1200 or 150?

Hell no 1000%! We should not make the straight pool games longer. Or 9/10 ball sets longer for that matter.

Pool should NOT be designed so that the best player wins. Pool should be designed so that its entertaining for the viewer to watch. That is the only way to grow the sport. What makes a match entertaining is the prospect of the underdog to win. Or, the player currently behind to make a comeback. Get these 1200 point matches out of your head. Or races to 100 in 9/10 ball. Boring, boring, boring. Will never, ever grow the sport.
 
briankenobi said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are probably correct and for every 150 in the high run portion there were a bunch of shorter runs. Dennis posted a list once of the runs and there were plenty that didn't get through the first rack.

I like 150 because it is within reach and can punish a player who shoots in the air and leaves an open table for his opponent.
 
middleofnowhere said:
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.
Click to expand...
...and that's his choice if he doesn't want to progress deeper into the tournament. However what you're suggesting allows 'mental breaks' by shutting down within a single set within a round of the tournament, if the player believes it's out of reach.

I've seen this argument before. I simply don't agree with the notion of multi-set matches. Just greater opprotunity for the weaker player to win. Which really isn't the point of a tournament imo....
 
iusedtoberich said:
Pool should NOT be designed so that the best player wins. Pool should be designed so that its entertaining for the viewer to watch. That is the only way to grow the sport. What makes a match entertaining is the prospect of the underdog to win. Or, the player currently behind to make a comeback. Get these 1200 point matches out of your head. Or races to 100 in 9/10 ball. Boring, boring, boring. Will never, ever grow the sport.
Click to expand...
To each their own I suppose. I don't agree with hurting the stronger player's changes merely because they are the stronger player.

What if after ever 10 sets in a race to 100 we get to objectify some beautiful people the parade the score around the table. Would that keep your interest up...? ;)
 
The_JV said:
Really funny and sad all in the same moment....
Click to expand...

The_JV said:
...and that's his choice if he doesn't want to progress deeper into the tournament. However what you're suggesting allows 'mental breaks' by shutting down within a single set within a round of the tournament, if the player believes it's out of reach.

I've seen this argument before. I simply don't agree with the notion of multi-set matches. Just greater opprotunity for the weaker player to win. Which really isn't the point of a tournament imo....
Click to expand...
Playing 2 out of 3 sets would not favor a weaker player. In fact the best chance a weaker player has is to get lucky and get a big jump on the better player. In multiple sets that is neutralized. No way the weaker player has an advantage 2 out of 3 sets.
 
briankenobi said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that involved 4 tables going non-stop for about 16 hours a day for about four days of qualifying, and even then, some who wanted to try to qualify didn't get to try as the tables were going at full capacity.

At six attempts per hour per table (my best wild guess), that's 24 attempts per hour and 384 attempts per day, for a total of over 1,500 qualifying attempts at a typical Derby. Yes, give the world's top players 1,500 innings in which they can start each inning with a hand set up break shot, and you'll see some long runs. In a typical year, you needed about 130 to make the top eight, which advanced you to the single elimination stage.

In competition, however, runs of 150 or better are super rare. I've been to about a dozen world 14.1 events, and I usually attended every day, and I've been on hand for just six such runs (Sigel, Souquet, Hohmann, Archer, Kempter, Stalev).
 
Again, nobody is going to sit through hours and hours of a straight pool match in a single day. It is for this reason that I‘d like it spread over a two or three finals. I brought this up after having read what Babe Cranfield said in one of the aforementioned quotes.

I guess I’m just one of the old buzzards who still like this game I’m well aware that I’m the exception and not the rule!
 
i used to be rich, might be the only one around here that understands what it takes. everyone else thinks pool should be tailored to their personal interests.
it is a show for the viewers and to make money you need lots of viewers so that is the crowd needed to be catered to.

the pool players will never pay enough entry fees for viewing or spend enough at the casinos or event to make it worthwhile for a promoter that doesnt have altruistic motives.
 
maha said:
i used to be rich, might be the only one around here that understands what it takes. everyone else thinks pool should be tailored to their personal interests.
it is a show for the viewers and to make money you need lots of viewers so that is the crowd needed to be catered to.

the pool players will never pay enough entry fees for viewing or spend enough at the casinos or event to make it worthwhile for a promoter that doesnt have altruistic motives.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this thought. so, in my mind, the only way to bring back 14.1 as a much more frequent event that spectators MIGHT begin to take a greater interest would be to change the format of the game to something like 75 point matches with a limit of 3 safeties per player after the opening break. Any other obvious attempts to play a safe and not a called ball would be ruled a foul by the referee, three fouls in a row are loss of game.

Of course this makes the game almost 100% offense - and it would have no comparison to historic record books regarding 14.1 play. However, among pro players the games would move very fast and spectators would constantly be watching balls being run - As a 14.1 purist I don't like the idea- but if it helps save the game in some form or another; and can attract a much wider audience, I would vote for it.

One still has to know how to set up key balls, break balls etc to run 75 balls on an opponent. I would bet the majority of 150 point 14.1 pro competitive matches are about even money or less to see a 75 ball run anyhow.

If this were adopted- I would make the final match in each tournament a traditional 150 point 14.1 format- to keep the history books alive!
 
I remember Nick Varner proposing something similar to speed up the game. His idea was to have ball in hand like in nine ball after a safety foul or something to that effect.

I like the idea of keeping the original rules for the final as indicated in the above post.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Hell no 1000%! We should not make the straight pool games longer. Or 9/10 ball sets longer for that matter.

Pool should NOT be designed so that the best player wins. Pool should be designed so that its entertaining for the viewer to watch. That is the only way to grow the sport. What makes a match entertaining is the prospect of the underdog to win. Or, the player currently behind to make a comeback. Get these 1200 point matches out of your head. Or races to 100 in 9/10 ball. Boring, boring, boring. Will never, ever grow the sport.
Click to expand...
Bingo. The cream will rise to the top anyway, maybe not today or even this week, but over a pool year the exact same people will be successful regardless of format and match length.

For example, anyone who thinks Shane needs long races to succeed needs to be reminded that, if memory serves, he won three of his five Derby City 9-ball events in a race to seven format.
 
middleofnowhere said:
Playing 2 out of 3 sets would not favor a weaker player. In fact the best chance a weaker player has is to get lucky and get a big jump on the better player. In multiple sets that is neutralized. No way the weaker player has an advantage 2 out of 3 sets.
Click to expand...
It's actually the complete opposite of what you're saying. Although you're right that the best chance a weaker player has is to get a jump on the stronger opponent. However that "big jump" is a drip in the bucket of a single long race. A drip in much shorter set might result in a win.

Two drips in a race a to say 21..., meh. One drip in a race to 7, and then you have a advantage. Play best 2 of 3, race to seven and manage a couple drips, and the weaker player has a good shot at winning. In the single long race the odds are strongly against them.

Not meaning to be a jackass about it, but I'm surprised this needs explaining.

Like a lot of members here, I've been playing a long time. Not once have I ever heard a weaker player negoitate for a single long race as a means to increase their odds of winning.
 
Last edited:
mikemosconi said:
I would agree with this thought. so, in my mind, the only way to bring back 14.1 as a much more frequent event that spectators MIGHT begin to take a greater interest would be to change the format of the game to something like 75 point matches with a limit of 3 safeties per player after the opening break. Any other obvious attempts to play a safe and not a called ball would be ruled a foul by the referee, three fouls in a row are loss of game.

Of course this makes the game almost 100% offense - and it would have no comparison to historic record books regarding 14.1 play. However, among pro players the games would move very fast and spectators would constantly be watching balls being run - As a 14.1 purist I don't like the idea- but if it helps save the game in some form or another; and can attract a much wider audience, I would vote for it.

One still has to know how to set up key balls, break balls etc to run 75 balls on an opponent. I would bet the majority of 150 point 14.1 pro competitive matches are about even money or less to see a 75 ball run anyhow.

If this were adopted- I would make the final match in each tournament a traditional 150 point 14.1 format- to keep the history books alive!
Click to expand...
10 second shot clock...?
 
L.S. Dennis said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is information out there at the time where straight pool was the game and where the national and world champions were determined by long extended sets. Unless something like that comes back, having a long points race is not really useful or practical.
 
The_JV said:
10 second shot clock...?
Click to expand...
I think the shot clock for this type of 14.1 format would need to be a bit longer simply because in limiting safety play there will undoubtedly have to be more shots where the players will be analyzing fuller racks for some type of bank or combo out of the rack - so maybe a shot clock and 2 or 3 one minute time outs per player per match. But, yes, agreed on also adding time limits during the match.

BTW- the reason I chose 3 legal safety plays per player ( outside of the opening break) is that, if the opening break is performed well, resulting in a safety battle, then the breaker will get the last opportunity to play a legal safety prior to the incoming player having to call a shot. So the opening break becomes critical and might very well be a strong advantage to a skilled 14.1 opening breaker.

A lot of early drama in this 14.1 format-" Will the incoming player use up their third safety knowing they will probably have to shoot at a flyer next turn ; or will they save their last safety play and go for something on their third turn at the table! So the brief early safety play in this 14.1 format is actually very exciting for the fan- as with pro players- probably decides the match on many occasions! From there on out- the game is all offense for the fans to also enjoy :) :)
 
Last edited:
mikemosconi said:
I think the shot clock for this type of 14.1 format would need to be a bit longer simply because in limiting safety play there will undoubtedly have to be more shots where the players will be analyzing fuller racks for some type of bank or combo out of the rack - so maybe a shot clock and 2 or 3 one minute time outs per player per match. But, yes, agreed on also adding time limits during the match.

BTW- the reason I chose 3 legal safety plays per player ( outside of the opening break) is that, if the opening break is performed well, resulting in a safety battle, then the breaker will get the last opportunity to play a legal safety prior to the incoming player having to call a shot. So the opening break becomes critical and might very well be a strong advantage to a skilled 14.1 opening breaker.

A lot of early drama in this 14.1 format-" Will the incoming player use up their third safety knowing they will probably have to shoot at a flyer next turn ; or will they save their last safety play and go for something on their third turn at the table! So the brief early safety play in this 14.1 format is actually very exciting for the fan- as with pro players- probably decides the match on many occasions! From there on out- the game is all offense for the fans to also enjoy :) :)
Click to expand...
I wouldn't bother limiting safety play but employ the 10sec clock.

Something else which might entice offence is a match clock. I was skimming Youtube vids this morning and they have some version of snooker match play wherein they have a 10 sec shot clock, and a frame duration clock as well. So not only do the players need to perform a quick pace, but if the frame isn't concluded by the time the frame clock expires, the player with the highest score wins.

Not sure how well that would work in 14.1, but in combination with shorter score / multi-game matches, it might be interesting
 
Absolutely agree about shot clock, for all the games and not just 14.1. Earl of course wouldn’t need to worry about this,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top