This is kind of my point. I don't feel tighter pockets are the answer for the Pros, but longer races might be. Pro rules for tournaments, longer races decide the better players, and outside sponsorship money, instead of industry sponsorship because of driving sales.
I unfortunately can't agree with that. The longer races being the answer I mean. I do agree that substantial sponsorship is the key to rapid/successful growth. I don't believe boring viewers with longer races is the answer though. Viewers don't pay attention for sake of the commercials. They require the stuff inbetween to engage them.
I personally believe that multiple short races could be the answer. I'm not suggesting the Predator format of 2 short sets and shootout. However I think they may be coming close to something that might hold the attention of the casual viewer.
Rather than a winner break race to 9 or 11. I'd rather see a very short set winner break format, when several sets are required to win the match. Think a set of Tennis, (if you're familiar). Consider a lag for break, and then a winner breaks race to 3 or 4. Then the opponent opens the next set. So on and so forth until you reach the total required for winning the match. Make the match a race to 3 sets and the final a race to 5.
This really translates to a normal race to 9 or 12. However what you have is not only a change of "serve", by alternating the opening break of each set, but also maintain the winner breaks format people seem to love within the individual sets.
I'm sure to most pool players that seems like a real goofy format. ...but what you get is winner break so you still see racks strung together, change of serve so you get to see the skill of the other player, and the very short race puts a ton of pressure on the opening breaker to win "their turn" at the table. Errors become notable blunders that can become major holes to overcome.
What this sport DONT NEED, is more pool tables, cloth, balls, all being sold and marketed as the best. What this industry needs is a set of standards that are repeatable.
Yes and no... Everything being called "the best" doesn't help anything. However changing up what the players play on can add novelty that may engage some viewers. Imagine if the USopen was played on the dominate table of the United States... A tournament where all these international players had to deal with BB sized tables. Now jump on a plane and play the world cup of pool on a 9ft. Hop skip and another jump to the China Open that's played on a chinese 8ball table. The 4 majors in tennis are done on 4 different surfaces, and holding the "Grand Slam" (all 4 in same calendar year) is a feat of notable regard.
Upcoming youth need to be able to play on equipment, the same equipment the Pros play on, in order to track their progress as they improve.
A big part of organizing this industry, I would think would be the equipment standards, of which there is none, why not is my question?
I don't think 'pro' equipment is necessary for the junior players. Sure it would be great, but I don't think that standard needs to go beyond the part of the world they live. The real problem here isn't the supposed lack of standard, but trying to get room owners to maintain equipment to pro level. ....what's the point of standard pocket openings if the rails are dead and the cloth torn....?
If left in the hands of this industry's leaders, nothing is ever going to change.
Currently they're the ones deciding what's best for the players and the viewers, but in my opinion, they haven't done a very good job of leading this industry, when they're all fighting for the control of it, and yet, clearly NO ONE is in charge!!
Matchroom is developing their own standards. This isn't something that comes out of the gate as a perfect product. Frankly I'd be fine with it if all other entities dropped off the face of the earth and we had only MR calling the shots. It's probably the only way a real 'standard' will flush out.