I don't wish to draw anyone's ire or harp on something that has already been discussed to death, but I just had to make this post:
Yesterday I was watching a tape from the accu-stats 2001 8 ball invitational - Archer [7] v. Reyes [8] - till 3 in the AM. Though both of them goofed on a few shots, it was still an amazing match.
All I could think of was, there is no way that 9 ball is more complex or taxing of a pro's skills than this. Don't get me wrong, I still think that 8 ball is an inferior test of skill compared to one pocket, banks or straight pool. But I keep hearing people tell me that 9 ball takes more skill and I just don't see it.
Probably all of you on this forum are more knowledgeable than me, but tell me if I'm wrong: In 8 ball, proper management of problem balls is the key. Knowing when and how to break a cluster and management of the positional layout of the table can get complicated. Often times there is only one shot-making order for the run out. Which in fact means you're playing a kind of a rotational game, only now your oponents balls are in the way. Safeties? Forget it, now you are not playing safe on a single ball, snookering won't do, and you'll have to stick the cb on very minute areas of the table.
Usually, when you see folks shooting at bars, they'll run their free balls and chase their problem ball around the table over many innings. That makes the game seem unfair to the better player because running 6 balls and not getting out is a recepie for disaster. That's one complaint I hear. But that only happens without proper management of problem balls.
Something else I hear is that the game is too short, only 8 balls. Then explain to me why even Efren in that match was taking more time in running out than most pros at 9 ball. It seems to me that is because there is a lot of thinking involved. In 9 ball, most patterns are evident for pros. It's just too easy for them. They just wipe the table 1, 2, 3.
My humble verdict: 8 ball is at least on par with 9 ball as a test of skill and strategic talent. Now you guys can send my verdict up in flames.
Yesterday I was watching a tape from the accu-stats 2001 8 ball invitational - Archer [7] v. Reyes [8] - till 3 in the AM. Though both of them goofed on a few shots, it was still an amazing match.
All I could think of was, there is no way that 9 ball is more complex or taxing of a pro's skills than this. Don't get me wrong, I still think that 8 ball is an inferior test of skill compared to one pocket, banks or straight pool. But I keep hearing people tell me that 9 ball takes more skill and I just don't see it.
Probably all of you on this forum are more knowledgeable than me, but tell me if I'm wrong: In 8 ball, proper management of problem balls is the key. Knowing when and how to break a cluster and management of the positional layout of the table can get complicated. Often times there is only one shot-making order for the run out. Which in fact means you're playing a kind of a rotational game, only now your oponents balls are in the way. Safeties? Forget it, now you are not playing safe on a single ball, snookering won't do, and you'll have to stick the cb on very minute areas of the table.
Usually, when you see folks shooting at bars, they'll run their free balls and chase their problem ball around the table over many innings. That makes the game seem unfair to the better player because running 6 balls and not getting out is a recepie for disaster. That's one complaint I hear. But that only happens without proper management of problem balls.
Something else I hear is that the game is too short, only 8 balls. Then explain to me why even Efren in that match was taking more time in running out than most pros at 9 ball. It seems to me that is because there is a lot of thinking involved. In 9 ball, most patterns are evident for pros. It's just too easy for them. They just wipe the table 1, 2, 3.
My humble verdict: 8 ball is at least on par with 9 ball as a test of skill and strategic talent. Now you guys can send my verdict up in flames.