloth (compared to what they played on). Tight pockets might not come into play very often during a rack, but every break ball would be a real tester for them.

 

[Bob Jewett]

The pro's of the 60's would also have to deal with extremely fast cloth (compared to what they played on). ...

I think the cloth is not as large a factor as some feel.

It is possible to measure the speed of the cloth by measuring the time it takes a good lag shot to get from the far rail to where it stops just before the near rail. If you square that time in seconds and multiply it by 2 it tells you the "speed" of the cloth or the equivalent slope of the table. For example, a 7.1 second lag gives a speed of 100 which says that the equivalent slope that would stop the ball as fast would be 1% or 1/100.

In the Crane-Balsis match (150-and-out) which is available on YouTube, I time Crane's lag at 6.7. After length adjustment because it does not get to the end rail, that gets a cloth speed of about 100. I also timed the lag of a Frost/Reyes one pocket match and got a cloth speed of 120. That is not a huge difference.

In comparison, high-end carom cloth has a speed of about 180, and in the 1970s typical pool room fuzzy cloth from Stevens was about 70.

The number gives you the relative distances balls with the same speed will travel. That means that the balls for Efren and Scott would roll about 20% farther than Irving's would for the same starting speed.

 

[DynoDan]

Bob,
Just curious. Do you know of any evidence that deceleration is directly proportional to speed regardless of cloth type?