A point about those 100 and 200 ball runs!

[Jimmy M.]

100 is a 100. You can take a person who isn't capable of running 100, give them a wide open table to start with and, I promise, they will not run 100.

The idea that you have to blast something out of a full rack of balls to start in order for your 100 to really be "100" is a bit absurd, in my opinion.

 

[dave sutton]

i figured id add a bit to this

i am very very close to a world champion straight pool player named jose garcia.

for those who dont know him his high run is 362 in match play might i add.

i stress this bc a good number of these pros high runs are in practice with a set up break shot.

not taking anything away from a 400 ball run but its a little different when a crowd is watchin and it actually means something

i know allen hopkins pretty well also and his high is 402 i believe but i dont know if its in match play or practice. i have to ask

 

[Jimmy M.]

That's something entirely different and I might also give more credit to a run that was done under competitive pressure vs. one that was done in practice. However, since straight-pool isn't really the game anymore, you'll rarely see anyone playing a game to enough points for a player to run 300+ competitively. I'd like to see some 1000-point matches between today's top players to see what kind of runs they could put together in a match situation. Until then, most of today's high-runs are going to come in practice.

i figured id add a bit to this

i am very very close to a world champion straight pool player named jose garcia.

for those who dont know him his high run is 362 in match play might i add.

i stress this bc a good number of these pros high runs are in practice with a set up break shot.

not taking anything away from a 400 ball run but its a little different when a crowd is watchin and it actually means something

i know allen hopkins pretty well also and his high is 402 i believe but i dont know if its in match play or practice. i have to ask

 

[dave sutton]

That's something entirely different and I might also give more credit to a run that was done under competitive pressure vs. one that was done in practice. However, since straight-pool isn't really the game anymore, you'll rarely see anyone playing a game to enough points for a player to run 300+ competitively. I'd like to see some 1000-point matches between today's top players to see what kind of runs they could put together in a match situation. Until then, most of today's high-runs are going to come in practice.

allen claims to have never lost a 1000 pt match...ever...

there are no matches that high anyway. weather its a 100 or 150 pt match you just dont stop running until you miss. thats what jose did. 362 later he missed

 

[Solartje]

On the first point, if you are desperate to make a shot from a 14-ball (or full) rack, there are six or ten different shots that can be played. Bob Byrne has a bunch in one or more of his books. All of Byrne's pool-related books belong on your library shelf, even the one that is an anthology of "great pool stories."

Of the top of my head:
bank the corner ball back as mentioned before
from a 15-ball rack, head ball in the corner or kick the head ball 2 rails to the side
from under the rack, bank the corner ball cross-side
from under the rack play one of the head balls into the side
play the "one pocket dead ball break" by hitting the upper two balls on the side
play a shot like the one-pocket break where the cue ball runs towards the foot rail and knocks the corner ball in as the corner ball is bouncing off the foot rail (Mosconi played this in an exhibition to continue his run)

All of these depend very strongly on the rack and/or the condition of the cloth.

bob, just for easyer visualisation:

if you have some time, would u mind drawing them on a cuetable?
i know 1 shot but all the rest are hard to imagine...

 

[Steve Lipsky]

i figured id add a bit to this

i am very very close to a world champion straight pool player named jose garcia.

for those who dont know him his high run is 362 in match play might i add.

i stress this bc a good number of these pros high runs are in practice with a set up break shot.

not taking anything away from a 400 ball run but its a little different when a crowd is watchin and it actually means something

i know allen hopkins pretty well also and his high is 402 i believe but i dont know if its in match play or practice. i have to ask

Dave,

With all due respect, what gave you the belief that it is harder to run balls in match play than in practice?

Every pro I know, and some non-pros I know too, loves to play in front of a crowd, and loves to play in competition. It keeps them focused to a level they couldn't come close to achieving in practice.

Put simply, who wants to miss a hanger in front of a crowd, or against an opponent who will keep him in the chair for half an hour because of it?

- Steve

 

[Steve Lipsky]

Here's another way to look at it:

Schedule a match between Thorsten and John Schmidt. Race to 2,000 points over 4 days. Put it in front of a crowd.

At the same time, let's assume that Thomas Engert practices every day for a fair amount of time. (If he doesn't, insert any top player who does.)

If you had to bet on which group of players (Hohmann/Schmidt or Engert/Engert) had higher runs during the period in question, which would you bet?

I'm betting on the guys in the match all the way. They're pumped up, driven, and focused. I think between those two, you'd almost be a favorite to see a 200 along the way.

- Steve

 

[Steve Lipsky]

If 2 men were to build a boat, and one is supplied all the materials for the boat to make, and made a good boat. The other guy started with nothing, had to figure out what to buy to make his boat. When both boats were done, and both of equal quality, which one of the 2 men would you consider to be the better boat builder?

This analogy only (sort of) works if you are comparing two guys whose high runs are 14. One starts with nothing, the other starts with a wide open rack. The difficulty in straight pool is not breaking up the balls... it's getting on a break shot.

It's almost as if you are trying to count the secondary break shots as some meaningful number in a run. I think you are going down the wrong path with this attitude... some 100-ball runs will have 8 primary and secondary breakshots, some will have 30. It depends on the table, and how it's breaking. You might remember the "tougher" runs more than the easier ones, but the difference between the 100 started with an open table and the 100 started with a more closed table is only one more breakshot, maybe 2.

What if the run which started with an open table was a much more difficult run than the one which started with a closed table?

Another illustration: If 2 men were doing the triple jump, and one had the running start, and the other had to start from a standing start, which one is more probable to jump the furtherest?

Sorry, not buying it... this isn't even in the ballpark of being a correct analogy. There are certain lengths the standing jumper simply won't be able to attain. This is not the case at all in pool. Whether the table starts closed or not, give any opportunity at all to a good player, and often within four shots, the table will be wide open.

And any good player can run balls if they are spread out without much trouble, but deciding on a break ball (which isn't too hard after playing some - players deficiencies show up here just like in other games) and getting the cue ball in the optimal positon is truly one of the finer points of the game. Break shots may or not be that simple, you will see many of them being missed. My point being that creativity and good logic
are 2 attributes that rise to the top when playing 14.1, and this applies to the starting break as well, and should not be excluded or overlooked in the runs.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but I will say that there is nothing "creative" about playing a shot off a closed rack (there's no inventing going on, they're all known shots), and how you can bring "good logic" into the argument of playing such a careless (let alone insulting) shot... I mean, I'm confused.

If a guy wants to take a flier at this, fine, but you'll have a helluva time convincing me he's employing good logic!

Anther example is that a pack starts with the break and continues consecutively through each rack and subsequent break and rack, not in midstream, or as some guys will proclaim to do a 6 pack and not count the breaks.

Not sure what this means.

Another point I am trying to make is that yesterday's standards and milestones have been compromised into something easier to do because
the original standards were not reached by players. The perfect example is getting BIH after the break playing the ghost, where yesterday's standards included the break when playing the ghost. Are we, in fact, compromising just to get a 'feel better' as a player? Do these compromises , in fact, deter from the sports quality overall? This could even extend into various games rule changes over the years?

Thoughts?

There is some truth in this, although I think a lot of it is romanticized. I think 9-ball theory has only improved over the decades, and while the old-time guys did not take BIH after the break when playing the ghost, it doesn't mean their percentage in beating the ghost was any higher than it would be now. It just means they played a tougher version of it.

 

[pdcue]

allen claims to have never lost a 1000 pt match...ever...

there are no matches that high anyway. weather its a 100 or 150 pt match you just dont stop running until you miss. thats what jose did. 362 later he missed

There may not be any 'offical' matches that long today
but 1500 point matches used to be quite common.

Back in the glory days of Straight Pool contenders could challenge
a champion to a one on one block match.

Dale

 

[Williebetmore]

There may not be any 'offical' matches that long today
but 1500 point matches used to be quite common.

Back in the glory days of Straight Pool contenders could challenge
a champion to a one on one block match.

Dale

D,
The multi-city exhibition matches between heavyweights like Mosconi and Greenleaf would often exceed 2000 balls for the winner.

I personally have played several 1000 point matches (but have NEVER won one.....hmmmm....what does that say about my game).

I believe sjm has had a 1000 point match with a very prominent opponent - I don't recall the result (he probably did better than me).

 

[pdcue]

I mostly agree with you, and I do like Blackjack's way of starting for a run.

Stay with me here:

If 2 men were to build a boat, and one is supplied all the materials for the boat to make, and made a good boat. The other guy started with nothing, had to figure out what to buy to make his boat. When both boats were done, and both of equal quality, which one of the 2 men would you consider to be the better boat builder?

Another illustration: If 2 men were doing the triple jump, and one had the running start, and the other had to start from a standing start, which one is more probable to jump the furtherest?

And any good player can run balls if they are spread out without much trouble, but deciding on a break ball (which isn't too hard after playing some - players deficiencies show up here just like in other games) and getting the cue ball in the optimal positon is truly one of the finer points of the game. Break shots may or not be that simple, you will see many of them being missed. My point being that creativity and good logic
are 2 attributes that rise to the top when playing 14.1, and this applies to the starting break as well, and should not be excluded or overlooked in the runs.

Anther example is that a pack starts with the break and continues consecutively through each rack and subsequent break and rack, not in midstream, or as some guys will proclaim to do a 6 pack and not count the breaks.

Another point I am trying to make is that yesterday's standards and milestones have been compromised into something easier to do because
the original standards were not reached by players. The perfect example is getting BIH after the break playing the ghost, where yesterday's standards included the break when playing the ghost. Are we, in fact, compromising just to get a 'feel better' as a player? Do these compromises , in fact, deter from the sports quality overall? This could even extend into various games rule changes over the years?

Thoughts?

I've had a thought for a while now.

What EXACTLY are you talking about.

Is it practice runs? Is it runs in a real competition, tourney or money match?

And, exactly who and where did anybody EVER think it was more of an
accomplishment to fire into the opening break shot.
I think it has been established that no player involved in a serious match
would ever do that. So, what's the point?

Practice often involves setting up and shooting a favorable break shot,
then shooting till you miss. This is far from new - and requires MORE
skill than just framming into the 15 ball rack and getting lucky.

Again, it seems to me you must have been influenced by players
in their own little area who had a seriously flawed concept af 14.1.

Where was it again?

Dale

 

[lfigueroa]

High runs in straight pool are a piece of art. They reflect a moment in time in the player's head, when creativity, knowledge, and execution were all working perfectly in synch.

This argument is strange to me because it suggests that breaking up the balls is difficult. To someone who is capable of running high numbers, breaking up the balls is not difficult... running them out is the trickier part. Running them to a break ball is difficult.

Whether you started from a botched safe or with a wide open table or with a dead ball in the rack, it's all the same.

The beauty in the long run is not in the individual shots which make it up but in the ability to sustain concentration and execution for so long. I'm sorry, but I think to a degree some people are missing the point on this.

- Steve

Gotta disagree, Steve. For a semi-accomplished player, starting with a wide open rack, after blasting them open, is an easy 14 and almost a lock for a decent break ball. It's like being spotted 14 to 100.

Yes, breaking them open is easy. But breaking them and controlling the cue ball to optimize your chances of another shot is not. Dealing with what results from your handy work is often an ugly story. And breaking a rack open with a break ball often results in a table layout that requires a few secondary cluster breakouts, which in turn requires managing the CB AND OBs to keep the run going. I know you know all this, but I think starting with a wide open rack is not the same as starting with a break ball, JMO.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

i figured id add a bit to this

i am very very close to a world champion straight pool player named jose garcia.

for those who dont know him his high run is 362 in match play might i add.

i stress this bc a good number of these pros high runs are in practice with a set up break shot.

not taking anything away from a 400 ball run but its a little different when a crowd is watchin and it actually means something

i know allen hopkins pretty well also and his high is 402 i believe but i dont know if its in match play or practice. i have to ask

My personal experience is that I'm likely to run more balls in competition than practicing. In competition, it's easier to stay focused and take your time.

I seem to recall that not long ago on this forum someone asked Ervolino to see how many he could run. He didn't run very many, like maybe 40 or 60, and he just quit after a while saying it just wasn't the same as competition.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Steve Lipsky]

Gotta disagree, Steve. For a semi-accomplished player, starting with a wide open rack, after blasting them open, is an easy 14 and almost a lock for a decent break ball. It's like being spotted 14 to 100.

Yes, breaking them open is easy. But breaking them and controlling the cue ball to optimize your chances of another shot is not. Dealing with what results from your handy work is often an ugly story. And breaking a rack open with a break ball often results in a table layout that requires a few secondary cluster breakouts, which in turn requires managing the CB AND OBs to keep the run going. I know you know all this, but I think starting with a wide open rack is not the same as starting with a break ball, JMO.

Lou Figueroa

Thank you Lou, I do respect your opinion, as well as all the other posters.

Perhaps my disagreement can be seen a little better with the below diagrams. No matter what my opponent leaves when he misses, be it this:

CueTable Help

or this:

CueTable Help

or this:

CueTable Help

within 3 or 4 shots, all the above tables will look like this:

CueTable Help

I know a lot of you are around some amazing players, and so I am really perplexed why we're having this disagreement. You give an opening to Jose Garcia like any of these 3 tables, you WILL be sitting for a long time. Same thing for any of the top Chicago players you're around, Lou. Same thing for YOU, Lou .

I'll just say it this last time, and then let it go: If you expect to leave any of the top 3 layouts to a strong 14.1 player and get back to the table sometime soon, you're in for a surprise more than you think.

I guess I just don't see the value in comparing two runs of the same length based on if the first 3 shots were hard or easy. That's pretty much how I see this debate.

Still, I respect all of your opinions and will try to think about this some more to see if they grow on me.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[Steve Lipsky]

but I think starting with a wide open rack is not the same as starting with a break ball, JMO.

Lou, I just reread this and saw this part. I agree that practice runs starting from a break ball are somehow "cleaner". I always start with a break ball in practice.

 

[bruin70]

I am old school, and back in the days, when someone had a big run in Straight Pool, it mattered whether it was from the break or not. That means from the 1st shot. That means you had to make a ball off the first break and then run balls.

Someone that ran a 100+ 'off the break' was held in higher esteem than just someone that had run a 100+, otherwise it is like having a running start before the run if the rack was broke up already.

How many starting break shots do you know that you can make a ball?

Another little thing, in the old days, playing the ghost was done with NO
ball in hand after break, and it was really something if you could beat the ghost back then.

Me, I am for keeping the 'difficulty' in Pool.......why, because it separates the men from the boys, the real players from the wannabees.

Your thoughts?

how much better, then, is a 370 ball run off the break than one that is not? at what point do you give credit to the game strategy instead of the run's start.

 

[Blackjack]

Gotta disagree, Steve. For a semi-accomplished player, starting with a wide open rack, after blasting them open, is an easy 14 and almost a lock for a decent break ball. It's like being spotted 14 to 100.

Yes, breaking them open is easy. But breaking them and controlling the cue ball to optimize your chances of another shot is not. Dealing with what results from your handy work is often an ugly story. And breaking a rack open with a break ball often results in a table layout that requires a few secondary cluster breakouts, which in turn requires managing the CB AND OBs to keep the run going. I know you know all this, but I think starting with a wide open rack is not the same as starting with a break ball, JMO.

Lou Figueroa

... and this is why I don't coun't the first 14 balls. My practice runs start with the the first break shot, but my preference is to set up for it - manufacture it - it just makes me feel as if I'm not starting with a "gimme" shot. That is why I toss the initial rack out on the table and work for that first break ball.

I also find myself running more balls while competing, as opposed to practice. Some of my highest runs have occrred after my opponent tried to break open the balls and miss the shot - leaving a wide open table. That is another reason I start with the initial 14 balls that don't count. lol

In competition, I have never tried to make a ball off the opening break shot, and I can't recall ever seeing anybody try that.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Back in 1994 on ASP Bob wrote:
...

What sharp eyes you have. OK, two. But I'm sure you tried the shot at least twice. Did you make it both times?

 

[Bob Jewett]

To answer the question asked before, I have read Hendricks' book about the history of pool, but never met him.

To clarify some of the shots:

from a 15-ball rack, head ball in the side (I said corner) -- this is like the standard nine-ball break from the side. Adjusting the follow and hit seems to help, but a tight rack is critical. I suppose it might be possible to miss the side and bank into a head corner pocket, but that would be a remarkable call.

(15-ball rack) or kick the head ball 2 rails to the side -- from behind the line, the cue ball hits side-rail, foot-rail and then a back corner ball full. The head ball is driven two rails (side, head) towards a side pocket.

from under the rack, bank the corner ball cross-side -- from the center of the foot rail, hit either back corner ball as full as you can without hitting the ball next to it first. That ball will bank cross-side. Adjust the position of the cue ball and the spin and speed to change the bank angle. Tight rack!

from under the rack play one of the head balls into the side -- experiment with this one. Try to hit two balls at almost the same time. The head balls have to go someplace, and you can influence where by the timing and angle of the hit. The rack, again, is critical.

play the "one pocket dead ball break" by hitting the upper two balls on the side -- I think this is clear enough if you have ever watched one pocket breaks. From behind the line, hit the head ball thinly and then the ball behind it. The far corner ball has to go somewhere, and sometimes it goes straight into the corner pocket.

play a shot like the one-pocket break where the cue ball runs towards the foot rail and knocks the corner ball in as the corner ball is bouncing off the foot rail (Mosconi played this in an exhibition to continue his run) -- when you break at one pocket, the back corner ball on the side you break from often goes to the foot rail and bounces out to leave an easy shot for your opponent. If the cue ball, after having caromed off the side of the rack, meets that object ball as it comes off the cushion, the object ball can be redirected into the pocket.

 

[Jimmy M.]

I have a question then ... if I throw 15 balls on the table, then proceed to run 114, do I get credit for 100 or was my run tainted?

Also, if I blast a dead one out of the full 15-ball rack, the balls spread everywhere, and I run 100, that's better than me setting up a break shot and running 100 from there? No wonder this game will make a person mental.

/me makes a note to take up 3-ball.