9 Ball - Really as bad as everyone says?
- Thread starter CTYankee
- Start date
donny mills said:
There certainly is an element of truth to your views. There are millions of different locations 9 or ten balls may arrive at after a break.
Making a ball AND getting shape of whatever the lowest ball happens to be is largely luck. The player can attempt to leave the CB at center table to upwardly adjust the odds of having a shot but still the end result is largely luck.
The more balls on the table after the break, the less likely it will be to have a shot on the lowest ball and therefore, the "luckier" the player who does get a shot.
In 3 ball, there is probably a 95-98% chance of being able to see the lowest remaining ball. As balls are added, that chance will decline. Try playing 8 Ball Rotation sometime to test that theory!
And while safeties and kicks are more likely to be required in 10 Ball...there is PLENTY of luck in where the cb/ob end up after kicks and safeties.
But at the end of the day, luck or chance or "getting rolls" is part of the APPEAL of the game. If raw skill could be measured scientifically, then ONE player would be better than all others and ONE player would win all games...at least all that he/she brought his/her "A" game to.
What a bore that would be. The "luck of the draw"...the now two "immaculate receptions" in the Superbowl...the lucky punch in boxing etc. all add to the DRAMA in sports and DRAMA relies on uncertainty and chance.
IMHO, too many people are scapegoating 9 Ball to be the cause of pool's widespread lack of popularity in America but 9 Ball is not at fault.
8 Ball is the game of the masses in this country and there likely was never any tournement more hyped (in the modern era) than the IPT matches...which got TERRIBLE TV viewership.
It's not the game of pool (ANY particular game of pool) that is the issue. The ISSUE is that people have only 24 hours in a day to watch or attend matches and they have a HUGE array of options on how to spend their time.
RELATIVE to other sporting events, Americans have concluded that pool is simply not exciting enough to WATCH...either on TV or in person.
That's the deal and there is nothing under the sun that is going to change that. We need to just accept our sport for what it is...and for what it is not...just like players and fans of darts, curling, ping pong, bass fishing, lumberjacking etc. have done.
Just IHMO.
Regards,
Jim
Fixer said:
You could be right but I have seen no convincing research on that theory...at least not in the pro ranks.
First, it would have to be decided who the better player is in a given match and the arguments on THAT subject would be endless.
Sure, in any given match, any top player can beat any other top player regardless of their standing on the money list. But that is true with ANY sport as the last SuperBowl proved.
And I think Allison Fisher is living proof that over time, the best player wins the most events. If luck was such a big factor, how could she have won more WPBA events than all other competitiors...COMBINED???
Regards,
Jim
PinoyAko
Registered
I agree and disagree with accepting pool as it is. But if my history is correct and i hope it is. pool was not as big as it is today in the philippines. i believe the changing factor was a man, i think some of us kno him, efren reyes. then the game really took off in the country. i guess its like a trend. the more people do it the more it catches on.
many pinoys in the US if u ask them they played pool everysecond growing up in the philippines but coming 2 america a good percentage have not even touched a cue in years.
many pinoys in the US if u ask them they played pool everysecond growing up in the philippines but coming 2 america a good percentage have not even touched a cue in years.
BPG24 said:
There is the answer!!!!!!!! I could not agree w/ you any further!!!! 9-Ball is nothing but a break contest, nothing more and surely nothing less. All of the "TOP" players will agree, ask them....................
Why play nine ball or ten ball? The break in both games is a sizeable factor.
This is why I came up with a modified rotation game. Why not use all the balls? It's confusing for someone just beginning in pool to play a game like nine ball. The question is always, "why use only nine?"
The break factor will always be in question while playing nine ball or ten ball.
Look at Strickland at the height of his game. His break gave him an almost unfair advantage.
'nuff said, I had to give my 2 cents.
Danny
This is why I came up with a modified rotation game. Why not use all the balls? It's confusing for someone just beginning in pool to play a game like nine ball. The question is always, "why use only nine?"
The break factor will always be in question while playing nine ball or ten ball.
Look at Strickland at the height of his game. His break gave him an almost unfair advantage.
'nuff said, I had to give my 2 cents.
Danny
jasonlaus said:
Do I even watch pool ??? LOL What r u, another internet champion? I gave my opinion cuz, and thats what it is. I am personal friends w/ more champs and road players then you could ever imagine, thats were I received my information. Sure don't need to explain 2 U, I share my opininions w/ people here that R open, not no pool detectives who think they know it all because they got a autograph or a minute conversation w/ a person they know nothing about, and yet think they know everything!!!
You have your opinion and I have mine..........Thats about it!!!!!
Now, now.
But seriously, the break as it was in 9-ball and still is in 10-ball is part of what make the games great. There is no absolut justice in hockey, basketball, soccer or 10-ball - and it should not be.
It is just that the soft break where the wing ball goes in 99% and if the 1-ball will be played in the side or corner is the only difference between breaks is a drag.
Furthermore the spread of balls make the shots too easy and position too short. Plink, plink, plink game...
Back to the 80ies and early 90ies please! Shotmaking and flare!
What if hockeyplayers found out a way not to tackle or skate - just a circle of guys protecting one in the middle that slowly moved to the goal and trickled the puck in - hockey would die.
I love the powerbreak-games and do not want them to die. Straightpool and 8-ball are fun too, but there has to be a fast rotationgame around.
9-ball is for amateurs. And it is great as is for that.
But seriously, the break as it was in 9-ball and still is in 10-ball is part of what make the games great. There is no absolut justice in hockey, basketball, soccer or 10-ball - and it should not be.
It is just that the soft break where the wing ball goes in 99% and if the 1-ball will be played in the side or corner is the only difference between breaks is a drag.
Furthermore the spread of balls make the shots too easy and position too short. Plink, plink, plink game...
Back to the 80ies and early 90ies please! Shotmaking and flare!
What if hockeyplayers found out a way not to tackle or skate - just a circle of guys protecting one in the middle that slowly moved to the goal and trickled the puck in - hockey would die.
I love the powerbreak-games and do not want them to die. Straightpool and 8-ball are fun too, but there has to be a fast rotationgame around.
9-ball is for amateurs. And it is great as is for that.
9 ball is fine, it's the short races which have magnified the game's flaws
the 3 most recent truly great players (Sigel, Earl, Efren) all dominated under the nine ball format
the 3 most recent truly great players (Sigel, Earl, Efren) all dominated under the nine ball format
CTYankee said:
The issue is not with some B player taking out a pro, it is the not so good pro taking out the better pro due to the rolls of 9-ball like a hot break with no clusters and the odd lucky shot leading to big runs.
There is a huge factor of luck in the game that leads to a coin toss at the level where the two players are nearly equal in talent. You're never going to see someone dominate 9-ball such as Tiger Woods dominates golf or such as Mosconi dominated straight pool. There is no possibility for the cream to consistently rise to the top in the game. The chance of the same person winning the WPC 2 years in a row is almost impossible because there are 50 guys in the event that have almost equal chances of winning any given match against the other and you therefore have to win alot of coin tosses. It is more like poker in that respect, although at least in pool you need the skill to get that toss of the coin and can not live on luck alone. Still good breaks and not getting bad rolls is critical and it does not take much if the other guy is getting good results on the break to end your tournament.
10-ball is a better game simply because it really changes the break and does not make one bad roll equate to 4 or 5 games very often as can happen in 9-ball regularily. 10-ball manages to balance out the luck factors and break advantages over the long run and gives both players enough of a look at the table over the course of the match such that the best will be more of a favorite to win then in 9-ball.
av84fun said:
Might have something to do with those commentators being too technical and knowledgeable for the average viewer.. "This doesn't have to go!!" LMAO
Danny Kuykendal said:
I wouldn't say Strickland had an unfair advantage regarding the break.. he was a great shot maker as well and didn't dog it back then. Watch Reyes break in the last day of color of money match and then re-evaluate who had the advantage with the break.. Compare that to the first day. Or someone posted a youtube link where Reyes is playing a Japanese player in the US Open and he destroys him.. watch him break. One ball in the side two ball in front of the side pocket and cb in the middle of the table. At least 5 times in a row! Doesn't he run a 7 pack or something crazy?
My point is that people say Reyes' break is his only weakness... I think it's everyone's weakness while playing 9 ball if the break isn't going well for them that day.
Strickland might not have had an unfair advantage if alternating breaks were played or if a longer game than nine ball was played.
Nick Varner was interviewed in the late eighties about his duels with Strickland and he indicated that there was no "choice" as to who had the best break, and of course that was Strickland.
Obviously, with a strong break in nine ball you only have to run six, seven or eight balls. Makes a big difference.
Strickland was a great shot maker as well, though, granted, but his break was definitely a factor in many of his tournament wins.
Reyes never had a break even close to that of Strickland's.
When Varner was playing well in the late eighties his break was working well also. His was still a notch under that of Strickland's.
Nick Varner was interviewed in the late eighties about his duels with Strickland and he indicated that there was no "choice" as to who had the best break, and of course that was Strickland.
Obviously, with a strong break in nine ball you only have to run six, seven or eight balls. Makes a big difference.
Strickland was a great shot maker as well, though, granted, but his break was definitely a factor in many of his tournament wins.
Reyes never had a break even close to that of Strickland's.
When Varner was playing well in the late eighties his break was working well also. His was still a notch under that of Strickland's.