14.1 not fair both players should be given a chance to run balls
- Thread starter naji
- Start date
I can't believe
I really cant believe that this thread grew to this many posts......The question from the OP is off the hook.........Beyond reality..........Its the way the game has been played for decades..........If you dont like the rules ,,,,,,,,,,,, dont play it.....End this thread already
I really cant believe that this thread grew to this many posts......The question from the OP is off the hook.........Beyond reality..........Its the way the game has been played for decades..........If you dont like the rules ,,,,,,,,,,,, dont play it.....End this thread already
In case you did not read all , Some sugusted tournment format change, to race to 3 or even 2 , 100 point each, in lieu of changing how 14.1 is played, I like the idea !! and feel in no time 14.1 will be as popular as 10 ball if the change is implemented.
try going over to the UK and tell them they need to change the format on how snooker is played. See what they tell you...........Leave 14.1 alone and learn to play it the way it was designed......
News flash, 10 ball is not all that popular with the majority of pool players. Most who care would rather play 9 ball.
Why everybody keep saying snooker !! snooker always been a race to something, and race to 15 in finals , and takes two to three days to finish, so if some one max the 147 it does not mean they gonna win the match! That is how straight pool should be played to show players endurance over two to three days, not just one little miss (and maybe due to table not leveled) and you sit on the side line all day long! let Ronnie O! sit on the side without showing his skill, that will be the day! Sadly pool is not there yet!
RONNIE O'SULLIVAN NET WORTH
Ronnie O'Sullivan Net WorthNET WORTH:$2 MILLION
PROFESSION SNOOKER PLAYER
ATHLETE
That is $1000.00 an hour!!!
Last edited:
Thanks Pushout for pointing this fact. I know i meant to say 10 ball, so i do not upset some people!! you the man! or woman (gotta be careful, do not know you)
The same reason why people driving on one side of a highway will slow down and gawk (stare) at an accident on the other/opposite side of the highway.
Morbid fascination.
-Sean
The same reason why people driving on one side of a highway will slow down and gawk (stare) at an accident on the other/opposite side of the highway.
Morbid fascination.
-Sean
Thanks Pushout!! ops sorry Sfleinen.. did you see post # 187!
Yes, I did. And it's a non-starter. (Meaning, the format of snooker -- in both current and tradition -- has nothing to do with 14.1, in both current format and tradition.) Apples and oranges.
Sadly, you want to inject food dye into an apple to make it "orange."
-Sean
naji -- I, too, would like to have that sort of a 14.1 event. But how would it be possible in the current environment? Last week's World event lasted 6 days, with games to only 100, 150, or 200 points. Do you have any good ideas on how a financially sound event could be structured to allow matches to be 3 out of 5 (or even 2 out of 3) games to any significant number of points?
I think such an event would have to involve far fewer players than the current 48. Quite a few of the players in the current events probably don't belong in a world championship anyway. Could we develop some sort of structure of preliminary events that would ultimately yield, say, 16 players for the world championship? And then the matches would be, say, 3 out of 5 games to 150 or 200 points or some other significantly long format. With today's low level of interest in 14.1, is anything like this remotely possible? Or, should we just accept and be thankful for, despite their formats, the one (or two) decent 14.1 tournaments in this country each year?
Play it as a race to three (100-200 balls, depending on the skills of the players), alternate breaks but start each game with a "set-up" shot like you do in qualifier rounds. It would be kind of like one-pocket: a big advantage to the first breaker, but not so big that it can't be overcome.
It's not meant as a replacement for the standard 14.1 rules. It's just an alternative to use when appropriate.
The biggest problem I see is the amount of time it would take to play a race to three.
It's not meant as a replacement for the standard 14.1 rules. It's just an alternative to use when appropriate.
The biggest problem I see is the amount of time it would take to play a race to three.
90 years ago I think most of the World Championships were by challenge matches to something like 1500 points. No one ran out. Mosconi won many (or most?) of his championships as challenge matches, not as tournaments. Surprisingly, he never ran 150 in the challenge matches even though it was possible to run more than a single block (number of points per session) since the positions of the balls were marked at the time of an intermission and the match was resumed from the same position. Joe Procita ran 182 against Mosconi in such a match.
So, one format is to have maybe 6 regional qualifiers with one player advancing from each qualifier to a round robin. The matches in the round robin could be to 500. The winner of the round robin is the world champion. The other players would have the option of challenging the champion until the next full tournament was organized. The challenge matches could be to 1500 or so.
Another format is to have, for example, 16 entrants and have an extended knock-out tournament with one round per week or per month in various locations. Those matches could be to 500 or 1000.
So, one format is to have maybe 6 regional qualifiers with one player advancing from each qualifier to a round robin. The matches in the round robin could be to 500. The winner of the round robin is the world champion. The other players would have the option of challenging the champion until the next full tournament was organized. The challenge matches could be to 1500 or so.
Another format is to have, for example, 16 entrants and have an extended knock-out tournament with one round per week or per month in various locations. Those matches could be to 500 or 1000.
Thanks for a humanly reasonable post ! That is how posts are answered, even if at the end you said , we are not changing 14.1 i would be happy to the way you wrote this post. The next post 194 is also great, thanks Borman! i think race to three 100 points should do, or even 75 points, and the final at say 150 race to 3 still.
Or worst case like post 194 said, do it like qualifier way, each one have chance to run, then highest run wins the match between the two!
Thanks Bob, in terms of stream viewers, i think they would like to see shorter runs say 200 or max 300, unless the player is going 300 and out. To be debated!
Those would both be nice. But today, for a "world" championship, it should include the best players from Europe, China, Japan, the Philippines, etc. (even though 14.1 may not be played a lot in some of those locales). So "regional qualifiers," desirably, would not be just in the USA. And the extended knock-out format "in various locations" might make it tough to accommodate players from around the world. Tough nut to crack -- having a true world championship in 14.1 with lengthy matches.
I agree about the need for world-wide participation. The format also needs to provide relatively low cost of production and low expenses for the participants and to maximize the possible video revenue. I think the current plan of getting a bunch of players together in one place so the also-rans can fund the prize fund is not optimal when it costs the out-of-towners over $2000 to play.