Little kids manage this in chess tournaments without an issue, so pool players might have a shot.
US Open 9-Ball, 2023, Atlantic City, Sep 25-30
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
Little kids manage this in chess tournaments without an issue, so pool players might have a shot.
The US Open 9-Ball event was double elimination (DE) until the Finals through 2017. Under Matchroom, it was DE to the Last 16 in both 2019 and 2021. It was DE to the Last 64 in 2022 and again this year. (No event in 2018 and 2020.)
Players I'm still rooting for:
Woodward: Only other US threat. Hasn't really gotten the recognition he deserves for his level of play the past couple of years. Plays with so much confidence now. I would be interested to hear if having a child helped give him a more positive mindset. Something seems to have changed with him.
Fedor: Can't help but like the guy. Does everything right, on and off the table.
Souquet: The consummate professional. Has been in good form of late and it doesn't seem like the tight pockets are slowing him down. Handled the Earl match with class. Would love to see him win another Major title.
Shaw: There's been times where I couldn't stand him, but over the years he's earned my respect. Now I even find myself rooting for him a bit.
Maury Povich: "You are not the father!" Just checking if anyone actually read this.
Woodward: Only other US threat. Hasn't really gotten the recognition he deserves for his level of play the past couple of years. Plays with so much confidence now. I would be interested to hear if having a child helped give him a more positive mindset. Something seems to have changed with him.
Fedor: Can't help but like the guy. Does everything right, on and off the table.
Souquet: The consummate professional. Has been in good form of late and it doesn't seem like the tight pockets are slowing him down. Handled the Earl match with class. Would love to see him win another Major title.
Shaw: There's been times where I couldn't stand him, but over the years he's earned my respect. Now I even find myself rooting for him a bit.
Maury Povich: "You are not the father!" Just checking if anyone actually read this.
Little kid chess players have it all over adult pool players.
I can think of any number of pro and amateur players who, after blowing a shot, will go straight to the shot clock and fist hammer it into oblivion.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
Maybe it’s because we just expect great things from Joshua Filler, but his performance has been dominant thus far. No opponent has gotten more than 5 games against him, and he’s 47-20 in racks won. Even looking at the live scores, it seems like Filler has cruised through his matches. He’s probably feeling pretty fresh compared to a lot of the other players who have been tested in hill-hill (or close) thrillers. His L16 match against Ko Ping Chung won’t be easy.
You really prove that you are riding that short bus. Maybe you should take up checkers?
At this point I'll play you giving the 6 out, wearing no contacts and showing up 10 minites late so you get a head start!!!
Agreed and I’m all for it. I think it’s a great idea. There would need to be some details worked out, which aren’t easy and would be a new model that lots of people disagree about on the details.
For example, how long do you give players? Is it by rack, match, or event? How do you determine the time? Does it scale linerally with the racks, or do you get proportionally more time for shorter races, like a base time plus allocation per rack? Does it change based on the bracket? What happens when time runs out, is it match over, or do you lose a rack, or something else? If it’s match over, do you lose, or is winner decided based on current score? How is this enforced? All these things change the strategy.
The difference between chess and pool is that there is (a certain amount of) randomness to the layout after the break; some racks will take longer. I think many people (including me) enjoy defensive battles if the action continues.
Again, I’m just a low level spectator, but I like the idea. It’s complicated, nuanced, and changes the game strategy depending on how it’s implemented. Would love to see it further considered and discussed.
Edit:spelling/autocorrect
Last edited:
Meh... makes a gaff game.
I've witnessed countless racks with several innings of safe play. A small quantity of it is due to the small pockets. However, beyond seeing some of the incredible potting skills some of these players possess. Watching how they move and bait each other has been the most entertaining and educational aspect.
Cheesy 'chess clock' would do nothing but strip that from the game.
That’s a valid point. The chess clock was just one idea floated. We’re discussing options, but many agree the slow play is a problem. Do you have other ideas?
New technology available proximity activated billiard balls. In the absence of a ref a billiard ball can activate an alarm to clearly indicate it has been subject to an all ball foul.
For an extra grant the balls will have embedded AR tags that can be activated by a smart lense to make it easier for people with vision loss. When you wear the smart lense a projected image of the table is digitized for enhanced rendering.
New technology will solve all pools problems.
For an extra grant the balls will have embedded AR tags that can be activated by a smart lense to make it easier for people with vision loss. When you wear the smart lense a projected image of the table is digitized for enhanced rendering.
New technology will solve all pools problems.
It's a problem but nothing they can't deal with. There is also the dramatic aspect of a tournament that builds towards a finale. Grinding out the early days of the tournament can help build the excitement. Do you really want this thing flying along from the jump?
I'm not sure. Maybe they don't.
How about a thumb print encoded shot clock...? Mocking yes but the premise stands up.
A shot clock that is triggered by the exiting player. How about 60secs...? Tons of time to assess, shoot, and then return to their seat to reset for the other player. No extensions... I guess very similar to a chess clock in function, but doesn't count down on match time. Just a means to control pace.
The flaw would be breaks and ref interaction, (ball cleaning, template removal, etc...). Easy enough to enforce violations. No buzzer, just a light to indicated to the area ref an infraction has occured.
Still think it's a little gaffy, but without refs at every table, (which seems unlikely) it's probably the best thing to keep things moving.
I like this idea. Opposing player-initiated shot clock? Violations don’t automatically lose turn but after some number of violations it’s a foul? The time doesn’t have to be time to cue ball struck, but return to seat. Small variations can be accommodated by a grace of a few shots. The goal is to identify people who drag play out, not those who understandably spend time evaluating the rare difficult shot.
Last edited:
If Matchroom is the future, then they don't have to do anything more than rank players based on average shot times. Or if they don't have the data yet, they could just keep track of match times / rack totals or something similar. Then you post the times and let the players know if you're on the bottom, you need to speed it up or you will be suspended.
Problem will take care of itself.
Last edited:
MR just put up this nice video of JJ's final rack win against Parica from 2003.
ABSOLUTELY loss of game if their time runs out, no matter what the score is. Make time management part of the winning formula. Reward quick, good players like Filler. Penalize slow players like Chang. These guys are professionals, so they generally know what they are going to do within seconds, so make it so they gotta make a decision, commit to it, and execute.
Think about how that would play out... Player A tortures his opponent, taking 90 seconds per shot on average, and gets up 7-1, but now has 5 minutes to complete the entire rest of the match. He took the time on the racks he won, to make SURE he got out, or played lockup safes. Now, Player B gets gifted a rack, and gets his break working, and runs a rack or two. Score is now 7-4, and player A now needs to speed up DRAMATICALLY to get those final few games. Mistakes are made, gifting Player B another rack or two. As their time runs out, Player A is under more and more pressure. Maybe they rise to the occasion, maybe they don't. Pure drama.
How much time to give each player is easy. Take some time to get statistics and figure out what the average time per rack is for well-played, snappy sets that have a bit of safety play involved. Set each player's time to half that, and add say, 10 seconds per shot that ticks down before pulling from the player's total time bank, and let them have at it.
I've always thought chess clocks were the perfect solution and fit for pool.
I don't think this would be affected at all. You'd get some amount of time per shot in addition to your total bank, so even if your a game took 10 innings per player, you wouldn't run out of time.
For example, for a race to 9, I think a 9 minutes and a 30 second increment would be perfect. Play a ultra defensive game with a million innings? No problem. Take two minutes per shot and walk around the table a million times? You're in trouble.
I think the only issue with chess clocks are how non-traditional they are in the pool world and how many people would be resistant to change.
I don't think this would be affected at all. You'd get some amount of time per shot in addition to your total bank, so even if your a game took 10 innings per player, you wouldn't run out of time.
For example, for a race to 9, I think a 9 minutes and a 30 second increment would be perfect. Play a ultra defensive game with a million innings? No problem. Take two minutes per shot and walk around the table a million times? You're in trouble.
I think the only issue with chess clocks are how non-traditional they are in the pool world and how many people would be resistant to change.
You assume a chess clock would rush the players through games where safeties need to be played. It wouldn't. It would simply prevent a player from taking 2+ minutes to find those safeties. For the vast majority of games, the player knows what they have to shoot fairly quickly, and certain players just agonize over the decision to pull the trigger for WAY too long.