In round robin, your fate can possibly depend on two other players....
...and collusion is very possible....
Hardly ideal
Title Match
- Thread starter Tin Man
- Start date
In round robin, your fate can possibly depend on two other players....
...and collusion is very possible....
Hardly ideal
Good point! Remember, were talking about 2019 pool players. Not all are Toasty on their Kaiser.
In truth, while there has been the odd Cinderella story, the World Championships, the US Open and the Derby City 9-ball have seen to it that the champion is elite year after year after year.
I don't like long races, and don't even like the fact that the final of the US Open is a race to 13, whereas 11 is sufficient for the rest of the event.
In the sports that gain my attention, the elite are numerous and you never know which of them will prevail when the chips are down. All you know is that somebody will rise to the occasion and outperform everybody else. Thankfully, you don't know who that will be, and that's what makes it worth watching.
There's nothing I enjoy more than the Mosconi Cup because the short race is the most exciting form of pool. As a fan, late match pressure is what I want to see, and you get it so often at the Mosconi.
I'm not convinced that many want a round robin format. The round robin format was tried at the IPT and again in all the Accu-stats "Make it Happen" events. Neither series of events proved sustainable.
I'd hate to see pool go in the direction of having longer matches or round robin formats, even in its most elite events.
I don't like long races, and don't even like the fact that the final of the US Open is a race to 13, whereas 11 is sufficient for the rest of the event.
In the sports that gain my attention, the elite are numerous and you never know which of them will prevail when the chips are down. All you know is that somebody will rise to the occasion and outperform everybody else. Thankfully, you don't know who that will be, and that's what makes it worth watching.
There's nothing I enjoy more than the Mosconi Cup because the short race is the most exciting form of pool. As a fan, late match pressure is what I want to see, and you get it so often at the Mosconi.
I'm not convinced that many want a round robin format. The round robin format was tried at the IPT and again in all the Accu-stats "Make it Happen" events. Neither series of events proved sustainable.
I'd hate to see pool go in the direction of having longer matches or round robin formats, even in its most elite events.
Of course.
But even better. Make all the races to 21.
As for collusion, I guess I'm not quite as cynical as pt 109 and Island Drive, especially (1) when the cameras are on, and (2) if word ever got out about a fix, that would be the end of that player's career on the pro tour. Two words: Shoeless Joe.
Of course.
But even better. Make all the races to 21.
As for collusion, I guess I'm not quite as cynical as pt 109 and Island Drive, especially (1) when the cameras are on, and (2) if word ever got out about a fix, that would be the end of that player's career on the pro tour. Two words: Shoeless Joe.
I saw it happen at a major event, one of the players needed the points for the overall and they made an arrangement before the match started.
Guess they didnt know I could hear them.
Jason
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but my proposal was addressed at the way of determining the best player. And with that goal in mind, I can't see how a round robin with the 16 best players wouldn't be a better test of that than the usual single or double elimination setup. The law of averages would almost surely ensure that.
Also, I'm talking about 9 ball only. Watching long races of 8 ball or straight pool is like watching paint dry for anyone but the most hardcore pool junkie. Even 10 ball, though it's in many ways a better game than 9 ball, plays out too slowly for many people.
The top players playing 8 ball or 1 pckt is way more exciting than 9 or 10ball. I dont play either one, but the skill level shows up way more often in those 2 games.
Jason
Well, I sure hope you made a lot of money by side betting on the basis of overhearing that conversation.
But more seriously, if pro billiards is ever going to make it beyond its present chump change level, it's going to have to learn how to deal with tossing and other related forms of dishonesty. It's bad enough in private gambling matches, but out in the open it'd be a disaster.
Sure, and hardcore players enjoy watching one pocket even more. But 9 ball brings out the most spectacular strokes and shots that wow the casual spectator. For the non-hardcore spectator, the problem with all those other games is simple: Too many balls on the table, and too long to complete a single game. Too much attention span required.
Of course.
But even better. Make all the races to 21.
As for collusion, I guess I'm not quite as cynical as pt 109 and Island Drive, especially (1) when the cameras are on, and (2) if word ever got out about a fix, that would be the end of that player's career on the pro tour. Two words: Shoeless Joe.
Not as cynical as them? .... you mean not as knowledgeable. At the IPT, where the top three in every round robin group advanced to the next stage of the event, much business was done. Rest assured, it's not 1 in 10,000 that anyone doing business in our sport would be disciplined for it.
First off throw chess out the window followed by darts and bowling and match gun shooting ,, they have nothing in common with games like pool or golf where so many variables exist , tournaments exist to produce a eventual winner who thru a combination of luck and skill survive to be the last man standing,, its a great feat to do that once in a life time but to do it twice and hold a WPA 9 ball and a US Open crown at the same time sholuld be something that deserves nothing but applause
1
I don't think people that know me would describe me as cynical....
...I think maybe myself and Mr Meacham might have more experience than you.
...there's a reason the world 9-ball championship switched from round robin format...
..the bookies got stung in Britain years ago.
..and as a kid at snooker, I was the victim once, and declined an offer once.
The 8-man qualifying tournaments for the world 9-ball work just fine.
...they might be even better than the recent Open system...
...but I'm fine with either.
Read the words on the screen...I see we're both allowed AZ names.
...if you're ignorant to the world 9-ball situation...are you going to believe me if I
introduce myself and say it happened because I said so?
I see where you are coming from, but would limit the championship to two players and I'd base it on WPA Ranking. Every player in the world has equal access to the top two WPA rankings, so it's fair. I still think a long race is ridiculous, but I agree that a long match might be OK. Stamina should not be a major issue in pool.
If the top two have a match that is best of seven races to 11, I'd watch. Two races to eleven on Day 1, two more on Day 2, two more on Day 3 and, if necessary, a third set on Day 3 to settle the matter.
If it's ten ball, I'm not interested. This is the nine ball era, and nearly all of the major events on the world pool calendar are nine ball events. I'm also not interested if it's rack your own, which has compromised the integrity of our sport all too often.
... but for best of seven Races to 11 with neutral racker, you can count me in. Call it the Global Championship with 50,000 for 1st and 25,000 for second.
this
This is along the lines of what I was talking about.
I think it's fascinating when two players know they will face each other a little ways in advance. They have time to put together a game plan, and really prepare for that match. Then, in multiple set sessions when one player drops a set, they have time to try to regroup and make some adjustments to their strategy. Right now this only shows itself in challenge matches, and it is something I find captivating. That and allowing the winner to have demonstrated a dominant performance.
And one poster interpreted my thread as a belittlement of Filler's achievements. This wasn't it at all. If anything, a longer set might have just demonstrated even more thoroughly how well he is playing.
I also understand the thrill of sprints, the pressure, the unknown, and the suspense. I wouldn't want that to go away. I think this should be the norm. I just happen to think this game is big enough to have both forms available to it. Round robin wouldn't work for collusion reasons, but a king of the hill champion where each year a new challenger squares off for the trophy against the reigning champ, well, that would get me watching!
This is along the lines of what I was talking about.
I think it's fascinating when two players know they will face each other a little ways in advance. They have time to put together a game plan, and really prepare for that match. Then, in multiple set sessions when one player drops a set, they have time to try to regroup and make some adjustments to their strategy. Right now this only shows itself in challenge matches, and it is something I find captivating. That and allowing the winner to have demonstrated a dominant performance.
And one poster interpreted my thread as a belittlement of Filler's achievements. This wasn't it at all. If anything, a longer set might have just demonstrated even more thoroughly how well he is playing.
I also understand the thrill of sprints, the pressure, the unknown, and the suspense. I wouldn't want that to go away. I think this should be the norm. I just happen to think this game is big enough to have both forms available to it. Round robin wouldn't work for collusion reasons, but a king of the hill champion where each year a new challenger squares off for the trophy against the reigning champ, well, that would get me watching!
Right on, brother.
Here's my two cents - I've been attending and working on professional pool tournaments for far longer than most AZ posters have been alive. Damn, I'm old! I'm certain that the number of tournaments I've witnessed are well in the thousands by now.
One of the constants has been that no matter the format, no matter how long the races are and no matter what rules they play by, the best players seem to get there in the end. Somehow miraculously, by the time it's down to the final five or six players (maybe ten or twelve is even more accurate) they are all top players. The shortstops just don't get there for one reason or another, and I'm talking about good old lucky 9-Ball here.
There are intangibles in pool that go beyond merely making the balls and playing the right shots. Things like how one holds up under pressure and how they react to various distractions that can hinder or affect their game. Also how their life is going and are they experiencing personal problems that weigh on their minds. Physical health and well being has been touched on already. All these and more factor into the making of a champion and can have a direct affect on who wins and who loses at the end of the day.
The true champions of our sport are the ones who can handle all that life throws at them and still perform at the peak of their capabilities. There are never many in this category in any generation I've been part of. They have a way of separating themselves from the pack. And "the pack" all know who they are! They are the ones who are supposed to win and usually do. When we talk about the favorites to win any major pool tournament it usually comes down to a handful of names.
This is true even at a game with as much luck as 9-Ball is purported to have. Contrary to common thought, there are usually many critical games in a 9-Ball match where precise safeties come into play or an errant kick shot can be costly. Not to mention how often we see a match won or lost due to a well played (or not so well played) jump shot. My experience has been that the best players come with the big shots under pressure and the lesser players falter in the same spots. They both are equally capable of making these shots, but one of them consistently does when the chips are on the line and the other one does not. I hope this helps you to get a grasp of what the difference is between the champions of our sport and the rest of the players and contenders.
The final match of the U.S. Open makes my point. Those were two champions out there, both battling to win this prestigious title. That's the pool I still love to watch after all these years.
One little P.S to the above. Look at who Filler and Wu had to beat first in the round of sixteen. None other than the two other favorites to win the Open, Jayson Shaw and Shane Van Boening. If either of these matches had gone the other way, one of those two might be holding the trophy now.
One of the constants has been that no matter the format, no matter how long the races are and no matter what rules they play by, the best players seem to get there in the end. Somehow miraculously, by the time it's down to the final five or six players (maybe ten or twelve is even more accurate) they are all top players. The shortstops just don't get there for one reason or another, and I'm talking about good old lucky 9-Ball here.
There are intangibles in pool that go beyond merely making the balls and playing the right shots. Things like how one holds up under pressure and how they react to various distractions that can hinder or affect their game. Also how their life is going and are they experiencing personal problems that weigh on their minds. Physical health and well being has been touched on already. All these and more factor into the making of a champion and can have a direct affect on who wins and who loses at the end of the day.
The true champions of our sport are the ones who can handle all that life throws at them and still perform at the peak of their capabilities. There are never many in this category in any generation I've been part of. They have a way of separating themselves from the pack. And "the pack" all know who they are! They are the ones who are supposed to win and usually do. When we talk about the favorites to win any major pool tournament it usually comes down to a handful of names.
This is true even at a game with as much luck as 9-Ball is purported to have. Contrary to common thought, there are usually many critical games in a 9-Ball match where precise safeties come into play or an errant kick shot can be costly. Not to mention how often we see a match won or lost due to a well played (or not so well played) jump shot. My experience has been that the best players come with the big shots under pressure and the lesser players falter in the same spots. They both are equally capable of making these shots, but one of them consistently does when the chips are on the line and the other one does not. I hope this helps you to get a grasp of what the difference is between the champions of our sport and the rest of the players and contenders.
The final match of the U.S. Open makes my point. Those were two champions out there, both battling to win this prestigious title. That's the pool I still love to watch after all these years.
One little P.S to the above. Look at who Filler and Wu had to beat first in the round of sixteen. None other than the two other favorites to win the Open, Jayson Shaw and Shane Van Boening. If either of these matches had gone the other way, one of those two might be holding the trophy now.
Last edited:
I've posted the same thought numerous times over the years.
The best example I can offer is that SVB won three Derby City 9-ball titles while they still played races to seven. Even a "Race to 7" format doesn't slow down the true stars of the game.
Similarly, most would also agree that a "Race to 3" is a very short one pocket match, but the short race never slowed down Efren, Alex and the other stars of one pocket.