1200 or 150?

[L.S. Dennis]

Should we go back to the old 1200 point matches or stay with the 150 model?
It seems like to 150 and out has become a little too frequent in modern times possible because of the modern equipment these days.
Just wondering,,,

 

[garczar]

Should we go back to the old 1200 point matches or stay with the 150 model?
It seems like to 150 and out has become a little too frequent in modern times possible because of the modern equipment these days.
Just wondering,,,

Huh?????????????????? I assume you're talking 14.1??? When did 150 become 'a little too frequent'?? When was the last time a 1200pt. match was played? 1920's maybe? Those were multi-day matches. Those days are gone forever. With modern tight table 14.1 is TOUGH. High tournament run is 200 by Appleton iirc.

 

[measureman]

Huh??????????????????

the poster is talking about straight pool.
I think 1200 points for the final game to win the event is a true test of skill.

 

[middleofnowhere]

Should we go back to the old 1200 point matches or stay with the 150 model?
It seems like to 150 and out has become a little too frequent in modern times possible because of the modern equipment these days.
Just wondering,,,

2 out of 3 or 3 out of 5 games is better. In one long game ,same with 9 ball, a player can find themselves out of the game if one player gets off to an insurmountable lead. If you play say 2 out of 3 150 point games. If one game is a blow out the player behind gets a fresh start in game 2.
Kind of like a stumble in a horse race. Once behind it may be impossible to catch up. It is also very boring for the spectators if one player gets too far ahead in just one game.

To change the subject from 14.1 to 9 ball. 2 out of 3 sets with the player having to win by 2 makes for a very challenging match. There should never be a double hill.

 

[MitchAlsup]

There should never be a double hill.

There can be double hills all the time--but the winner of the next game does not end up deciding the whole contest.

 

[maha]

same as golf if it is a tie with only one game to play then that last game is exciting to watch. thats what its all about.
if you want the absolute best player to win every time just make the sets long enough and ruin the game completely.

 

[L.S. Dennis]

Huh?????????????????? I assume you're talking 14.1??? When did 150 become 'a little too frequent'?? When was the last time a 1200pt. match was played? 1920's maybe? Those were multi-day matches. Those days are gone forever. With modern tight table 14.1 is TOUGH. High tournament run is 200 by Appleton iirc.

Well of course we’re talking about 14.1 did you think I was referring to one pocket? this question was promoted by something Babe Cranfield said which was:

” In 1964 World Championship tourney, I came in second to Luther Lassiter. After I placed second my wife Ruth told me that she had never seen me take a loss to well. She was expecting me to be more disappointed and upset given the circumstances. I told her I had learned enough about Lassiter to know that he was a phenomenal shot maker and was an extremely tough SHORT-GAME straight pool player. I also knew however that I would beat him if we played a long enough game.
Apparently, that was accurate, since I won the title from Lassiter 1,200-730, in a challenge match later that year,”

 

[hang-the-9]

Should we go back to the old 1200 point matches or stay with the 150 model?
It seems like to 150 and out has become a little too frequent in modern times possible because of the modern equipment these days.
Just wondering,,,

Same thing can be said for 9 and 10 ball where the races went from 13 or 15 for events to 7 or 9.

Would be a bit tough on the events to have to play that many racks unless you are talking about the finals or some challenge match.

 

[Texas Carom Club]

whos running 150 and outs, not one of the accu stats vids uploaded has a runout that ive seen anyways. modern and older equipment.

1200 pts? no thank you.

 

[The_JV]

150 seems short to me, but 1200 is potentially going to make for a very long day.

If I had the power, I'd probably seed the tournament based on fargo, and teir the races based on the position in the bracket. Early rounds, and loser's side 150. Round of 32, say 200, 16 = 250, quarters = 300, semis = 350, finals = 400.

You really do need to thin the herd quickly, and anyone that's played in a tournament with more than 16 entrants can attest to. The loser's side takes forever...

That said, I'm a fan of long races in any game.

 

[The_JV]

2 out of 3 or 3 out of 5 games is better. In one long game ,same with 9 ball, a player can find themselves out of the game if one player gets off to an unsurmountable lead. If you play say 2 out of 3 150 point games. If one game is a blow out the player behind gets a fresh start in game 2.

That's exactly why I don't like the idea. In mulitple set matches, players have the option to shut it down and take a mental break if that particular inning seems out of reach.

 

[sjm]

Are you kidding? Most pros have run not 150 and out even once in their competitive careers, including some current and future hall of famers.

Even more incredible is the suggestion that competitive straight pool is contested more than occasionally. The top straight poolers almost never hook up with each other for a match. At Derby City, for every straight pool match in the action room, there are 100 in 9/10 ball and another 100 in one pocket or banks.

As has been noted so often in the 14.1 forum, straight pool has, much to our chagrin, become a practice game, and the game continues to march on a path of increasing obscurity.

Calling for reform in competitive straight pool is like calling for reform in the manufacture of horse-and-buggy ensembles. What's the point?

I recall when Mika and Earl had a 300 point final in the Dragon World 14.1 event (I'm guessing about six years ago) and thinking it was way too long and virtually unwatchable. For a major event final, anything beyond a 200 point match is excessive.

 

[The_JV]

Calling for reform in competitive straight pool is like calling for reform in the manufacture of horse-and-buggy ensembles. What's the point?

Really funny and sad all in the same moment....

 

[L.S. Dennis]

Same thing can be said for 9 and 10 ball where the races went from 13 or 15 for events to 7 or 9.

Would be a bit tough on the events to have to play that many racks unless you are talking about the finals or some challenge match.

This type of competition would of course have to take place over more than one day. I’m not quite sure how the old timers did it, maybe set some king of ball limit per day.

 

[alstl]

At DCC there are some 150's run - or were when they still had the 14.1 event - but there are far more failed attempts than 150's. To me the championship finals should be 150.

Two guys matching up then 1000 makes sense but not for a tournament.

 

[briankenobi]

At DCC there are some 150's run - or were when they still had the 14.1 event - but there are far more failed attempts than 150's. To me the championship finals should be 150.

Two guys matching up then 1000 makes sense but not for a tournament.

There were some 150's in the high run portion of it but no player did 150 and out in a match that I can recall.

 

[middleofnowhere]

There can be double hills all the time--but the winner of the next game does not end up deciding the whole contest.

You know what I mean, not one game for the whole thing. I saw Sigal and Hall play like that. It went to 25 23. They both kept getting on the hill till someone finally won. It was one of the most exciting match I ever saw . If you know either of them ask them about it.

 

[middleofnowhere]

150 seems short to me, but 1200 is potentially going to make for a very long day.

If I had the power, I'd probably seed the tournament based on fargo, and teir the races based on the position in the bracket. Early rounds, and loser's side 150. Round of 32, say 200, 16 = 250, quarters = 300, semis = 350, finals = 400.

You really do need to thin the herd quickly, and anyone that's played in a tournament with more than 16 entrants can attest to. The loser's side takes forever...

That said, I'm a fan of long races in any game.

That can be eliminated by playing multiple sets, say race to 9, 2 out of 3. Single elimination. After each round half the field is gone. You can modify this at like the last 8 or 4 and redraw and play double elimination to a winner. There is many ways to format a tournament, It is not set in stone.

 

[AtLarge]

... I recall when Mika and Earl had a 300 point final in the Dragon World 14.1 event (I'm guessing about six years ago) and thinking it was way too long and virtually unwatchable. For a major event final, anything beyond a 200 point match is excessive.

That Immonen/Strickland match was in 2016, which was the second year in which the World event finals went to 300. The match lasted 5 3/4 hours. Interestingly, the finals match the previous year (Hohmann d. Appleton) also went about 5 3/4 hours. The lengths of the most recent 3 finals (all to 300 points) were about 4 1/2 hours (2017), 5 hours (2018), and 4 1/4 hours (2019).

So far the American Straight Pool Championship hasn't gone beyond 200 points for the final match. In fact, they cut back from 200 in 2018 to 175 in 2019. And with Chinakhov running 99 and 76, that 2019 match was over in 77 minutes.

 

[middleofnowhere]

That's exactly why I don't like the idea. In mulitple set matches, players have the option to shut it down and take a mental break if that particular inning seems out of reach.

They do it anyway. Watch a guy behind 9 to 2 in a race to 11. He will just give up and the audience knows it and lose interest as well.