Discussion on MATCH LENGTH vs SKILL LEVEL for league play

K2Kraze

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Typical match lengths for various 14.1 leagues around the United States (those that I'm aware of) are all loosely based on the player skill level of how many balls (on average) can be made per inning, with a race to either 75, 100, 125 or 150 being the go-to numbers with the better 14.1 players being in the 150 group.

Looking back over 50+ matches in our local league over the past year, all skill level groups are averaging approximately 45 seconds per point total, meaning that in a race to 125, if the winner reaches 125 and the opponent has 115, the total is 240 total points. 240 points at 45 seconds each equals 10,800 seconds or 180 minutes - which is 3 hours exactly. This is the total "match time" from the opening break shot until the winner reached 125 points. On average, this included any bathroom break "pauses". In a typical match race to 150 with the opponent getting to 120, the total time would average 3 hours 23 minutes. Using the same averages, a race to 75 for the first season players would typically run 1 hour and 45 minutes.

HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS:

1) Do higher level players that average twice to three times the balls per inning average (BPI) really need to be racing to 125 and 150 points and taking 3 hours or more for a league match to be considered a fair test between two opponents? Would a race to 100 for all regular season levels be reasonable?

2) What other reasons do you all see to make or keep the race point levels higher as skill levels increase and thus match times longer? Championship and pro-level tournaments are typically 150 for the finals with qualifiers being 100-125. Do we really need 125 and 150 point races to determine the best match player that day, or could races to 100 be as effective?

3) Any other suggestions for match length considerations from experienced straight pool league players or League Directors that would help keep interest and enjoyment high for a season lasting 4 months for all skill levels?

Match lengths pushing beyond 2 hours has been a consistent complaint amongst potential new league players when they ask how much time they would need to allow for play during the month - which led to me wondering if some improvements or changes could be made to future league structuring for all levels of play.

Thanks everyone!

K.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

zencues.com

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
what are you trying to say K2 :D






Typical match lengths for various 14.1 leagues around the United States (those that I'm aware of) are all loosely based on the player skill level of how many balls (on average) can be made per inning, with a race to either 75, 100, 125 or 150 being the go-to numbers with the better 14.1 players being in the 150 group.

Looking back over 50+ matches in our local league over the past year, all skill level groups are averaging approximately 45 seconds per point total, meaning that in a race to 125, if the winner reaches 125 and the opponent has 115, the total is 240 total points. 240 points at 45 seconds each equals 10,800 seconds or 180 minutes - which is 3 hours exactly. This is the total "match time" from the opening break shot until the winner reached 125 points. On average, this included any bathroom break "pauses". In a typical match race to 150 with the opponent getting to 120, the total time would average 3 hours 23 minutes. Using the same averages, a race to 75 for the first season players would typically run 1 hour and 45 minutes.

HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS:

1) Do higher level players that average twice to three times the balls per inning average (BPI) really need to be racing to 125 and 150 points and taking 3 hours or more for a league match to be considered a fair test between two opponents? Would a race to 100 for all regular season levels be reasonable?

2) What other reasons do you all see to make or keep the race point levels higher as skill levels increase and thus match times longer? Championship and pro-level tournaments are typically 150 for the finals with qualifiers being 100-125. Do we really need 125 and 150 point races to determine the best match player that day, or could races to 100 be as effective?

3) Any other suggestions for match length considerations from experienced straight pool league players or League Directors that would help keep interest and enjoyment high for a season lasting 4 months for all skill levels?

Match lengths pushing beyond 2 hours has been a consistent complaint amongst potential new league players when they ask how much time they would need to allow for play during the month - which led to me wondering if some improvements or changes could be made to future league structuring for all levels of play.

Thanks everyone!

K.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

K2Kraze

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hello zencues master ---

I'm throwing out there the question if match lengths of various differences really are necessary for various skill levels like nearly every league has ---- and if 2, 3, 4, and 5+ hour matches are really necessary to tell who is the better player for league play.

Would shorter races be more attractive to NEW players --- would shorter races be an alternative to "traditional" formats - would the best two of three races to 75 or 100 be an option --- etc.

Ideas and thoughts, zen. Ideas and thoughts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Kevin Lindstrom

14.1 Addict
Silver Member
If you have players complaining about match lengths then are they really into playing the game to begin with? My best friend and I are average players at best and most times we play races to 150. Who cares if it takes 1 hour or 3 1/2 hours. We love playing the game the more time we have on the table the better. Our league we have 24 player which has handicaps from 30 point players up to 120 point players and we have never had any complaints about time factors in playing the games. Now I will say that we have one or two guys in this league that play extremely slow and that is frustrating within its self but even when playing these guys the overall length of time playing the game is not a problem.

Thanks

Kevin
 

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Perhaps if the length of matches is a problem you could have a 75 ball match if both players are low level but there are high level players who are slow as a turtle.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
It is possible to set up matches according to the speeds of the players involved, even handicapped matches. It's pretty easy to figure out who takes a long time. Next match, just lower the points some. I think a 14.1 league match should not take longer than two hours.

An alternative for extreme cases is to use a clock, which has been discussed here before.
 

K2Kraze

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hello guys....

Kevin:
Regarding your thought that "if" players are complaining about match lengths then are they really into the game in the first place....I understand what you mean, especially when it comes to play amongst friends where you most likely are discussing the nuances and tactics and strategies of 14.1 or even a football game. I get it. BUT that's not what I'm talking about here Kevin. The part of your reply I DID notice and think you are on the right track understanding what I'm asking, is that you say you have league players from 30 to 120 point levels....and I'll ask this: why don't you have the lowest level players go to 75? Or have the highest level players go to 150 or 250 or 475 since you all love playing the game so much? ;-) Seriously though, the real question is what point level is optimum for a given level of player?

Bob:
I tend to agree that length of matches don't really need to take longer than 2 hours, which could be a new way to regulate match lengths. The same way players now change up style of play or strategies based on how many points they have left to finish could be done with time.

Point levels aren't set by the "official" rules, so the numbers we see are basically being set arbitrarily by someone. I'm asking IF there is a better way --- not to change the game in any way, but discuss what the race "to" should be.

K.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

crazysnake

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've seen skilled rotation players, new to the game, get paralysed by indecision, take 3 plus hours to complete a match. I really think it depends on the field of players you have. If it consists of mainly novice players new to the game then it's important to keep the games short. Personally, having been through this in our straight pool league, I think games to 75 are good.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I realize this won't exactly be the most constructive comment in this thread, but it occurs to me that if these guys are actually racing to a certain number of points, then it wouldn't take very long at all. Straight pool matches are not races. :D
 

K2Kraze

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hello, Dan ~

Not races, huh?

Isn't a "match" basically defined as an event where people or teams compete against each other....as in play? Just play. Anything really. Like a game. As in match up. Anytime two guys get together and "play pool", they are playing a "match". No?

With that being said, if you'd like to get together sometime and play a straight pool game all day and night with no objective or goal (as in a "match") then let me know - I'd even be willing to play you some 14.1 until one of us concedes due to pure fatigue. No sense even keeping score. Another example of a "match". I think. Wager any amount we like, which goes to charity of course. Call that Plan A.

Let's say we come up with another idea: Plan B. "Let's play straight pool by the rules and the first person to reach or score 150 points will be declared the winner." Not based on time or any other achievement but a score....in this case, 150 points. Take 45 minutes or 5 hours. Maybe 3 days if you have trouble figuring a few challenging safety shots...at least we have a goal. Basically, the FIRST person to reach 150 points wins.

Now that's a race, isn't it, Dan?

We're racing to 150.

Plan C could even be something entirely new, like playing 14.1 for 90 minutes with a shot clock and whomever has the highest score at the ninety-minute point not only wins the wager but also (for illustration purposes only) gets $1 per point difference between the players.

Now that's a match

Semantics :) And a night with nothing better to do...
 
Last edited:

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hello, Dan ~

Not races, huh?

Isn't a "match" basically defined as an event where people or teams compete against each other....as in play? Just play. Anything really. Like a game. As in match up. Anytime two guys get together and "play pool", they are playing a "match". No?

With that being said, if you'd like to get together sometime and play a straight pool game all day and night with no objective or goal (as in a "match") then let me know - I'd even be willing to play you some 14.1 until one of us concedes due to pure fatigue. No sense even keeping score. Another example of a "match". I think. Wager any amount we like, which goes to charity of course. Call that Plan A.

Let's say we come up with another idea: Plan B. "Let's play straight pool by the rules and the first person to reach or score 150 points will be declared the winner." Not based on time or any other achievement but a score....in this case, 150 points. Take 45 minutes or 5 hours. Maybe 3 days if you have trouble figuring a few challenging safety shots...at least we have a goal. Basically, the FIRST person to reach 150 points wins.

Now that's a race, isn't it, Dan?

We're racing to 150.

Plan C could even be something entirely new, like playing 14.1 for 90 minutes with a shot clock and whomever has the highest score at the ninety-minute point not only wins the wager but also (for illustration purposes only) gets $1 per point difference between the players.

Now that's a match

Semantics :) And a night with nothing better to do...

Yeah, I just wasted my evening posting in another thead... don't ask.

Here's where your logic fails: A match is defined, as you say, "as an event where people or teams compete against each other." However, "compete" is defined as "strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same." That is not "play" so your analogy breaks down there.

As far as I know the word race came into use in 9 ball to signify the number of games needed to win the competition. It has nothing to do with the number of balls pocketed. "I'll race you to 10 games." How does this even remotely compare to score keeping in straight pool? "I'll race you to 150 points." Huh? I guess since it is a race it won't take too long.

"Racing" in straight pool is what happens when 9 ball players decide to start sponsoring straight pool tournaments. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are doing it, I just wish they would keep the 9 ball terminology to the 9 ball tournaments.

OK, Stu, let me have it! :)
 

dmgwalsh

Straight Pool Fanatic
Silver Member
I've seen skilled rotation players, new to the game, get paralysed by indecision, take 3 plus hours to complete a match. I really think it depends on the field of players you have. If it consists of mainly novice players new to the game then it's important to keep the games short. Personally, having been through this in our straight pool league, I think games to 75 are good.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

My two cents.

We play matches to 125 in our league. Probably too long. There have been 4 or 5 hour matches. My match last night went 2 hours and 45 minutes and was 125-77.

I took 25 seconds per shot which is pretty long for me. I am usually around 20.

My opponent averaged 35 seconds a shot. Some people average over 40.

We have tried to put a time limit on matches, which ends up making some people mad. We've threatened to put a shot clock on some games but rarely do. Probably lowering the match to 100 would be a good idea.

By the way, Pat Fleming always makes sure we refer to the game as a match and not a race. I defer to his experience.
 

Double-Dave

Developing cue-addict
Silver Member
It is my opinion that a match length that on average takes 60-90
minutes is long enough to determine who is the best player in
that match. Depending on the level of the players that would usually
be between 75 and 125 points.

I also know of certain (mostly lower level) leagues that let each player
shoot a fixed number of innings, this really helps in knowing in advance
how long a match is going to take. 25 innings is a good start.

Regards, Dave
 

K2Kraze

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well, Dan, thanks for your thoughts and constructive input, sir.

If I send you a dinner invite, you'd surely decline thinking you just had dinner at 12 noon. I should have said supper

K.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RobMan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Our 14.1 league has a target of 2 hours for match time. We do this by calculating a handicap based upon a multiplier of our 5 high run average - that is the five high runs of each match. Our handicaps range from 55 balls to 160 balls; with the 9 of the 13 players being 70 to 90. It is also important to understand that most of our league does not have high runs above the teens. Our highest run was in the low 50's last season, with the next being in the 20's. The runs would probably be higher if the corner pockets weren't gaffed when shimmed a year ago.... but that would be complaining! :)

I went and looked at my last 10 matches; they ranged from a low of 1' 47" to a high of 2' 58" with the average match being 2' 17".

I play as a 115, and my longest matches have been against the 120 and the 160.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well, Dan, thanks for your thoughts and constructive input, sir.

If I send you a dinner invite, you'd surely decline thinking you just had dinner at 12 noon. I should have said supper

K.

Thanks anyway... burp.
 

Pushout

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well, Dan, thanks for your thoughts and constructive input, sir.

If I send you a dinner invite, you'd surely decline thinking you just had dinner at 12 noon. I should have said supper

K.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Race" is a term never associated with Straight Pool until, like Dan says, 9 ball players got into promoting and playing the game. The term only ever applied to 9 ball and other short rack games. Straight Pool most assuredly is NOT a race. A race indicates a match or set of games in which the winning total is reached by one player the fastest. It you play Straight Pool you know the term does not apply to games that take as long as some 14.1 games to play.
 
Top