SJM at the 2023 Derby City Catastrophe

[sjm]

I just went to the DCC site, there are 5 days included for round 1 to the finals of banks, and round 1 to the finals of One pocket. 9 ball, on the other hand, has 4 days from round 1 to the finals.

Yes, and add to that a 9ball field size of, if memory serves, 526 and it's easy to figure why things didn't add up at this Derby.

One of the great fictions regarding this Derby is that it was one pocket that held things up. This couldn't be further from the truth and, as most of us understand, one pocket is the one game where tighter equipment makes sense. It was the 9ball event that was the biggest reason for the 25-hour day that was the Derby's final day.

 

[lfigueroa]

It’s not that difficult to figure out - the number of maximum entrys for each discipline should be based on the number of match tables that are available, particularly if there are multiple disciplines being played simultaneously.

Correctomundo.

It’s the player to table ratio. It does no good to cap the fields at 500 when you don’t increase the number of tables and in fact reduce the number of tables re-introducing the Action Room and removing those tables from tournament use.

I know they want the Derby to attract gamblers and that’s well and good but then you have to bite the bullet and reduce the size of the tournament fields. You can’t have it both ways or you end up with a fiasco.

Lou Figueroa

 

[sjm]

I believe Chad said in a podcast they were going back to 4.5 everywhere except the streaming table, which IMO, is not kosher.

Lou Figueroa

Your objection is understood, and the purist in me even agrees, but the solution is reasonable and there is ample precedent for having tougher conditions on the stream table than on the other tables.

 

[lfigueroa]

Yes, and add to that a 9ball field size of, if memory serves, 526 and it's easy to figure why things didn't add up at this Derby.

One of the great fictions regarding this Derby is that it was one pocket that held things up. This couldn't be further from the truth and, as most of us understand, one pocket is the one game where tighter equipment makes sense. It was the 9ball event that was the biggest reason for the 25-hour day that was the Derby's final day.

I would agree with this.

Broadly speaking, in my experience, except for a few players known for their slow play the matches actually tend to go relatively quick.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Your objection is understood, and the purist in me even agrees, but the solution is reasonable and there is ample precedent for having tougher conditions on the stream table than on the other tables.

Well, when it comes to pool there’s precedent for a lot of crazy ca-ca.

Lou Figueroa

 

[iusedtoberich]

Yes, and add to that a 9ball field size of, if memory serves, 526 and it's easy to figure why things didn't add up at this Derby.

One of the great fictions regarding this Derby is that it was one pocket that held things up. This couldn't be further from the truth and, as most of us understand, one pocket is the one game where tighter equipment makes sense. It was the 9ball event that was the biggest reason for the 25-hour day that was the Derby's final day.

Chad's interview, unfortunately, seems to place the vast majority of the delays on the 1 pocket.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I believe Chad said in a podcast they were going back to 4.5 everywhere except the streaming table, which IMO, is not kosher.

Lou Figueroa

He said they were evaluating, but that no decision was made (paraphrasing). I believe Greg said they would go back in the thread he started (by memory). But, Greg's comment was made a few days before Chad's interview. So who knows what the final answer will be.

 

[Biloxi Boy]

Try this one on for size:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." Emerson

 

[sjm]

He said they were evaluating, but that no decision was made (paraphrasing). I believe Greg said they would go back in the thread he started (by memory). But, Greg's comment was made a few days before Chad's interview. So who knows what the final answer will be.

Hey, at least the matter is being discussed at Diamond.

 

[1pocket]

Hope you're right. I know the idea of looser equipment was being kicked around, but I didn't sense that a decision or commitment had been made on pocket size going forward.

There is another simple solution and that's shortening the nine ball races. The races were to seven until 2013.

I’m not a 9-ball fan at all, yet I would hesitate on that compromise. 7 is really a toss up; I think it was reasonable to change it 9. Of course if they start talking about shortening the 1P races, I’ll be up in arms lol

 

[sjm]

I’m not a 9-ball fan at all, yet I would hesitate on that compromise. 7 is really a toss up; I think it was reasonable to change it 9. Of course if they start talking about shortening the 1P races, I’ll be up in arms lol

Derby City Classics past do not support this conclusion. Reproduced from a post I made in another thread:

The purists will always take exception, but race to seven wasn't exactly producing unworthy champions, as in the last ten years of race to seven, the champions were: 2004 Souquet, 2005 Reyes, 2006 Souquet, 2007 Fiejen, 2008 Souquet, 2009 SVB, 2010 Reyes, 2011 Orcullo, 2012 SVB, and 2013 Pagulayan. All of them but Feijen are now Hall of Famers and Feijen is sure to get in soon.

Even at race to seven, the Derby City nine ball was always the domain of the elite. It's because the format asks the top players to do their own heavy lifting. With race to seven, the late rounds of the Derby have always featured the game's giants and the winner always had beaten champion after champion, and, with few exceptions, only the all-time greats were up to it.

Yes, you won't always get the same champion when shorter races are used, but the short race format never held the elite back one bit. Based on my own observations, I have never and will never buy into the notion that it takes longer races to sort out who's the best.

 

[sjm]

Try this one on for size:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." Emerson

Great quote!

 

[1pocket]

Yes, and add to that a 9ball field size of, if memory serves, 526 and it's easy to figure why things didn't add up at this Derby.

One of the great fictions regarding this Derby is that it was one pocket that held things up. This couldn't be further from the truth and, as most of us understand, one pocket is the one game where tighter equipment makes sense. It was the 9ball event that was the biggest reason for the 25-hour day that was the Derby's final day.

When I look at the completed results, it looks like it might have been as many as 598 in the 9-ball. That following 481 in Banks and 426 in One Pocket. These are my numbers and they might be wrong. Those are HUGE fields!!

 

[sjm]

When I look at the completed results, it looks like it might have been as many as 598 in the 9-ball. That following 481 in Banks and 426 in One Pocket. These are my numbers and they might be wrong. Those are HUGE fields!!

Yes, your numbers are too high. I believe the numbers announced during the event were 497 for banks, 400 for one pocket and 525 or 526 for 9ball. The 9ball number reconciles with what's found on the results page, but I didn't check the others.

 

[Bob Jewett]

When I look at the completed results, it looks like it might have been as many as 598 in the 9-ball. That following 481 in Banks and 426 in One Pocket. These are my numbers and they might be wrong. Those are HUGE fields!!

Here are my numbers. Previously posted:

I have a different count that I got by downloading the results and pulling out the names. My results are:

499 Banks
426 One Pocket
526 9 Ball

426 for one pocket matches AtLarge's post.

Edit:
The results included the winner/loser of each and every match. Also, byes were listed like: Jim Jones (1) -- Jim Jones (1). I only counted each name once.

 

[alphadog]

So I started watching this on YouTube and in the first game this is where I quit. Half of the time in the match was waiting to have the players on the next table move so Gorst or Alex could shoot.

 

[skip100]

So I started watching this on YouTube and in the first game this is where I quit. Half of the time in the match was waiting to have the players on the next table move so Gorst or Alex could shoot.View attachment 687791

Right arrow button on your keyboard will skip forward.

 

[AtLarge]

Here are my numbers. Previously posted:

I have a different count that I got by downloading the results and pulling out the names. My results are:

499 Banks
426 One Pocket
526 9 Ball

426 for one pocket matches AtLarge's post.

Edit:
The results included the winner/loser of each and every match. Also, byes were listed like: Jim Jones (1) -- Jim Jones (1). I only counted each name once.

As I posted on Jan. 27, by actually counting the players on the Completed Matches list I got 499 B, 426 OP, and 526 9B -- the same numbers Bob got by a more efficient method.

In an interview, Chad Sharlow said the counts were 497 B, 425 OP, and 526 9B. He may have been slightly off. E.g., 425 for OP would have meant someone got a bye in Round 1, but a close look at that round's matches does not show any bye.

 

[dendweller]

In golf at least it’s the same size hole.

As to baseball, sure the stadiums are all different, but they don’t purposefully change things to make the game tougher mid series.

Lou Figueroa

In some golf tournaments, they definitely change the conditions to make it more difficult by saving the toughest pin placements for the last day. That can make all the difference in the number of birdies made in a round. For elite players in either sport I'd say those pin placements make more of a difference than a pocket being a quarter inch smaller.

 

[1pocket]

Here are my numbers. Previously posted:

I have a different count that I got by downloading the results and pulling out the names. My results are:

499 Banks
426 One Pocket
526 9 Ball

426 for one pocket matches AtLarge's post.

Edit:
The results included the winner/loser of each and every match. Also, byes were listed like: Jim Jones (1) -- Jim Jones (1). I only counted each name once.

I trust your #'s more than mine! But either way those are huge fields.

Somebody mentioned a time study. Just looking at prior year results that they publish, you can tally up the game & round totals each discipline from those. That gives you one (or two) of your factors. Then there is the time factor. We know when the whole thing started and ended. It might be possible to get data from the TD people as to what was completed each day -- but often they are mid-round carrying overnight, so it wouldn't line up exactly by day and by round.

I know from observation that often on Wednesday, which is supposed to be the next to last day of the One Pocket, they reduce the 1P rounds so that they can get more 9-Ball in. On site, when you see that happening, you can almost count on the 1P not finishing Thursday night because of that. It's kind of odd to me that they do that, since the number of 1P players by Wed AM is relatively small -- it would not take a room full of tables at that point to continue to advance the 1P. That Wed AM round of 1P -- maybe instead of postponing it like they are prone to -- that would be a good time to utilize the Action Room, to avoid letting that entire round push back. One feature 1P match on the TV table and the rest in the Action room, why not? Morning is the quietest time in the Action room anyway.