Just watched the bonus ball match of Johnny archer and Jason klatt. I thought it was rather boring. Maybe because I'm used to the usual games. What do you think? Vote only if you've seen a full match of bonus ball not if you just know the concept. Do you guys think it will be the next BIG game?
Is bonus ball more entertaining than 9ball 10ball etc.
- Thread starter imissedthe9
- Start date
I think it's got some good things. Innings, fast shot clocks, teams... the game itself is a bit difficult to grasp, even as a player, though.
Comical maybe, not what I'd call entertaining.
But who knows, maybe it'll help the cue sports some.
I don't care for it, but I wish them well.
But who knows, maybe it'll help the cue sports some.
I don't care for it, but I wish them well.
I watched some and really had a hard time folowing what was happening.
Watch the entire match of USA vs Canada. Watch Corey Deuel's epic bank with one second left in regulation.
By the time you watch the whole match you know exactly what's going on. I struggled watching the first match too not knowing what ball was next or what pockets but then I discovered the color they were shooting next was next to their name etc.
I love banks more than safeties and good two way shots. But more than anything I love shot clocks! Also team celebration.
By the time you watch the whole match you know exactly what's going on. I struggled watching the first match too not knowing what ball was next or what pockets but then I discovered the color they were shooting next was next to their name etc.
I love banks more than safeties and good two way shots. But more than anything I love shot clocks! Also team celebration.
I think it is an exciting game. I really like the "straight-pool like" break element. Add in the team concept and some banter, and we may have something.
When I saw this poll my instant reaction was "oh no..." I don't think it's had enough exposure/development to get a fair shake on this poll (not to say it's wrong to conduct the poll). The teams haven't even played yet.
I hope people will give it some time, the damn game isn't hardly out of the womb yet and most people are resistant to new things!
JMHO
When I saw this poll my instant reaction was "oh no..." I don't think it's had enough exposure/development to get a fair shake on this poll (not to say it's wrong to conduct the poll). The teams haven't even played yet.
I hope people will give it some time, the damn game isn't hardly out of the womb yet and most people are resistant to new things!
JMHO
Like I mentioned in another thread I was expecting it to be kind of a worthless gimmick after I watched some of the promo videos, but then I watched the USA vs Canada match and I really liked it. After a couple minutes I understood what was going on rules wise and I was impressed with the creativity, strategy and shotmaking. I thought the scoreboard at the bottom was helpful and I liked the fast pace.
Rule #1 when trying to make a poll: Don't state your opinion in the opening question. People tend to follow, especially if they are undecided.
Rule #2 when trying to make a poll: Don't ask two entirely different question. Is it more entertaining, or is it the next big thing? Very different questions, with likely different results.
So far so good.
Last edited:
I didn't particularly enjoy it but I assume I'm not the "market" for the game. They've got a great lineup of players but I couldn't help feeling like "Gee, I wish they were playing 10-ball."
I think the general public has a better chance of liking it than experienced players do. Now the challenge is to find ways to get the general public to watch it.
One a side note, I really admire Johnny Archer. It seems like he's willing to spend time and effort on anyone's attempt to popularize pool; much more so than any other player I can think of.
My concept for a game is 8-ball with two cue balls and no rotation of shooter. Both shooters play at the same time. The public wants SPEED and excitement. The only other improvement is the possibility of body-checking your opponent. :grin: If the game ever takes off I'm betting on Earl.
I think the general public has a better chance of liking it than experienced players do. Now the challenge is to find ways to get the general public to watch it.
One a side note, I really admire Johnny Archer. It seems like he's willing to spend time and effort on anyone's attempt to popularize pool; much more so than any other player I can think of.
My concept for a game is 8-ball with two cue balls and no rotation of shooter. Both shooters play at the same time. The public wants SPEED and excitement. The only other improvement is the possibility of body-checking your opponent. :grin: If the game ever takes off I'm betting on Earl.
Rule #1 when trying to make a poll: Don't state your opinion in the opening question. People tend to follow, especially if they are undecided.
Rule #2 when trying to make a poll: Don't ask two entirely different question. Is it more entertaining, or is it the next big thing? Very different questions, with likely different results.
So far so good.
The question is asked above the poll where u can select a vote. I also asked a second question for feedback on the thread. The first question is a simple yes or no question with some feedback on why it is or isn't. I don't see why another question can't be asked. Also I would like to see this voting poll rule book since you seem to know all these rules. And if you are the voting poll enforcer than you should go enforce other polls threads because people state their opinions and ideas along with the question aswell.I think you are saying all this because you are on the bonus ball pay roll.
Relax. I was just busting your balls. Note the smiley face.
It's a pool forum, not a national election.
A game that has top pro players, a pro announcer, great camera work, great production, great shot making, great strategy, a fast pace, beautiful women, all in a beautiful setting; and you think it's "rather boring?"
What year did you die? :wink:
Roger
[Note winking smiley face.]
I gave it an honest chance. I know a lot of people had been spreading negative opinions about it, but I tried not to let that influence me and took an open minded approach. I learnt the rules and watched the USA v Canada match. Man was I bored out of my mind. It felt like I was watching one of those gimmick pool tournaments on the hexagonal tables.
I have watched the Bonus Ball Streams and played a version of the game on my home table with regular balls. From what I have seen, I don't think it will suddenly attract the non pool playing public. As far as the streams I have viewed, I believe the announcers will get better over time. The commentators and guest players need some more polish to bring it up to a competitive standard. This will likely come with time.
I would watch Bonus Ball on occasion when there was nothing else to watch or do, but I wouldn't pay to watch it.
I do however wish the group good luck and I hope they eventually manage a respectable ROI.
I would watch Bonus Ball on occasion when there was nothing else to watch or do, but I wouldn't pay to watch it.
I do however wish the group good luck and I hope they eventually manage a respectable ROI.
Last edited:
In the political world your poll would be called a "push poll" (press for a desired outcome).
Example: Do you want Obama-Care or do you want your mother to die?
Your question makes assumptions about Nine & Ten-Ball. What does Nine-Ball or Ten-Ball have to do with the subject at hand. Bonus Ball stands on its own. Bonus Ball is either very entertaining, somewhat entertaining, entertaining, mildly entertaining, or not entertaining at all.
Example: Do you want Obama-Care or do you want your mother to die?
Your question makes assumptions about Nine & Ten-Ball. What does Nine-Ball or Ten-Ball have to do with the subject at hand. Bonus Ball stands on its own. Bonus Ball is either very entertaining, somewhat entertaining, entertaining, mildly entertaining, or not entertaining at all.
Last edited:
More exciting? No. Can it be more exciting, yes. Pool in general doesn't inspire excitement unless there is some pressure attached to it. In other words watching a US Open match live in the room is much different than watching it on the stream.
I think that when this thing ramps up and there is something on the line then it will be exciting and possibly more exciting than traditional games we know. Frankly I have already seen a lot of shots and moves that you don't see a lot of in other games.
I think that when this thing ramps up and there is something on the line then it will be exciting and possibly more exciting than traditional games we know. Frankly I have already seen a lot of shots and moves that you don't see a lot of in other games.
I think it'll help the sport overall as the team aspect of it, uniforms, countries, etc - as well as very simple play as long as you can control whitey are all things that weren't really in 8, 9, 10, or 14.1.
Hell, most people don't even know what 9, 10, or 14.1 are unless they have some small interest in it. Having the team aspect on it and it visually shown a lot will be a good thing for it if they can keep the players interested monetarily and broadcast enough as well as advertise enough.
Would I ever be interested in playing it? Probably not. I'm an 8 ball guy. I don't think that'll ever change.
Hell, most people don't even know what 9, 10, or 14.1 are unless they have some small interest in it. Having the team aspect on it and it visually shown a lot will be a good thing for it if they can keep the players interested monetarily and broadcast enough as well as advertise enough.
Would I ever be interested in playing it? Probably not. I'm an 8 ball guy. I don't think that'll ever change.
9 Ball and 10 Ball are not exciting? Who are you Kidding???
LINK TO MORE ON "CONVENTIONAL WISDOM"
Conventional wisdom is not necessarily true. Conventional wisdom is additionally often seen as an obstacle to the acceptance of newly acquired information, to introducing new theories and explanations, and therefore operates as an obstacle that must be overcome by legitimate revisionism. This is to say, that despite new information to the contrary, conventional wisdom has a property analogous to inertia that opposes the introduction of contrary belief, sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding an outdated (conventional) view.
This inertia is due to conventional wisdom being made of ideas that are convenient, appealing and deeply assumed by the public, who hangs on to them even as they grow outdated. The unavoidable outcome is these ideas will eventually not match reality at all, so conventional wisdom will be violently shaken until it doesn't conflict reality so blatantly.
The concept of conventional wisdom also is applied or implied in political senses, often related closely with the phenomenon of talking points. It is used pejoratively to refer to the idea that statements which are repeated over and over become conventional wisdom regardless of whether or not they are true.
LINK TO MORE ON "CONVENTIONAL WISDOM"
Conventional wisdom is not necessarily true. Conventional wisdom is additionally often seen as an obstacle to the acceptance of newly acquired information, to introducing new theories and explanations, and therefore operates as an obstacle that must be overcome by legitimate revisionism. This is to say, that despite new information to the contrary, conventional wisdom has a property analogous to inertia that opposes the introduction of contrary belief, sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding an outdated (conventional) view.
This inertia is due to conventional wisdom being made of ideas that are convenient, appealing and deeply assumed by the public, who hangs on to them even as they grow outdated. The unavoidable outcome is these ideas will eventually not match reality at all, so conventional wisdom will be violently shaken until it doesn't conflict reality so blatantly.
The concept of conventional wisdom also is applied or implied in political senses, often related closely with the phenomenon of talking points. It is used pejoratively to refer to the idea that statements which are repeated over and over become conventional wisdom regardless of whether or not they are true.