2015 US OPEN 10-BALL & 8-BALL CHAMPIONSHIPS! July 24-31, Las Vegas, NV!

Masirib5

Klaatu barada nikto
Silver Member
7 footers? Why so big? You can fit a lot more 4 footers in the venue.

Why not bumper pool?

No wonder Justin left CSI

--Jeff
 

TheOne

www.MetroPool.club
Silver Member
I think the change to 7' tables for top players actually forces into the spotlight an issue we already had but didn't fully realize--a fundamental problem in the game that doesn't have to do with table size and that can be addressed.

Many people seem not to be understanding a key point in this issue. It is I suppose not obvious. So please consider,

There are two types of games

(1) Scored Games (golf, bowling and diving are examples). These are just player against equipment. Players may choose to compare scores, but opponents are either nonexistent or irrelevant.

(2) Interactive Games (boxing, basketball, soccer, football, and pool are examples). These are player against player .

Equipment/fields/courts/specifications are important for each, but equipment plays very different roles in the two types of games.

For interactive games, unless the game is broken modest changes in equipment/specifications are not so important. You can make a soccer goal 10% wider and the game would still be good. the defensive strategy would just change to compensate. The game wouldn't be easier; it would just be different. It should be the same situation with pool. If it feels like it is not, then that's a sign of a different problem--one with the game itself.

As an interactive game, pool shouldn't by itself be hard or easy; rather, it should be hard against Darren Appleton and easy against me.

If you have a sense that a lesser pro has a chance against Darren Appleton on a 7' table that he wouldn't have against Darren playing the same race on a 9' table, then don't look at the table, look at the game itself. The first thing to look at is what is an apples-to-apples comparison. If there are more break-and-runs on the 7' table, then games go faster and a tournament that was race to 9 on a 9' table can now be race to 11. That should help.

the real issue--the tragedy of the runout

But the elephant in the room issue is not the table size. It is that we have created games for which a one-inning out is too frequent for top pros.

A match at a professional-level tournament should have at least a minimum number (perhaps 15-20) of actual changes in control. This means it first looked like player A had the upper hand in a game, and then something happened to give player B the upper hand. This something could be something A did poorly or something B did well. It is these changes in control that bring out the subtle differences in deep and varied skills amongst the players. Every time there is a break and run, that is a game for which it didn't matter who the opponent was. And that goes against the spirit of the interactive game.

The way we've been playing 9-ball, matches have too few actual changes in control. A forced change in control (like alternating the break) doesn't count here. Games like 8-ball and 9-ball for which players might frequently string together racks with winner breaks are a problem. We have tried to address that problem by going to alternate breaks and by considering 10-foot tables--both poor excuses for solutions.

Some might question this as a problem, given that better players are going to run more racks and have more packages. That's true. But this mindset treats the game like a scored game, not an interactive game. It relegates a match to a series of exhibitions interspersed with an occasional actual change in control. It takes what should at best be a second-tier skill (the break shot) and elevates it to a comical level. And it makes the most dramatic situations in a match be like pulling the lever on a slot machine--whether the player is going to have a shot when all the balls stop rolling on the break. And of course this situation gets worse for rotation games going to a 7' table. When a person comments about comparing pool on a 7' table to golf on a par-3 course, that person has already (probably unwittingly) relegated pool to being a scored game. In other words these structural problems have taken roots.

Again, we want pool to be a true interactive game, where it really matters many times during a match who your opponent is and where several different skills come into play in determining a winner. The game should be structured so that this basic feature exists on all major equipment. This is not hard to do but will require some discussion.

For now, it would be good if people tried to have a positive attitude and embraced the efforts of the few promoters who are actually trying to do something...

This was an excellent post that does a great job of articulating most, if not all the problems with the current games in pool.
 

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think a great stat to have (calling AtLarge) would be run out percentage when player comes to the table with an open shot.

Do it for both 8ball and 9ball on 7' and 9' matches, and compare the results.
 

PINKLADY

ICNBB
Silver Member
it'll be interesting to see how many of the pros (as well as non-pros), who were so vocal about Cyclop balls - show.
.
 

nine_ball6970

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It is obvious that majority of responses to this thread are not in favor of 7 ft events .
And I absolutely agree. Pros should play on big tables not small tables. It is nonsense to give MC Cup ranking points to 7 ft events. If not enough 9 ft events, count international events. If not enough international events, MC Cup can start own qualifying / selection 9ft tourneys.
:grin-square:

How about having the Mosconi Cup played on bar tables? US may have a better chance of winning then!
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You guys might as well face it, the 9ft table era is going away. Pool hall owners are going to the bar tables so they can pack in more league players and actually make money. Everything about the game is slowly changing: break cues, magic racks, jump cues, gloves, custom chalk, chalk holders $3k playing cues. It's going to be an adapt or quit for you.

I don't think I have seen a pool hall switch from 9 footers to more 7 footers that was a real pool hall vs a bar with a few tables.

I guess most pool rooms are bars with tables though now that I think about it. Those that were not closed down.

My regular room is all 9 footers aside from a 12' snooker table and a 7' Diamond the owner bought specifically for league players to play in.

The whole room is getting new rails and cloth also, they did half the room already. They are not changing to 7 footers.
 

Celtic

AZB's own 8-ball jihadist
Silver Member
This was an excellent post that does a great job of articulating most, if not all the problems with the current games in pool.

I second this.

That was a phenomenal post that everyone should read, especially promoters and people actively working in the pool industry.
 

dnschmidt

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You guys might as well face it, the 9ft table era is going away. Pool hall owners are going to the bar tables so they can pack in more league players and actually make money. Everything about the game is slowly changing: break cues, magic racks, jump cues, gloves, custom chalk, chalk holders $3k playing cues. It's going to be an adapt or quit for you.

Fine, then I chose to quit.
 

jojopiff

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Fine, then I chose to quit.

To each their own. While I agree I'd rather see pro's playing on 9' or 10' tables, I'd much rather see them play something, rather than nothing. No matter how much we all want to see them play the toughest game on the toughest equipment, if it's not cost feasible, then it simply cannot happen and I won't fault CSI or anyone for not doing so.

As a 34 year old growing up in Colorado, bar boxes have been prevalent in my time playing pool (13 years) so I can watch pro's play bar box 8ball and appreciate the patterns they play for runouts and breakouts.
 

westcoast

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think the change to 7' tables for top players actually forces into the spotlight an issue we already had but didn't fully realize--a fundamental problem in the game that doesn't have to do with table size and that can be addressed.

Many people seem not to be understanding a key point in this issue. It is I suppose not obvious. So please consider,

There are two types of games

(1) Scored Games (golf, bowling and diving are examples). These are just player against equipment. Players may choose to compare scores, but opponents are either nonexistent or irrelevant.

(2) Interactive Games (boxing, basketball, soccer, football, and pool are examples). These are player against player .

Equipment/fields/courts/specifications are important for each, but equipment plays very different roles in the two types of games.

For interactive games, unless the game is broken modest changes in equipment/specifications are not so important. You can make a soccer goal 10% wider and the game would still be good. the defensive strategy would just change to compensate. The game wouldn't be easier; it would just be different. It should be the same situation with pool. If it feels like it is not, then that's a sign of a different problem--one with the game itself.

As an interactive game, pool shouldn't by itself be hard or easy; rather, it should be hard against Darren Appleton and easy against me.

If you have a sense that a lesser pro has a chance against Darren Appleton on a 7' table that he wouldn't have against Darren playing the same race on a 9' table, then don't look at the table, look at the game itself. The first thing to look at is what is an apples-to-apples comparison. If there are more break-and-runs on the 7' table, then games go faster and a tournament that was race to 9 on a 9' table can now be race to 11. That should help.

the real issue--the tragedy of the runout

But the elephant in the room issue is not the table size. It is that we have created games for which a one-inning out is too frequent for top pros.

A match at a professional-level tournament should have at least a minimum number (perhaps 15-20) of actual changes in control. This means it first looked like player A had the upper hand in a game, and then something happened to give player B the upper hand. This something could be something A did poorly or something B did well. It is these changes in control that bring out the subtle differences in deep and varied skills amongst the players. Every time there is a break and run, that is a game for which it didn't matter who the opponent was. And that goes against the spirit of the interactive game.

The way we've been playing 9-ball, matches have too few actual changes in control. A forced change in control (like alternating the break) doesn't count here. Games like 8-ball and 9-ball for which players might frequently string together racks with winner breaks are a problem. We have tried to address that problem by going to alternate breaks and by considering 10-foot tables--both poor excuses for solutions.

Some might question this as a problem, given that better players are going to run more racks and have more packages. That's true. But this mindset treats the game like a scored game, not an interactive game. It relegates a match to a series of exhibitions interspersed with an occasional actual change in control. It takes what should at best be a second-tier skill (the break shot) and elevates it to a comical level. And it makes the most dramatic situations in a match be like pulling the lever on a slot machine--whether the player is going to have a shot when all the balls stop rolling on the break. And of course this situation gets worse for rotation games going to a 7' table. When a person comments about comparing pool on a 7' table to golf on a par-3 course, that person has already (probably unwittingly) relegated pool to being a scored game. In other words these structural problems have taken roots.

Again, we want pool to be a true interactive game, where it really matters many times during a match who your opponent is and where several different skills come into play in determining a winner. The game should be structured so that this basic feature exists on all major equipment. This is not hard to do but will require some discussion.

For now, it would be good if people tried to have a positive attitude and embraced the efforts of the few promoters who are actually trying to do something...


As stated by several others, very well thought post.

What is the solution? Mandatory push out like CJ has been talking about?

I think 10 ball is better than 9 ball in terms of having the other player get a chance at the table. 10 ball is probably the most challenging type of game on a 7 footer. On a 9 footer, maybe move to 12 ball? I'm just throwing ideas out there.
 

Texdance

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You guys might as well face it, the 9ft table era is going away. Pool hall owners are going to the bar tables so they can pack in more league players and actually make money. Everything about the game is slowly changing: break cues, magic racks, jump cues, gloves, custom chalk, chalk holders $3k playing cues. It's going to be an adapt or quit for you.

I am not sure if actual numbers back this up, but I can go with the feeling.

The local Wednesday night 8-ball tournament is played using 'bar' rules, meaning no rules.. Oh, yeh, scratch on the 8 ball is a loser, 8 on the break is a winner, and the CB goes to the kitchen after a scratch regardless of where the remaining balls are positioned. Other than that, some players can't even agree on what constitutes calling the OB -is it a bank shot that you have to call the bank if the OB makes incidental contact with a rail prior to entering the pocket? Hmmm... it is if you make the shot, so you lose your turn... it isn't if I make the shot, so I keep shooting... ha ha ha .

I like to watch the pros on 7 footers playing 8 ball. It is the only game I can play competitively in my community. Watching those guys play position and break up clusters is instructional to me - and even when the miss I can learn something.

However, I need to download those game videos in high definition, not just watch them streaming. I need to rewind and replay the shots, otherwise the games stream by too fast for me to follow all the intricacies.

Alternate breaks, winning by two to win a set (as in tennis), and giving the breaker ball in hand in the kitchen after the break would end the six-packs, at least the consecutive wins we now call six-packs. It would change the game for the better, ending the lottery system where pros lose almost every time they fail to make a ball on the break. There would be great pressure on the pro to run out every time he has the break, and make choosing the correct balls, solids or stripes, a skill set of great importance. I think it would also make it harder to put a rack on that could not be responded to, since both players would get about the same number of breaks.
 

Mr. Bond

Orbis Non Sufficit
Gold Member
Silver Member
In case anyone is interested, Ozzy was just interviewed on ABR and explains their logic behind the use of 7foot tables. You obviously don't have to agree, but at least you can hear the reasoning from the source.
www.americanbilliardradio.com

As I have stated many times, I personally believe that pro level pool should be played exclusively on 10ft tables :cool:
 

shinobi

kanadajindayo
Silver Member
In case anyone is interested, Ozzy was just interviewed on ABR and explains their logic behind the use of 7foot tables

It's difficult to imagine any explanation that could convince me that using 7 foot tables is anything but a huge disappointment for pro pool.
 

one stroke

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Any reason other than than there's a bigger profit margin using 7 footers I'm not buying
Thinking the pool world is going to 7 fts is laughable and attaching a US Open tag with out adding Bar Table to it is a farce

No where else in the world plays on bar tables and in case no ones paying attention the USA is falling behind in world class pool and no question in my mind bar boxes are a contributing factor in that

1
 

dnschmidt

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Congratulations to ONE STROKE. Dead on the Money except for one point. All Mark is trying to do is lose less money not actually make any. I have no gripe with him, if the state of the game is so bad that you can't run a real pro pool tournament on real tables then that's just reality. Extinction happens every day to some species in this world, too bad it's happened to pro pool.

My view is that being dead is better than being permanently hooked up to life support. Let's just put a bullet in its head and end the suffering. Seems like the humane thing to do. I will not watch pros playing on bar tables, I will not support tournaments that have pros playing on bar tables. Anybody the loves the game and has respect for the history of the game should do the same. LET IT DIE.
 

Kris_b1104

House Pro in my own home.
Silver Member
What's the difference between the USBTC 8 & 10 Ball and the US Open 8 & 10 Ball?
 
Top