Rep For You
I just gave you rep for playing in a 14.1 league and kudos to your pool hall for having one. (-:
I think you have hit on a couple of really central points re: watching 9 ball (or any other pool match on tv).
I FULLY agree that watching tape delay broadcasts where we already know the outcome diminishes our interest BY DEFAULT because we already know who won.
Suspense is a critical component to drama and without drama the programs are simply less compelling. So we watch only for academic purposes...to see the patterns...safeties...kicks etc. but MANY of those shots are edited out...as are some entire racks.
And even our academic interests are frustrated because, more often than not, the camera zooms in so close to the shooter that we can't even see their stroke.
Finally, I will take a minority view on the relative luck factor between 9 Ball and straight pool. I know of no empirical study that measures the frequency of "luck factors" in the two games but in 9 Ball, if luck was THAT much of a factor, then Allision could not have won more tournaments than all other WPBA pros combined over the past decade.
Mosconi, on the other hand "ONLY" ran 125-50 and out around 10% of the time. ("only" is in quotes because even that small percentage was WAY higher than any other player in history as far as I know.)
But rolling balls end up laying "lucky" plenty of times in all pool games...i.e. when you get into the rack, do you get an unlucky hook...do you end up with 2-3 potential break balls or none, forcing you to manufacture one...do you get a lock up safety or do you leave your opponent a good return safety? That latter factor can depend on 1/16 of an inch roll.
The fact is that the best who ever played often went 15/20/25 innings and certainly there were good rolls and bad wrapped up in there.
Finally, luck being luck, it tends to cancel out OVER TIME and AVOIDING the scenarios where luck becomes a factor is a SKILL that is often overlooked.
Regards,
Jim
hobokenapa said:I've just got home after dinner, and this has been a great thread to read.
For me personally, watching 9-ball on ESPN just bores me after 5 mins (I've actually taken it out of my TiVo season passes now). I found I was just skipping through to the end to see who won. But I'll watch the final five hours of the World Snooker championship and be enthralled. So is snooker more interesting than 9-ball?
However, I would have no interest in watching a game of snooker in a club, but put two top Open/A+ players from Amsterdam Billiards in a race to 9, and I'll watch it the whole match and be enthralled. So is 9-ball more interesting than snooker?
This leads me to believe that it is the way 9-ball is packaged by ESPN that makes it a big snooze, and the way that snooker is packaged that makes it great TV. Perhaps, if they showed a 9-ball final LIVE, it may be interesting? Or perhaps make it a decent length match so the better player could win?
I certainly believe that playing all the games is essential to one's overall knowledge. I play in three Leagues, one 14.1, one 9-ball and one 8-ball. I've had a 3-pack in both the 9-ball and 8-ball leagues this season, but the crowning achievement for me would be to run a 50 in my 14.1 League. Came within ten balls (in the 40s) three times this season, hopefully next time. But running 50 is what I would remember from the entire season (all Leagues) because I know that would be pure skill. I can run out an open 9-ball or 8-ball table easily. Stringing racks is just the luck of the break. Running 50 ... now that takes skill.
I just gave you rep for playing in a 14.1 league and kudos to your pool hall for having one. (-:
I think you have hit on a couple of really central points re: watching 9 ball (or any other pool match on tv).
I FULLY agree that watching tape delay broadcasts where we already know the outcome diminishes our interest BY DEFAULT because we already know who won.
Suspense is a critical component to drama and without drama the programs are simply less compelling. So we watch only for academic purposes...to see the patterns...safeties...kicks etc. but MANY of those shots are edited out...as are some entire racks.
And even our academic interests are frustrated because, more often than not, the camera zooms in so close to the shooter that we can't even see their stroke.
Finally, I will take a minority view on the relative luck factor between 9 Ball and straight pool. I know of no empirical study that measures the frequency of "luck factors" in the two games but in 9 Ball, if luck was THAT much of a factor, then Allision could not have won more tournaments than all other WPBA pros combined over the past decade.
Mosconi, on the other hand "ONLY" ran 125-50 and out around 10% of the time. ("only" is in quotes because even that small percentage was WAY higher than any other player in history as far as I know.)
But rolling balls end up laying "lucky" plenty of times in all pool games...i.e. when you get into the rack, do you get an unlucky hook...do you end up with 2-3 potential break balls or none, forcing you to manufacture one...do you get a lock up safety or do you leave your opponent a good return safety? That latter factor can depend on 1/16 of an inch roll.
The fact is that the best who ever played often went 15/20/25 innings and certainly there were good rolls and bad wrapped up in there.
Finally, luck being luck, it tends to cancel out OVER TIME and AVOIDING the scenarios where luck becomes a factor is a SKILL that is often overlooked.
Regards,
Jim