I Quit...

wigglybridge said:

i think you make some good points, Sean.

just to be clear on what *i* think though: the "slop" factor is actually one of the things i Detest about 9 ball. the only thing that makes 9 ball exciting to me is the pace of it compared to 10 ball. on the whole, i find myself in the rare position of agreeing with Earl Strickland, that the game has been ruined with changes over recent decades.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Bob. As to Earl, I think what he's talking about, is that he wants to see the old push-out 9-ball rules brought back. These were the glory days when he would have literal wars with Keith McCready, and the matches were spectacular.

Texas Express has ruined 9-ball, it has started a chain reaction of band-aid after band-aid being applied to the game, which was never needed in the first place. A game that was not broken, was broken, and patch after patch after patch has been applied to it ever since. This is what older players like Earl lament.

wigglybridge said:

as for 10 ball, i have to disagree: one of the things that prompted me to post what i said was the experience of, in fact, watching a match between SVB and Alex just last night. it Should have been incredibly exciting. what iit Was, though, was tedious beyond bearing (i had actually tried to watch it 2x previously and literally fell asleep both times). 10 ball is just a boring game; just my opinion.

Click to expand...

That sounds to me like it was a bad match. And yes, I know what you're talking about with matches like that -- they aren't "excitement fodder" worthy. But to be fair, are you not broad-brushing 10-ball as a game based on a few lackluster matches like the SVB-vs-Pagulayan match?

wigglybridge said:

what rotation players should do is to fix 9 ball, which is just plain broken. it wouldn't be hard, and it might even become an interesting game. [!]

Click to expand...

You're asking to do, what is already being done. Let's see:

1. 9-ball historically was based on the "push out" rules. No complaints, and the game was never broken.
2. TV broadcasting comes into the picture, and Texas Express rules are introduced to "speed up" and "simplify" the game to make it more palatable to a broader TV audience.
3. Ever since then, patch after patch after patch has been applied to the game, to the point where the game looks like a hillbilly swimming pool -- consisting more of duct tape product than of original swimming pool material:
- Soft breaking reveals vulnerabilities with the diamond-shaped rack -- wired wing balls
- Ok, so we'll move the rack up the table a bit, and rack with the 9-ball on the foot spot (instead of the traditional method of racking with the 1-ball on the foot spot), getting rid of the wired wing balls.
- It is discovered that now, the 1-ball is wired to the side pockets with a soft cut-break method from the side rail.
- Fine, we'll get rid of that by enforcing the "break box" -- i.e. breaking within the box formed by the middle three diamonds on the short rail.
- It is discovered that both the wing balls and the 1-ball are wired with a modified version of the cut-break.
- So, we'll now enforce the rule that 3 balls must pass the head string -- sufficient power must be applied to the break to force 3 balls to pass the head string (where a pocketed ball, no matter where it pockets, is considered a ball past the head string).
- Magic Rack product comes out.
- Modified versions of a cut break on a MagicRacked rack with slightly more power (but not a full-on power break as the rule was intended to bring back) result in a legal break according to this rule -- 2 balls pocket, and 1 ball passes the head string, even though it's very obvious this was not a power break.
- ...when does this crap end?

The 9-ball rack is broken for all intents and purposes. The triangular shape of a 10-ball rack addresses all of this.

Perhaps the issue you may have is with the call-shot aspect of the game? I do know that some tours [improperly] play the game with Texas Express rules. Have you tried viewing 10-ball matches played this way?

Just curious to see if that makes a difference -- whether it's the call-shot aspect that you feel is "borifying" the game?

wigglybridge said:

what we should do for straight pool is, i think, more complicated. i agree with the idea of a relatively long-fused shot clock -- there has been stalling to ridiculous lengths in recent tournaments -- but as you say, the game obviously is at its most beautiful when strategy can be thought out when needed. i remember one of the 14.1 tournaments that i've seen extensively in video, and alternate commentators were saying "the shot clock has ruined this" and "i think we've seen more 100's in this tournament than we would've without the shot clock". again: [!]

so... it's complicated!

Click to expand...

What is interesting, is that comment in bold. I think I recall hearing this comment in one of the 14.1 matches -- but I can't put my finger on which one.

However, that bolded part, if not meant as a joke, is an oxymoron much in the same vein as "government intelligence." It's as if to say running 100s is boring, because the shot clock is finally kicking the player in the pants to get off his duff and shoot, and thus more players are realizing the ability to shoot 100s as a result. A rhetorical question I'd pose to those commentators who made that statement would be, "So it would be more 'exciting' to remove the shot clock and watch that player analyze himself to paralysis oblivion?"

I agree with you, and think a long-fused shot clock is a good thing. Long enough to not short-circuit the alternative pattern thinking / strategy, but short enough to give the players a kick in the pants to shoot.

-Sean

sfleinen said:

Bob (and David):

[…]

That's probably why 10-ball, although the pros love to play it because it greatly lessens luck, seems "boring" to watch by you, I, or others that are used to "excitement" offered in slop/luck games like 9-ball. Those that watch/spectate short-rack rotation games, want the same "action" they see in 9-ball.

[…]

-Sean

Click to expand...

I do not disagree in principle, but please note a few things. First of all, the only rules we play are the stock WPA rules (that is, the EPBF, to my knowledge the same). The last of all things I "miss" in 10-Ball as we play it are slop shots where someone either lucks a ball in, or leaves their opponent safe after a miss (we don't play the WPA+ addition you mention, it makes sense from the perspective that pros try to make a living competing, and failure to do so shouldn't be based on either someone else's luck nor perhaps one's own misfortune).

What I do miss is that "commitment" makes the old two-way shots (as well as what the Brits refer to as "shots to nothing", similar concept, if not the same) impossible - you may remember that was where the intelligence factor came in. That's part of what makes 9-Ball more attractive to me, that one could be the artisan of one's own fortune, literally. I despise all rules that annihilate experience and the ability to perceive patterns and plan ahead on multiple levels. I was lucky to be born smart - why would I favour a rule set that effectively enforces a one-track approach to one's shot selection (and execution)?

I remember many years ago, an opponent came up after a match to congratulate me on the win, and told me he noticed he'd hardly ever had a shot had I missed, which I apparently didn't. Seeing it alone takes imagination, I remember being deeply impressed with the observation (most people think it's luck, and don't realize how much planning and speed control it takes to make it seem so). Needless to say, I teach this stuff to my advanced students, too - of course, not everyone "gets" it. There's satisfaction to be gained from outsmarting one's competition - the ethical way!

In short, pool needs to be attractive on all levels, just like a Shakespeare play, appeal to the intellectual as well as to anyone who just wants to have a good time.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

David:

Just FYI, when I use the phrase "...seems 'boring' to watch by you, I, or others that are used to 'excitement' offered in slop/luck games like 9-ball," I was using this in a royal sense. I personally don't like 9-ball *at all* (I border on despising the game), even though I'm sort of forced to play it via weekly tournaments and what-not. But I was "sidling up" to the reader when I phrased it that way.

And I agree with your notion of the "commitment" aspect of 10-ball removing one of the most colorful and strategic shots, the two-way shot. Know this, though -- the two-way shot as you know it (i.e. going for a shot and planning for a safety on the opponent simultaneously) is alive and well in pure WPA rules. (Yes, the WPA+ rules absolutely kill the two-way shot, but not the stock WPA rules, as you've noted.) What is eliminated from both rules, is the "strategically lucky" two-way shot, which is someone going for the money ball (i.e. 9-ball or 10-ball) while simultaneously trying to pocket the lowest-numbered ball on the table. "Splashing for the money," as it's known.

Anyway, this thread shouldn't turn into a discussion about rotation games, but rather what aspects of rotation games can and should be applied to 14.1 to help make it more palatable to the viewer/bystander. I think a long-fused shot clock (as Bob mentions), as Martha Stewart would say, "is a good thing."

-Sean

thanks for the great insights, Sean and David!

the called shot aspect is certainly not what bothers me about 10 ball; i think All games should be called shot. oh, and i've watched a lot of 10 ball, not just that one match; it was just a recent thorn in my side. i get what you say about the racking problems it solves, though.

as for 9 ball, it's been a long time (40 years i was away from the game), but i don't remember it being broken when i was a kid in the 60's. i don't even recall how we played then, but for sure i found it utterly Bizarre the way it's played now, when i came back to billiards 2.5 years ago.

amen, Amen, AMEN to David's comments on 9 ball 2-way shots, etc.

so, as you say, Sean, back to the point of this forum, what do we do about 14.1? a moderate shot clock would get the relatively few abusers back on track timewise (i also don't remember that problem in the old days when people understood the game).

is there anything else we could/should do? or is straight pool just fine the way it is? is it just a marketing problem? was it just railroaded out of town by bad TV decisions that could somehow be finessed now? could 14.1 be re-branded now that everyone (for all practical purposes, anyway) has forgotten it, and pitched as a new and more interesting game than rotation? could making it spiffier like it was in the good old days help? snooker is still doing well, isn't it? is everyone in the US just that much too dumb?

does it need to be somehow broken away from the rest of the pool crowd and appeal to a different demographic? i also played golf as a kid in the 60's, and part of the huge increase in golf's popularity was the snob appeal of the game to the expanding upper middle class in the US at the time (along with the emergence of heroes like Palmer and then Nicklaus). maybe we need to learn to make proper heroes of the great players we do have now. i understand from some commentary on a DP World 14.1 match that German champions meet the president and receive a medal. that sounds nutty here in the US, but some way to promote the achievements of great players and make heroes?

does it all come down to money?

wigglybridge said:

... is there anything else we could/should do? or is straight pool just fine the way it is? ...

Click to expand...

Except for the problem of the really slow player (who can be found in all games, not just 14.1), 14.1 is fine the way it is. It needs no aggrandizing.

Anyone who really loves 14.1 can find ways to spend lots of time with it -- playing alone, playing with one or a few others in your area who like it, playing in a local league, watching videos of past matches, reading about it, discussing it in forums, watching streamed events, or attending one or more of the (relatively few, granted) high level amateur/professional events held each year. I have no need to see 14.1 (or pool in general, really) become "big" in the world in order for me to derive great pleasure from the game.

hi again,

just a thought that came up once in a german forum :wink:

one problem i see in straight pool is that, for pros, the "race" is far too short.

ill just have a look over to snookerfinals; multiple sessions with multiple "racks", going over days to determine the VERY BEST in the tournament.

what could this teach to straight pool (or even other disciplines, but id like to see more straight :grin: )

multiple sessions, for example 3 or 5, always one race to 150 pts.

look for example the final match o. ortmann vs d harriman. both great 14.1 players but oliver runs out , not letting danny to the table. in another format he could come back, which would lead to more straight pool to watch :grin: and to the chance the opponent comes back.

if i read correctly in these forums, 14.1 was played to races over 500! in past times.
thats not marketable... yes.... but so is pool,so give the enthousiasts at least GREAT pool that brings out the GREATEST players.

bender_lu said:

hi again,

just a thought that came up once in a german forum :wink:

one problem i see in straight pool is that, for pros, the "race" is far too short.

ill just have a look over to snookerfinals; multiple sessions with multiple "racks", going over days to determine the VERY BEST in the tournament.

what could this teach to straight pool (or even other disciplines, but id like to see more straight :grin: )

multiple sessions, for example 3 or 5, always one race to 150 pts.

look for example the final match o. ortmann vs d harriman. both great 14.1 players but oliver runs out , not letting danny to the table. in another format he could come back, which would lead to more straight pool to watch :grin: and to the chance the opponent comes back.

if i read correctly in these forums, 14.1 was played to races over 500! in past times.
thats not marketable... yes.... but so is pool,so give the enthousiasts at least GREAT pool that brings out the GREATEST players.

Click to expand...

I agree: for the time being, Straight Pool should be all it can be to us. Whether or not spectators, sponsorship, money and fame may not be in our hands - at least we need to make (or keep, depending on one's perspective) it what we enthusiasts want it to be.

I'm personally for something like best out of three (race to two) sets of a reasonable length. Reason being, there would be at least two opening breaks (one by each: alternative after the opening lag), possibly two safety battles for the first shot, at least two run-outs, as well as, of course, a greater chance to see both opponents at the table. In order to save time and increase the pressure on each player, such races might as well be shorter. not short enough the run-out is virtually guaranteed, just shorter (= e.g. to 100 on the pro level?). This way at least, the final outcome would not be (nor look like to the spectator) a foregone conclusion.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

acousticsguru said:

I agree: for the time being, Straight Pool should be all it can be to us. Whether or not spectators, sponsorship, money and fame may not be in our hands - at least we need to make (or keep, depending on one's perspective) it what we enthusiasts want it to be.

I'm personally for something like best out of three (race to two) sets of a reasonable length. Reason being, there would be at least two opening breaks (one by each: alternative after the opening lag), possibly two safety battles for the first shot, at least two run-outs, as well as, of course, a greater chance to see both opponents at the table. In order to save time and increase the pressure on each player, such races might as well be shorter. not short enough the run-out is virtually guaranteed, just shorter (= e.g. to 100 on the pro level?). This way at least, the final outcome would not be (nor look like to the spectator) a foregone conclusion.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Click to expand...

I understand the issue that in straight pool a player is more likely to not really ever have a chance in a match, that he can get run out on from the opening break or sometimes only get a couple of innings with those being where he's facing a safety.

But I think this issue is handled fairly well at most straight pool events, namely by the inclusion of the round robin format. What I'm saying is that the entire RR portion of a tournament is really similar to 1 round of a traditional bracket tournament in 9 Ball. During the RR portion, you don't get knocked to a losers side or out of the event on any single match. So every player should have sufficient chances over the course of that portion of the event. Then once you get to the elimination portion of the event, the matches are normally extended to more points, thus increasing the chances both players will get their opportunities.

Additionally, the possibility that at the expert level a player can run out the game at any time adds to the drama, imho. Lastly, a match in which a player lost the lag and never got to the table is kind of offset by getting to see the other player run out off the opening break. There is simply nothing so pure in pool as an out from the opening break in straight pool.

DogsPlayingPool said:

I understand the issue that in straight pool a player is more likely to not really ever have a chance in a match, that he can get run out on from the opening break or sometimes only get a couple of innings with those being where he's facing a safety.

But I think this issue is handled fairly well at most straight pool events, namely by the inclusion of the round robin format. What I'm saying is that the entire RR portion of a tournament is really similar to 1 round of a traditional bracket tournament in 9 Ball. During the RR portion, you don't get knocked to a losers side or out of the event on any single match. So every player should have sufficient chances over the course of that portion of the event. Then once you get to the elimination portion of the event, the matches are normally extended to more points, thus increasing the chances both players will get their opportunities.

Additionally, the possibility that at the expert level a player can run out the game at any time adds to the drama, imho. Lastly, a match in which a player lost the lag and never got to the table is kind of offset by getting to see the other player run out off the opening break. There is simply nothing so pure in pool as an out from the opening break in straight pool.

Click to expand...

Major Straight Pool events used to be all Round Robin half a century ago - that to me would be the format to return to anyhow. The question is, why would anyone go through a lengthy qualifying stage to enter a K.O. bracket in which, however well he or she may have been playing, may get to lag, shoot the opening break, and bye, bye, see you next year? Round Robin all the way, could easily agree on that.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti