16 minutes of my life wasted.

CreeDo said:
... Maybe the cyclop balls were out of spec.
...
Click to expand...
I have no idea whether the balls were in spec or not...

If the nine ball is large by the thickness of a piece of notepaper and there is only one gap in the ring of balls around the nine ball, that gap is three times the thickness of notepaper. A similar problem occurs if the nine is too small. It will be impossible to form a tight ring around it and if there is a single gap among those seven balls it will be three times the error in the size of the nine ball.

I think a gap of that size changes how the balls react.

I wonder if the Sardos realized at the time what they were starting.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I have no idea whether the balls were in spec or not...

If the nine ball is large by the thickness of a piece of notepaper and there is only one gap in the ring of balls around the nine ball, that gap is three times the thickness of notepaper. A similar problem occurs if the nine is too small. It will be impossible to form a tight ring around it and if there is a single gap among those seven balls it will be three times the error in the size of the nine ball.

I think a gap of that size changes how the balls react.

I wonder if the Sardos realized at the time what they were starting.
Click to expand...

Bob, do you agree that the way the players broke back in the 90's with very little rack inspection and rarely ever a re-rack was better for the game overall as opposed to rack disputes and wired balls?

Heck, nearly all of the time back then (when there were actually more than a handful of spectators watching) the players never ventured away from the head rail when the balls were being racked...then they just got down and broke.

I also thought the game was more interesting when it wasn't a guarantee that a ball would be made. I believe the game should be won by what happens AFTER the break as opposed to the break mostly being the reason a game is won. I think the racking templates have NOT made for a more interesting game, but instead has "dumbed-down" the game to where practically anyone who breaks a rack nowadays is almost certain to make a ball. For a professional playing 9-ball, it just doesn't make sense. My $0.02.

Maniac
 
Maniac said:
Bob, do you agree that the way the players broke back in the 90's ...
Click to expand...
We were stupid then. In the old days it was just "Hit 'em harder. Hit 'Em Harder! HIT 'EM HARDER!" (And maybe move the cue ball around a little.)

I'm afraid that Pandora's box is open. We know how big a factor the rack and break are. The problem now is to find a way to play that is not clearly unfair and still makes an interesting game.
 
Maniac said:
Bob, do you agree that the way the players broke back in the 90's with very little rack inspection and rarely ever a re-rack was better for the game overall as opposed to rack disputes and wired balls?

Maniac
Click to expand...

It was a convenient ignorance. People didn't know any better then. For better or for worse, understanding will hopefully increase. The biggest complaints about "wired" balls come from the ones who don't understand the rack. If the rack is tight, then the balls are wired for everyone, not just the people that know better. That IS the 9 ball rack. No amount of distaste for the results of a tight 9 ball rack will change the physics. If you don't like wired balls, then 9 ball is the wrong game. Or else play break from the box, or 9 on the spot, or both. Break from box, 9 on the spot, and template rack eliminates wired balls.

KMRUNOUT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top