Modern Era Tournament Slow Play - (a rant)

336Robin

Multiverse Operative
Silver Member
The 30 second shot clock is fine, the good safety play is fine, the game ball on the spot is fine and shorter races are fine unless of course you want to change the game completely. I do believe all would benefit from 4.5 in pockets and the pocket angles need to be opened up 1 to 2 degrees. If the ball hits the pocket facing square in the middle the ball needs to go down. My 2 cents worth.
 

King T

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Why do people repeat this? They say this about Mosconi and his 526, but from Jay Helfert’s info, that’s not true. Many pro tournaments in the 80’s and 90’s were not on 5” pockets.
The reason people repeat this is because some of us know Buddy and thats what he said. He has said many times that Pool should not come down to who shoots the straightest, but who plays the best and making the pockets tighter doesn't prove that.

Gandy and Kasson tables became known brands for big pockets that were friendly to play on and Olhausen tables have a deep shelf, but a large opening and those are the tables that were used for Challenge of Champions.

I respect Jay, but there were lots of tournaments played on tables that were not as toght as todays... and thats why people repeat this.
 

336Robin

Multiverse Operative
Silver Member
The 30 second shot clock is fine, the good safety play is fine, the game ball on the spot is fine and shorter races are fine unless of course you want to change the game completely. I do believe all would benefit from 4.5 in pockets and the pocket angles need to be opened up 1 to 2 degrees. If the ball hits the pocket facing square in the middle the ball needs to go down. My 2 cents worth.

I would like to add to my rant that Pool isn't marketable to those outside of the game, but there are a lot of people inside the game that
don't watch it so going after them and bringing them in is all we need to do in order to improve the viewership.

Tight pockets, deep shelves and balls that hang up that hit inside the pocket don't get it done.
 

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
and Olhausen tables have a deep shelf, but a large opening and those are the tables that were used for Challenge of Champions.
I'd not play any match on a stock olhausen and I own an olhausen. It took a lot of work to get it to play like a real table and not some circus sideshow where anything over slow-medium speed rattled out.
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
The reason people repeat this is because some of us know Buddy and thats what he said. He has said many times that Pool should not come down to who shoots the straightest, but who plays the best and making the pockets tighter doesn't prove that.

Gandy and Kasson tables became known brands for big pockets that were friendly to play on and Olhausen tables have a deep shelf, but a large opening and those are the tables that were used for Challenge of Champions.

I respect Jay, but there were lots of tournaments played on tables that were not as toght as todays... and thats why people repeat this.
Yes, but it’s misleading. It’s not like the 80’s and 90’s pro didn’t and couldn’t play on 4 1/2” pockets. And they played on plenty of tournaments that were smaller than 5” pockets.

Pace of play in my opinion had nothing to do with 5” pockets. That’s what I’m saying.
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
I'd not play any match on a stock olhausen and I own an olhausen. It took a lot of work to get it to play like a real table and not some circus sideshow where anything over slow-medium speed rattled out.
Exactly.
 

Grilled Cheese

p.i.i.t.h.
Silver Member
Shot-clock is a compromise. You eliminate the ass draggers and time sharks, but this comes at the expense of rushed play in scenarios where it's reasonable for any player of any speed to take time sizing up a shot. So with shot-clock pool we're not on suicide-watch suffering the snail pool, but we're also losing out on maximal play. That's the trade off.

Total match time, chess clocks, incentivizing faster play by pay outs and all these ideas are either hard to implement or create new problems.

What it will take is for promoters to further their control over every aspect of the game and dictate the terms. In other words, if you want a job here, you're going to need to speed up your work. I don't see Matchroom doing that. The long gone short lived IPT had a chance to do that in that, they were of the mindset to do things and not care what others had to say. They had a very "our way or the highway" approach and the spine to enforce it. Sigel being a big influence on that could have made it happen had they become established and lasted. Sigel isn't a fan of the slow play either. At the IPT, the players all complied with all the unique and atypical things the IPT did, because frankly there was no other gig paying like that and this was their shot.

It doesn't need to be a tyranny or witch hunt. All it takes is for one or two slow players to not get invited or allowed to play a tournament for their slow play as the cited reason and this will send shockwaves through the ranks and others will comply and fast. You can change the pool playing culture very fast if you have the $$$$$ that players want. The slow players know who they are, and when they show up they will be fully aware they can't drag it out on purpose. They will play at a normal pace (not fast) and their game will be just fine.

I don't buy into this so and so pro needs to play at paint curing speed so we can be given this gift of elite level of play they produce as if this is some privilege we're being blessed with. Oh yes, I'm so impressed when it takes 2 minutes of analysis to shoot a stop shot from 2 feet away at a ball hanging in the side pocket for perfect shape on the next ball. Jaw dropping impressive play. Wow. So happy it took 15 minutes to run a rack of ducks that bangers at my pool hall clear with boring regularity in 3 minutes. Please give me more and charge me ever increasing fees to watch this "elite" play..... :rolleyes:
 

BasementDweller

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I do agree that the shot clock eliminates (possibly necessarily) the ultimate drama of a truly difficult, match changing shot. In an epic match, it can be glorious watching a top professional get nervous and having to basically talk themselves into shooting. Unfortunately, without a shot clock these moments are not relegated to just super important shots, but also the most mundane. Zzzzzzz
 

kling&allen

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
I'm thankful for the ability to fast forward or watch matches on 2x speed instead of having to sit through every live match. The NFL does this with its NFL+ service (cuts out the dead time between snaps), which is quite popular. I think good editing has a place in the future of pool.
 

FunChamp

Well-known member
I have heard the argument that this kind of painful slow play equates to higher level play by some of my European friends. I'm not sure I can agree after comparing to a faster pace of play done by previous greats and hall of famers. So long as great and elite play exists at a faster pace, this debunks slow play as causative since it isn't exclusive to it.

There was no shortage of rack running power in the past. These guys used to string many racks together. The previous gen players were able to process the table visually and make shot and position decisions faster and still get the same results. 6 and 7 packs were done by guys in the 1970's and 1980's too.

When I watch a guy like Earl in his prime moving about the table, how is his play any more primitive or of a lower level than today's players?

Even Buddy Hall played faster than most of these guys, and none of these guys plays better position play than he did in his prime. Some of the elite might equal it, but not better. What justifies then this slow play? Can anyone here show me how the slow-poke Euros get better lines, zones and distance in position play than Buddy in his prime? (good luck)

Slow play ≠ better play.

To be clear, the slow pokes today don't have a longer or excessive warm up stroke routine once they are down on the table.

The slowness is in the pre-shot routine. They walk around the table excessively. They repeatedly check angles they've already checked. They keep reassessing patterns even when they didn't get out of line. In other words, after an initial assessment to begin a pattern, they haven't got out of line requiring a plan-B or improvise or change of plan, they do a whole full reassessment. I can even grant them a quick reminder pause so they don't blunder due to extreme concentration in shot execution causing them to forget what they planned in the previous assessment. That can happen. No, they spend enough time as if it's their first time at the table planning it all out. Over and over and over again. They just stare at things on the table at times, motionless. It's absurd. It's also insulting to the audience and the fans. They are supposed to be professionals. There's nothing professional about taking 3 minutes to shoot a shot that non-pros can execute correctly and routinely at a better pace. We know they aren't incompetent, so what gives?

I was watching a match that Earl was somewhat commentating on. Earl complained about this very thing. He says "Ralf you know you're not going to shoot that shot so why are you looking at it" ..Ralf Souquet walked over and looked at the point of contact of shooting a ball into the side pocket after he did all the looking and assessing shooting it into the corner pocket. An amateur might say "he's looking at all his options"

NO.

There are no other options and he knows it too, because in this scenario, it's not even a possibility in any scenario whatsoever to shoot into the side pocket because there's no position play to be had shooting in the side given where the next ball was. The shot was in the corner. It was not one of these "could go either way" or "it could be done both ways" situations. Not at all. It was 100% only one choice.

So why he looking at it? Was it some kind of nervous energy? Is it a "just checking" thing? There's no just checking, there's only one position route. Now Ralf isn't that bad....I just using him as an example. There's much worse than him out there. Watch some of these lesser known Euro players...it's torture. The stuff they are looking at is just superfluous to what needs to be done at the table. Objectively speaking, there's simply no justification for what they are doing on a lot of these shots.

This is why players get accused of using this as a sharking tactic. It's intended to trigger other players and also slow things down. It's garbage. We all know that it's tougher to make a great shot coming out of the chair if you been there for a while and in the world of 14.1 due to the nature of long runs, this reality was well known. I believe these guys do the math, and if they can tack on so many extra seconds or even minutes to each shot, it adds up so that 2-3 racks of time is a lot longer for their opponent to sit in a chair getting cold. They are bringing this into the world of 9 ball.

Figure, the previous generation could go through a 3 rack run in about 10 minutes of play time. Not uncommon. These new guys will milk it to 30 minutes....sometimes more. WTH

Even in the late 1990's, I was watching from Charlie Williams put a 7 pack on a guy and he did it at a very brisk pace. There were challenging position plays in some of those racks, these racks weren't all no-brainers. Yet he could process the patterns, make decisions, assess the table and go shot to shot without making my hair turn gray during the match. It was fast, and exciting to watch. Euros? Whether it's the hardest shot of the match, or a duck sitting in front of a pocket, they will make you wait equally long for all of them. It's just a lame tactic.

Anyhow, thanks for the reply. You're probably right - this turtle pace mockery of the game is here to stay, which is another reason why pool will keep losing market share and keep declining. I don't have to get used to it, I will not watch or support it. I'll watch older matches or select ones by serious players that aren't wasting their time or mine.
Your two posts have said what I've been trying to say for years. Thank you for writing it better than I could. %100 agree
 

FunChamp

Well-known member
Buddy, Varner, Rempe, Sigel and everybody else from that era played on 5'' pockets, they all played great and set the standard, but if they were playing today they too would slow their play way down. They would slow down or get run over because the equipment is faster, the pockets are tighter and rails have far more bounce.
You are wrong. Some tournaments were. They also frequently played on sub 5 pockets a lot
 

Grilled Cheese

p.i.i.t.h.
Silver Member
I'm thankful for the ability to fast forward or watch matches on 2x speed instead of having to sit through every live match. The NFL does this with its NFL+ service (cuts out the dead time between snaps), which is quite popular. I think good editing has a place in the future of pool.

For me, "live" pool is dead. I wouldn't pay a penny to watch another live 9-ball event in person. They should pay me instead to be audience filler. I stopped attending and watching local pro tournaments even when they were free attendance years back. It's just boring - and I'm a person who deeply appreciates the game, its details, and have the patience to watch. I can watch long one-pocket games no problem...because those guys are legitimately having to consider many options, and make complicated decisions.

While this is a work around, it's not pleasant to watch the actual game play at 2x. And it's tedious to 2x-3x or skip around all the nonsense in between shots. Editing that stuff out might be worth a try...but even then, I do want to see the whole game and match at 1x speed uncut. I just don't want Pros taking forever to shoot shots an APA SL2 can make in their sleep. It's not a big ask.

I like to see them thinking at times when appropriate. I want to see the lead up to the shot, and how they approach the table.

They are trying to put their opponent in a coma, but they are putting the fans to sleep too. How about they take 2 hours per shot, and we all just go home and they can be the winner by default if that's what they want.
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
9 ball is like one obstacle in a dead out. Trouble might be players don't get on the gas when the way is clear. If players were required to declare an out attempt and also required to finish it in a reasonable time frame - one or two minutes, not ten, that might generate some interest.
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
While slower play does not equal better play, faster play even more does not. There are a ton of players that can be better served by taking an extra 10 seconds to think about a shot. The issue is that beginners view fast play and hitting hard as "good" play, a lot of lower level players talk to me about how good they think someone is that I never see run out a rack, because they hit the ball hard and play fast.

The only time I would agree that having a time limit imposed on shots or game play is for live TV coverage where you have an hour or two timeslot to get through. They tried a few events where they had 30-minute halves or something, all offence, thing was a mess and I think there were like two events done.

I don't for one second think that how pool is seen and the popularity of it is due to anything that can be changed in the game, faster play, neon balls, a dozen different break rules, etc... none of those have had any effect on the game. Only social and advertising changes can fix that. Both "boom" periods where people were going out to play were after two major movies, and the decline was pretty much as fast soon as indoor smoking bans went out and internet and computer/console games took over as time sinks.

IPT was on to something, but that was due to how it was done rather than the rules. Flashy arenas, player profiles, pretty people walking around, lots of money on the line. Bonus Ball could have had something with team play by city, but they went to some new strange game that no-one really got behind and did not have any marketing outside of the already established pool fans. Bonus Ball should have used the money it had to just do a simple 8-ball team play circuit, that every kid on the corner could understand. Most people know what 8 ball is, and everyone wants their guy/city to win, get fans behind city teams playing what they know and can play at their local bar, and there is popularity.
 
Last edited:

dendweller

Well-known member
Lately I've been watching a lot of the old 9-ball matches and Accustats stuff from the 1980's - early 1990's. Wow...what a refresher and much needed reminder of how far this sport has declined in terms of quality for the fans. First of all, there was a lot of great play back then. Contrary to the modern hype artists, this current generation did not progress the game a whole lot. Only in certain specific areas that are frankly, not that important.

Whatever progress was made, has been completely negated by the new culture of tournament match play which is painfully slow.

We live in an era of extremes because of this. Either it's the most painful, boring slow play, like race to 9 and race to 11 alternate break 9-ball that takes 3+ hours to conclude a match...or, because of this kind of absurd slow poke play that's simply impossible to televise even for a European audience, there's shot-clock pool which is also awful. Between the two evils, I take the shot-clock, but I do not enjoy it because it's not optimal play - more on that below.

The American and Filipino players from the previous generation did it better. No shot clock, but they didn't abuse and slow play either. This way...on the obvious shots, routine shots, easy shots, ones with clear position patterns ...they got up there and would shoot relatively quickly. Even a 'methodical' player of the past is faster than these guys these days. HOWEVER, whenever there was a legitimate tough shot, tricky position play, or something that had the player thinking to make a tough decision on a critical shot - they took their time. And that's OK. Because as fans, we're also brainstorming the shot possibilities and have the suspense of what might happen next. That's why that particular "time" doesn't feel slow or painful. There's almost a different "time dilation" given the scenario based on expectations. We don't do that on absolutely straight forward routine shots...that why these guys are murdering the sport. When the fans know the shot, know the pattern, and it's clear as can be, but watch some dood pace around and look at everything 3x over, and just stall it's death to the sport.

Anyway, it's not a big deal to watch an previous gen player like say Varner or Archer take a couple of minutes to figure out a shot in a tough situation, because they make up for it by shooting everything else at normal speed without delay. That was true of most all the players of that era. That's the beauty of those days. The faster over all play provided a "reserve" or "balance" of time players could dip into when the scenario legitimately called for it and it did not aggravate fans because the slow play in justified scenarios was in an appropriate context. This is what we saw in the Earl vs Efren race to 120 COM in 1996. They knew the shots, they got up there and shot them. No unnecessary delays. All pros know these shots. Just shoot them. However, in certain spots here and there, they would take a little longer. That's ok! You shot 8 out of 9 shots in the rack in seconds each, and so no one cares if you take a minute to look at one of them.

The previous generation we got the best of both worlds....a nice pace of play, and no compromising of the game due to silly shot clocks. That's the problem with the shot-clock, even with extensions for the tough situations, that's not enough time usually for pros to make the absolute most optimal choice and stroke in those scenarios. So we're cheated out of the best play. We get yet another "luck" component brought into the game that already has too much luck in it already - that is, a player has a tough situation they might have prevailed in but the clock got them. Certain tough kicks takes even a well seasoned pro time to size up and measure and visualize. Well, you lost the beauty of that with the shot clock. But hey, lot of great kicks are gone because they just pull out the overly abused jump cue (a rant for another thread, and I'm ok with jump cues too).

This of course is a trade off for not having to watch some slow-pokes stare for 3 minutes at a standard routine shot that an APA SL3 would know how to make within seconds and could do so. Those players ruined the game. Call Earl whatever you want, but when he says those players should have been quote "punished" he's right. Promoters of the game don't have to have to have everyone in there anymore than the NFL, WWE or anything else does. Boot this cancer out of the game. Don't invite them to tournaments. There needs to be discrimination. Pool does not need to be a democracy or truly "open" ... promoters are like employers and players are like employees. It's like that in all other sports. Sadly, there's no backbone to do that so instead they just enforce with the "lesser of evils" shot-clock.

That's what we're left with today....you can go watch a non-televised modern pro tournament in person and experience pool at the speed of tectonic plate drift with these troll players trying to ice their opponent to death, or we can watch this cringe worthy shot-clock pool with horrendous count-down warning beeps being played through loud speakers leading to circus style gimmick pool.

And yes, most of the blame is to be attributed to the Europeans for this. I really hope for a revival of American pool, not for any kind of nationalistic pride, but to reclaim the culture of the game and hopefully salvage it from this nonsense.
I just watched a bit of Mario He vs Wiktor Zielinski at the Italian open. Didn't find it slow in comparison with some of the older matches I've watched. Got any examples of matches you find really irritating?
 

336Robin

Multiverse Operative
Silver Member
If we edited the content and took out all the time-consuming parts sort of like this. Does anyone really think that
more people would watch it?

 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
If we edited the content and took out all the time-consuming parts sort of like this. Does anyone really think that
more people would watch it?

I only watched the first rack, but my initial reaction was that I loved it. Played out exactly how it would if I was watching via YT and was hammering on the 5sec bump key...lol.

Only draw back I could potential see is the "hard situation" moments landing on the editing room floor. I'd wager most 'players' like myself prefer to see players work themselves out of tough spots in real time. Gives me an opportunity to see how their minds works in comparison to my own.

How would this work in the real world...? Streams with an hour delay...? Is that even enough breathing room to edit out the dead moments within a single match...?...lol
 

336Robin

Multiverse Operative
Silver Member
I only watched the first rack, but my initial reaction was that I loved it. Played out exactly how it would if I was watching via YT and was hammering on the 5sec bump key...lol.

Only draw back I could potential see is the "hard situation" moments landing on the editing room floor. I'd wager most 'players' like myself prefer to see players work themselves out of tough spots in real time. Gives me an opportunity to see how their minds works in comparison to my own.

How would this work in the real world...? Streams with an hour delay...? Is that even enough breathing room to edit out the dead moments within a single match...?...lol

Not unless you're prepared to sling a lot of money at it and production costs a ton anyway. Around 300k per table just for the camera
crew and live feed into YouTube and then if they've never done it before, they have to learn it because there are all kinds of specials that
have be integrated like score displays, break programming etc. It's a big deal to put on a live broadcast.

If this was done my guess would be you would have the live event and then edit and then post to YouTube.

From what I've seen of the views gotten from live events on YouTube, a person might be better off not even having one.
 

Swighey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I agree with much of the sentiment of the OP - players will usually play fast enough anyway but there are big shots where "thinking" is beneficial. Having said that the overall standard of play at the top level is leaps and bounds ahead of the old days. 1 minute or so (normal time plus extension) is usually enough but not always.

Televised snooker often doesn't have a shot clock. Slow play is rarely an issue. The occasional 4 minute decision creates drama. The irony is that pool, more than snooker, has those rare moments where deliberate thinking is required to find the optimal shot (I'll wait to be jumped on again by someone telling me that I don't understand the fundamental object of either game 😄).

It's weird that the OP "blames" the Europeans for the current state of the game - the "shot clock" is a long standing invention of US televised sports.

To conclude: I'd rather no shot clocks but understand why they are there. The standard of pro/televised pool is way ahead of the 70s, 80s, 90s, far ahead of the 00s and actually already quite a long way ahead of the 10s. So yeah I'm in favor of not having shot clocks but I'm more in favor of enjoying the current state of the game - it is in good shape.
 
Last edited:

336Robin

Multiverse Operative
Silver Member
I agree with much of the sentiment of the OP - players will usually play fast enough anyway but there are big shots where "thinking" is beneficial. Having said that the overall standard of play at the top level is leaps and bounds ahead of the old days. 1 minute or so (normal time plus extension) is usually enough but not always.

Telvised snooker often doesn't have a shot clock. Slow play is rarely an issue. The occasional 4 minute decision creates drama. The irony is that pool, more than snooker, has those rare moments where deliberate thinking is required to find the optimal shot (I'll wait to be jumped on again by someone telling me that I don't understand the fundamental object of either game 😄).

It's weird that the OP "blames" the Europeans for the current state of the game - the "shot clock" is a long standing invention of US televised sports.

To conclude: I'd rather no shot clocks but understand why they are there. The standard of pro/televised pool is way ahead of the 70s, 80s, 90s, far ahead of the 00s and actually already quite a long way ahead of the 10s. So yeah I'm in favor of not having shot clocks but I'm more in favor of enjoying the current state of the game - it is in good shape.

I was watching women's matches that occurred before the 30 second shot clock became the thing. If you didn't put women on the shot clock the only matches worth watching were the matches between the top 6 players in the world of that division. Now because of the shot clock women's pool is becoming watchable.
 
Top