14.1 Championships in New Brunswick, NJ

[Williebetmore]

.....That being said I think we all should respect Randy and DP decision because they are already putting this show on for little or zero reward, the last thing we should do is add to their headaches. I'd rather have a world 14.1 event with no filming than nothing at all...

TheSingle,
Well said. I will say, though, that any footage of any quality would be welcomed by the 14.1 fanatics. I also think that such footage would not in any way diminish the quality of the event, nor add to the debt burden of the organizers.

Even a "home movie" of the event would be a public service to the rather small 14.1 community. I certainly agree with RG that the market for any type of video is very small; but if it can be done at no cost to the organizers, and if the organizers would share in any profits; I fail to see any downside.

In addition, I desperately would like to see all major 14.1 events documented on film/tape/digital media. No footage exists (to my knowledge) of Caras, Crane, Mosconi, Greenleaf, Ponzi in their prime. When the future arguments about "who was better, Mosconi or Riley?" begin; I would like to have some visual proof.

 

[TheOne]

TheSingle,
Well said. I will say, though, that any footage of any quality would be welcomed by the 14.1 fanatics. I also think that such footage would not in any way diminish the quality of the event, nor add to the debt burden of the organizers.

Even a "home movie" of the event would be a public service to the rather small 14.1 community. I certainly agree with RG that the market for any type of video is very small; but if it can be done at no cost to the organizers, and if the organizers would share in any profits; I fail to see any downside.

In addition, I desperately would like to see all major 14.1 events documented on film/tape/digital media. No footage exists (to my knowledge) of Caras, Crane, Mosconi, Greenleaf, Ponzi in their prime. When the future arguments about "who was better, Mosconi or Riley?" begin; I would like to have some visual proof.

Haha I better get in quick before I mocked to death lol!

As a photo/video fanatic I really don't like the idea of these events not being documented for the future. Hopefully something can happen which won't cause too many headaches.

You going to get parole from the trouble and strife(wife) this year Willie?

 

[Williebetmore]

Haha I better get in quick before I mocked to death lol!

As a photo/video fanatic I really don't like the idea of these events not being documented for the future. Hopefully something can happen which won't cause too many headaches.

You going to get parole from the trouble and strife(wife) this year Willie?

TheThirteenthofaBaker'sDozen,
I'm still hoping I can attend. It looks like I may get dragged to Las Vegas in May for a pool-related event; which would make my attendance in July somewhat less likely. We'll see. Good luck in the event.

 

[VKJ]

To those putting on this great event:

First off, a big thank you for doing it! I was at last years event and loved it. Long live 14.1!
One request, please set up some type of score keeping so the audience not only can see it but so we also know how many balls a player is running.

Thanks again for all your efforts.

 

[Njhustler1]

I have not attended...yet. So I'm curious how they keep score now. I agree some system where the spectators could see the score too would be wonderful.

But in regards to the players, how is the match tracked? Do they use dials on the rails? Do they use beads? Is there an official scorekeeper sitting by the table writing it down?

 

[Steve Lipsky]

I have not attended...yet. So I'm curious how they keep score now. I agree some system where the spectators could see the score too would be wonderful.

But in regards to the players, how is the match tracked? Do they use dials on the rails? Do they use beads? Is there an official scorekeeper sitting by the table writing it down?

NJ,

The scoring was a mess. And it had nothing to do with the tournament officials. This was going to happen no matter what, as it became evident early in the round-robin format that the Europeans just keep score "differently". ("Differently" meaning insanely.)

All kidding aside, since the score was being done on paper (in addition to the rolodex-type sheets for the fans), the players had to write their scores down themselves. When there was a miss or a safe in the middle of a rack, I swear I am not kidding, the Europeans would write down how many balls were left on the table, not how many they made. Of course, they never told us this, and in some cases the language barrier made it difficult to get to the root of the problem.

Additionally, if they missed in the middle of a rack, they would also update their TOTAL score right after the miss. This might be the way it is done with a referee, but not without one. I never knew when they were updating their total scores with their rack scores.

It was really kind of crazy. Any European 14.1 players out there, can you let me know if this is indeed how the game is scored overseas? Or was I just unlucky with who I played?

- Steve

 

[Nostroke]

TheSingle,
Well said. I will say, though, that any footage of any quality would be welcomed by the 14.1 fanatics. I also think that such footage would not in any way diminish the quality of the event, nor add to the debt burden of the organizers.

Even a "home movie" of the event would be a public service to the rather small 14.1 community. I certainly agree with RG that the market for any type of video is very small; but if it can be done at no cost to the organizers, and if the organizers would share in any profits; I fail to see any downside.

In addition, I desperately would like to see all major 14.1 events documented on film/tape/digital media. No footage exists (to my knowledge) of Caras, Crane, Mosconi, Greenleaf, Ponzi in their prime. When the future arguments about "who was better, Mosconi or Riley?" begin; I would like to have some visual proof.

I say invite Jorge Torres from Pro Pool Video and let him do the last 4. If someone wants to buy the rights later and add commentary and sell DVD's , fine, but otherwise we will at least have them on the web to view.

 

[TheOne]

NJ,

The scoring was a mess. And it had nothing to do with the tournament officials. This was going to happen no matter what, as it became evident early in the round-robin format that the Europeans just keep score "differently". ("Differently" meaning insanely.)

All kidding aside, since the score was being done on paper (in addition to the rolodex-type sheets for the fans), the players had to write their scores down themselves. When there was a miss or a safe in the middle of a rack, I swear I am not kidding, the Europeans would write down how many balls were left on the table, not how many they made. Of course, they never told us this, and in some cases the language barrier made it difficult to get to the root of the problem.

Additionally, if they missed in the middle of a rack, they would also update their TOTAL score right after the miss. This might be the way it is done with a referee, but not without one. I never knew when they were updating their total scores with their rack scores.

It was really kind of crazy. Any European 14.1 players out there, can you let me know if this is indeed how the game is scored overseas? Or was I just unlucky with who I played?

- Steve

I think u was unlucky!

 

[mjantti]

NJ,

The scoring was a mess. And it had nothing to do with the tournament officials. This was going to happen no matter what, as it became evident early in the round-robin format that the Europeans just keep score "differently". ("Differently" meaning insanely.)

All kidding aside, since the score was being done on paper (in addition to the rolodex-type sheets for the fans), the players had to write their scores down themselves. When there was a miss or a safe in the middle of a rack, I swear I am not kidding, the Europeans would write down how many balls were left on the table, not how many they made. Of course, they never told us this, and in some cases the language barrier made it difficult to get to the root of the problem.

Additionally, if they missed in the middle of a rack, they would also update their TOTAL score right after the miss. This might be the way it is done with a referee, but not without one. I never knew when they were updating their total scores with their rack scores.

It was really kind of crazy. Any European 14.1 players out there, can you let me know if this is indeed how the game is scored overseas? Or was I just unlucky with who I played?

- Steve

Hey Steve !

Hmm, you mean that you keep the score by counting the balls made like 1, 2, 3, 4, .... for yourself or for your opponent ? Is that the way to do it outside Europe, in America for instance ? Counting ball by ball seems way to tedious to me (or my opponent) and I'd say it's easy to make a mistake. Both with referee and without a referee. I don't see a reason why my opponent would need to count balls one by one when I'm at the table when there's a much easier solution to that how to keep score without the constant need of attention. Errors are bound to happen with ball-by-ball counting especially if you make a couple of balls from the break and the counter misses them completely.

In Europe we always mark the paper or the table counter with three different figures: table, score for player 1 and score for player 2. "Table" contains the amount of balls when a new inning starts, let's say there are 10 balls at the table when player 1 comes in. You put "10" on "table" which says there were 10 balls when player 1 inning started. After that you don't need to count any balls, just count the balls when player 1's inning is over. If player 1 runs more than 9 balls on this specific occasion, table figure is added 14 everytime 14 balls are added to the table ie. the rack is made. So the "table" would say 24 after the first rack. This is easy enough that the shooter can do it between racks. And after the inning is over, lets say player 1 misses at 4th rack with 7 balls remaining, his score would be the table (10+14+14+14 = 52) minus the 7 balls remaining = 45.

If I'd be in a match without a referee and my opponent would ask me to count the balls one by one, I'd tell him he must be joking. Why count ball by ball when you can do the counting with simple addition/deduction math ? Why would I trust my opponent's counting ?

Sorry that I sound so negative here, but I must miss something here or is it really that way, that straight pool is played somewhere with the opponent/shooter counting the balls one by one ? I know in the good ol' days the table referee would announce the run after each shot. I'm probably as stunned as Steve here

Btw, Michael Felder is a really funny and approachable guy! Talked with him many times at the EPC and we were instantly cracking jokes !

 

[marknyc]

I remember sitting tableside for the match between Danny Harriman and Ralf Souquet. Danny and Ralf definitely had an interesting conversation on what the proper method of score keeping was supposed to be.

I think Danny's comments were to the effect of, "Well, that may be the way YOU do it, but..."

 

[Steve Lipsky]

Hey Steve !

Hmm, you mean that you keep the score by counting the balls made like 1, 2, 3, 4, ....

Hey Mr. Jantti! No, I surely didn't mean counting ball by ball... that would be tedious as hell.

In Europe we always mark the paper or the table counter with three different figures: table, score for player 1 and score for player 2. "Table" contains the amount of balls when a new inning starts, let's say there are 10 balls at the table when player 1 comes in. You put "10" on "table" which says there were 10 balls when player 1 inning started. After that you don't need to count any balls, just count the balls when player 1's inning is over. If player 1 runs more than 9 balls on this specific occasion, table figure is added 14 everytime 14 balls are added to the table ie. the rack is made. So the "table" would say 24 after the first rack. This is easy enough that the shooter can do it between racks. And after the inning is over, lets say player 1 misses at 4th rack with 7 balls remaining, his score would be the table (10+14+14+14 = 52) minus the 7 balls remaining = 45.

See Craig Riley, I wasn't unlucky! Europeans really are insane!

Mikko, I really do mean this in a lighthearted way, but isn't your way more confusing than just simply counting the balls you've made? Not one by one, but by looking at the table and seeing how many aren't there anymore.

The American way of counting would be: let's say I miss with the same 10 balls on the table as in your example. That means I've made 5, so I put 5 on my rack score. If you finish the rack, you put 9 on your rack score and then together we add these to our total scores, resetting the rack scores to 0. Total scores are always updated only at the end of a rack, never in the middle (except to deduct points for fouls).

How can the European method be used when you are using either beads or the table counters? I can see it working on paper, but that's about it.

Btw, thank you for vindicating me! Hopefully people on the board can now see why the scoring was a mess, lol. Americans had never seen another method, and I'm sure neither had the Europeans. They both just assumed everyone was using the same method, and with a language barrier, it was really crazy.

I also just realized the European method counts the break ball as a ball in the previous rack. Americans count it as a ball in the current rack. In Mikko's example above, he says if there are 10 balls left on the table and a player goes on a run, he gets credited with all 10 from that first rack. In America, he'd only get credited with 9. Jeez, now that I'm thinking of it, what would happen if you gave him credit for all 10 and then he misses the break ball? This is very confusing.

- Steve

 

[TheOne]

Hey Mr. Jantti! No, I surely didn't mean counting ball by ball... that would be tedious as hell.



See Craig Riley, I wasn't unlucky! Europeans really are insane!

hehe u was unlucky that u didnt play me, Im just a 14.1 virgin but I like your way. From what I remember that's how I scored it but then I never got the "European way" drilled into me as I'd never played it before in Europe.

One things for sure, life sure would be easy if we had refs to score. The scoring DEFINATELY affected players performance.

 

[mjantti]

The American way of counting would be: let's say I miss with the same 10 balls on the table as in your example. That means I've made 5, so I put 5 on my rack score. If you finish the rack, you put 9 on your rack score and then together we add these to our total scores, resetting the rack scores to 0. Total scores are always updated only at the end of a rack, never in the middle (except to deduct points for fouls).

How can the European method be used when you are using either beads or the table counters? I can see it working on paper, but that's about it.

Btw, thank you for vindicating me! Hopefully people on the board can now see why the scoring was a mess, lol. Americans had never seen another method, and I'm sure neither had the Europeans. They both just assumed everyone was using the same method, and with a language barrier, it was really crazy.

I also just realized the European method counts the break ball as a ball in the previous rack. Americans count it as a ball in the current rack. In Mikko's example above, he says if there are 10 balls left on the table and a player goes on a run, he gets credited with all 10 from that first rack. In America, he'd only get credited with 9. Jeez, now that I'm thinking of it, what would happen if you gave him credit for all 10 and then he misses the break ball? This is very confusing.

- Steve

Steve, I get you. As much as I can with my insane mind... But as Europeans are used to running dozens of racks all the time (ahem), you don't need to update the score, just add 14 to the "table". I admit it's not good for the audience because we update the score only after the inning is over. The good part is that you know your current run all the time. Tell me how you tell if player has run like 10 racks and then misses, what was his total run ? You have to remember what was the score when he started his inning ? With table counters the European system always tells everything, the run and the score can be easily calculated.

If there is 10 balls on the table, when the player reaches the break ball, the table now says 24 and if he misses the break ball, his run in 24 (table) -15 (balls on the table) = 9. See ? Don't fight the system, just adapt...

 

[justnum]

For a nominal fee a hired mathematician can apply the techniques and proven methods of counting to solve your dilemma.

The problem does seem more in the communication barrier. With an explicit method detailing how to keep score it will eliminate communication issues because the idea will be so natural.

As foundational as counting is it does have inherent problems when used imprecisely.

 

[justnum]

Come on people this is my stock in trade. I also have straight pool league experience and understand the difficulties in the American counting system.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Hey Mr. Jantti! No, I surely didn't mean counting ball by ball... that would be tedious as hell....

That's why the referees are paid the big bucks. I did a week of "seven ball ... 82 .... fifteen ball ... 83 ... three ball ... 84 ... Mr. Balsis on a run of 84 (as I racked)." 24 matches in eight days.

 

[Bill O]

That's why the referees are paid the big bucks. I did a week of "seven ball ... 82 .... fifteen ball ... 83 ... three ball ... 84 ... Mr. Balsis on a run of 84 (as I racked)." 24 matches in eight days.

That cadence is music to my ears, brings back memories of tournaments back in the day. Come to think of it I don't remember hearing the balls called out at Roseland or Amsterdamn when 14.1 tournaments were held there.

 

[Steve Lipsky]

The good part is that you know your current run all the time. Tell me how you tell if player has run like 10 racks and then misses, what was his total run? You have to remember what was the score when he started his inning?

Hey Mikko. This is a totally valid point. With standard counters, the American system is difficult to tally your total run. But a lot of 14.1 in America is scored with overhead beads, which makes it easy. You can put a little space between the beads at the start of your new inning. When your inning ends, you push them all flush (except for your current rack score, which must remain separated until the end of the rack so your opponent can properly score his run).

- Steve

 

[TheOne]

Hey Mikko. This is a totally valid point. With standard counters, the American system is difficult to tally your total run. But a lot of 14.1 in America is scored with overhead beads, which makes it easy. You can put a little space between the beads at the start of your new inning. When your inning ends, you push them all flush (except for your current rack score, which must remain separated until the end of the rack so your opponent can properly score his run).

- Steve

Come on Steve, you'll be telling me a Billion is a thousand million next!

 

[Vahmurka]

European method of counting is reliable and easy once you get it. What sounds a bit confusing to me, Mikko, is that you mention "table total" being 24 etc. On our papers we write down the number of balls which are on the table - either when a player's inning ends or when the balls are re-reacked. Apparently this number never exceeds 15! 15 comes with every re-rack actually. Then you count the balls after an inning (let's say 10 remained, that is 5 for player A). Player B clears 9, one remaining as a break ball. We right down that 9, "table"=15 again (look that break ball being counted as belonging to next rack!), then his run continues, he runs 14, we add that to player B total (no wonder Europeans update their scores after each inning), table=15, he runs 10 and plays safe. Table=5 prior to player A visit to the table, his total is still 5, player B total is 35 (9+14+10). If you see 15,15,15 followed by a player's total being updated that means he was on the run. If it is interrupted by his opponent's total being updated (even if unchanged) that means the run ended there (=safety battle )

When at home I will make a screenshot of 14.1 official sheet we use to make it clear.

As for "one by one" counting I've beeen told that at last EC there were some girls pushing the buttons every time a ball was made, which updated the score on digital screens. No wonder they missed some during the racks (two balls dropped at a time or smth else). Mikko was a ref there so he could tell if a proper paper sheet was used by the players. I suppose no because those score misses led to several wrong scores - which would have been corrected of there was another source to compare.