Rotation is the game to play!
- Thread starter Renegade
- Start date
Put up the money and I will stake Efren. He would rob everyone at that game. He is the best in the World at it.
Why is the length of the game always a issue. In 9 ball after a game or a break there will be a commerical. When the game resumes the announcer will say because of time restraints we have edited the match. What did they cut out, good safety play or the loser running a few racks?
No matter what game they show on TV all of the strategy or safeties will be cut out so they can show balls dropping into the pockets, or a jump shot.
No matter what game they show on TV all of the strategy or safeties will be cut out so they can show balls dropping into the pockets, or a jump shot.
drivermaker
Banned
In a recent thread that got all kinds of different opinions regarding what can be done about improving 9ball, I'd like to state the first thing that can be done with Rotation is change the method for scoring. I know it's the way the game is played and has been that way forever, but it just never made sense.
There's gotta be a better way.
There's gotta be a better way.
chefjeff said:
I like playing "Short Rack 8-Ball'
(4 stripes, 4 solids & the 8 ball-racked like 9 Ball)
This is a brutal game. You can make it more difficult by requiring the players to shoot their chosen group of balls in rotational order. You might even add the "Last Pocket" requirement for the 8-Ball
Try this game. It is lots of fun. It is also a great gambling game. The break shot is extremely imporatant in this game
ceebee said:
Damn that sounds like a sweet game. Short rack eightball played in rotation. I'm gonna have to give that one a try. Easy to handicap too. I run mine in rotation you run yours hoowerver you want. Not as many blocking balls, etc. I'm gonna play this one with my girlfriend and see how it goes. GREAT GAME CHARLIE.
drivermaker
Banned
ceebee said:
How do you play the 8 on the break if it pockets? (what the hell...since this is a made up game I guess I can make up my OWN rules regarding that)
fxskater said:
Ordinarily I don't say anything about my accomplishments, but this time I will tell you a true story.
We played the "Short Rack 8-Ball Tournament", on a 7' Valley, around here for 6 weeks. The first week I didn't know about & I was out of town.
The second week through the 6th week, I won the tournaments. The 7th week no one wanted to play... reason being >>>>
"We can't win, Charley Bond's Break is too strong". Now that is a compliment.
I ran so many racks, I surprised myself. But, running the rack in "Short Rack 8-Ball" isn't too big a feat, when you make 2-3 balls on the break. I guess that was one of finest hours. People were hollering "The BreakRAK is working"...they also holler "The BreakRAK ain't working" when I don't do well.
My knees are gone so my Pool playing days are getting shorter & shorter.
sniper said:
Sniper,
No, we all don't know that (at least I don't). Rotation is just another stupid "rotation" game, just a few (?) more balls. When the last 2 balls count 10 times more than the first 2, the chance for luck to rear its ugly head is maximized. This is the same reason Efren doesn't even come close to winning every tournament. This is the same reason Earl and Efren (and probably any of the top 20 or 30 players would do the same) came out even when playing the "Color of Money" series - 9-ball does NOT let the best player always win, it gives all the really good players an equal chance - coin flipping would be just as meaningful among these players. Rotation games are a great exhibition of skill, but a terrible way to differentiate good players. Give us straight pool to 300 or 500 and we might have the same winner every week. A nice dynasty would be good for pool (I think).
Williebetmore said:
Agree with you about rotation, but the one thing we disagree on is the need for a long straight pool race to get the cream to rise to the top. When 14.1 is played on tight equipment, a race to 150, as evidenced by the results of the world championships in the golden age of straight pool, is plenty long enough to ensure that the cream will rise to the top.
fxskater said:
You'd be surprised how short the list of those that have run 150 and out in tight pocket 14.1 world championship play really is. In those days, the typical game lasted about thirty innnings, inclusive of safeties. Only the elite would average more than seven balls per inning. Fifty ball runs are fairly special on tough equipment, and the knowledgeable crowds always understood it. I personally attended nine different world straight pool championship events, and remember it well. At his best, Sigel was averaging thriteen per inning. He was the best straight pooler of the last 50 years, but even his games lasted about twelve innings on average. Those who think 150 is a short race either never saw or have forgotten how tough it was to runs balls on tight equipment in the world 14.1 championships.
sjm said:
SJM,
Spoken like a true USGA official. You will probably remember the name of the USGA official who, in response to heavy criticism of a particularly tough U.S. Open venue (??Oakland Hills??) from the pro's, responded, "gentlemen, it is not our purpose to embarrass the best players in the world, it is our job to identify them." The USGA feels that the toughest conditions will bring the cream to the top (and with the exception of the odd Andy North aberration I think they are correct).
In my limited experience, I have still not seen a 50 ball run on the REALLY tight equipment locally, even playing with the pro's. You've at least convinced me that 200 would still be adequate (perhaps 150 in the early rounds, 200 in the later rounds). Mosconi liked to play to 2000; in his prime did not think anyone on the planet could even get close to him in such a long session. Of course about every other year they did have the long challenge matches for the championship, and no one ever did even get close (other than Greenleaf, way before Mosconi's prime). These were usually 10 foot tables, with napped cloth, different balls, I have no idea the usual pocket size.
I'm not sure if I've told you the story (perhaps apocryphal since it came from the degenerate pool players from KC that hung around with Mosconi when he lived there): Several times before championship matches, Mosconi felt the need to sharpen his safety game (they report that he did not feel ANY need to improve his offensive skill, it was always at the highest level). He would play one of these guys a game of straight pool to 1000. He would always insist on spotting them 900 balls (these guys claim to have been 100 ball runners). In this fashion, he still had to generate the offense, but absolutely could not try the low percentage "flyers" for which he was renowned, and had to play absolutely lockup safeties when he ran out of offense; missing was out of the question. Even these guys (possibly the most accomplished braggarts the world has yet known) could not recall ever beating Mosconi in one of these safety matches.
Williebetmore said:
Nice story, Willie. You know, much has been writeen about how the great ones like Greenleaf, Ponzi, and Mosconi loved to play 150 no count against the shortstops. Less is written about how many top players liked to play "twenty and stop" races to 150. In that game, after running twenty, the pro would be required to play safe, and then give up the table. Even if they played it perfectly, the pro couldn't get out in less than eight innings, ensuring the inclusion of safety play in the match. The shortstops would win some of these matches, which placed great pressure on the pro.