American 14.1 Straight Pool 2018

[sjm]

Just curious as I assume you watched a lot of matches. It seems of the matches I watched, I very rarely saw any players playing safeties or choosing to play intentional fouls when they ended up with very tough shots. Did you notice that? Do you think that was due to the relatively generous pockets, which made executing a successful safety even tougher while also making being able to successfully pocket a tough shot a bit easier?

No, I don't think that's the reason, as this has been the case in all the recent 14.1 events played in America, both those on looser pockets and those on tighter pockets. Extremely few players are well versed at 14.1 safety play and are, consequently, less inclined that they might otherwise be to engage an opponent in a defensive sequence or attempt subtle tactical maneuvers.

On the 3 ball Hohmann shot (the score was about 193-170 in favor of Kaci) that, essentially, cost him the final, Dan Barouty, commentator, straight pool guru, and old-schooler extraordinaire, noted the possibility of taking a foul to either a) create a slightly different shot on the three or b) to begin a defensive sequence (and, yes, there was a way to start a defensive sequence that I noticed). This type of play was quite common in the good old days, but I'd have bet the house against all but of few of today's players even considering it as an option.

Kaci was on a foul, and if Hohmann had simply tapped the cue ball a fraction of an inch to eliminate the three ball completely, Kaci would come back to the table without any shot and a little behind in the safety battle that would follow.

In fact, I'm not sure that any of the 25 best 14.1 defensive players I've ever watched are presently under 50 years old. Defensive/tactical play in 14.1 is a lost art form. That said, though, it's excusable in an era in which little 14.1 is contested at the highest levels of the sport. Players simply don't learn the relatively complicated moves game that goes with 14.1.

This is not meant to suggest that the players of yesteryear often chose defense when there was a shot available, for that was not the case, but the old masters had a few more ways/tactics than today's players to beat an opponent to the first good shot.

It's worth noting that, although generally remembered for a) his titles, b) how well he ran the table and c) how often he ran 100+ in major competition, Mike Sigel was a magnificent defensive/tactical player in 14.1, with only Irving Crane and Allen Hopkins notably stronger in this area of the game.

Even back in the day, though, there were two players who, philosophically, were more like the players of today, choosing even the most difficult shot over defense, and they are Luther Lassiter and Jimmy Caras, who will always be remembered for their willingness to take on very difficult shots in competition. Then again, more than a few old timers I've spoke to consider Lassiter to be the best ball pocketer in the game's history.

To sum, players poorly schooled in the defensive and tactical parts of straight pool are usually correct when they shun a tactical sequence, so let's not suggest they are making the wrong choices. That said, though, to put it the way Crane used to put it, mastery of the tactical part of the straight pool will, over time, "buy you a few extra good looks at the table", which will, in turn buy you a few extra match victories. Learning that part of the game wouldn't be a bad idea for today's top pros, but I clearly understand why they don't bother to do so in a discipline so rarely contested.

 

[alstl]

No, I don't think that's the reason, as this has been the case in all the recent 14.1 events played in America, both those on looser pockets and those on tighter pockets. Extremely few players are well versed at 14.1 safety play and are, consequently, less inclined that they might otherwise be to engage an opponent in a defensive sequence or attempt subtle tactical maneuvers.

On the 3 ball Hohmann shot (the score was about 193-170 in favor of Kaci) that, essentially, cost him the final, Dan Barouty, commentator, straight pool guru, and old-schooler extraordinaire, noted the possibility of taking a foul to either a) create a slightly different shot on the three or b) to begin a defensive sequence (and, yes, there was a way to start a defensive sequence that I noticed). This type of play was quite common in the good old days, but I'd have bet the house against all but of few of today's players even considering it as an option.

In fact, I'm not sure that any of the 25 best 14.1 defensive players I've ever watched are presently under 50 years old. Defensive/tactical play in 14.1 is a lost art form. That said, though, it's excusable in an era in which little 14.1 is contested at the highest levels of the sport. Players simply don't learn the relatively complicated moves game that goes with 14.1.

This is not meant to suggest that the players of yesteryear often chose defense when there was a shot available, for that was not the case, but the old masters had a few more ways/tactics than today's players to beat an opponent to the first good shot.

It's worth noting that, although generally remembered for a) his titles, b) how well he ran the table and c) how often he ran 100+ in major competition, Mike Sigel was a magnificent defensive/tactical player in 14.1, with only Irving Crane and Allen Hopkins notably stronger in this area of the game.

Even back in the day, though, there were two players who, philosophically, were more like the players of today, choosing even the most difficult shot over defense, and they are Luther Lassiter and Jimmy Caras, who will always be remembered for their willingness to take on very difficult shots in competition. Then again, more than a few old timers I've spoke to consider Lassiter to be the best ball pocketer in the game's history.

To sum, players poorly schooled in the defensive and tactical parts of straight pool are usually correct when they shun a tactical sequence, so let's not suggest they are making the wrong choices. That said, though, to put it the way Crane used to put it, mastery of the tactical part of the straight pool will, over time, "buy you a few extra good looks at the table", which will, in turn buy you a few extra match victories. Learning that part of the game wouldn't be a bad idea for today's top pros, but I clearly understand why they don't bother to do so in a discipline so rarely contested.

I've heard Sigel doing commentary say he would take the 3 fouls and break before taking a low percentage shot. I did notice a lot of players failing to execute a good break and leaving the opponent a good shot. Maybe some of them aren't confident in the ability to break and not leave the opponent a shot.

 

[sjm]

I've heard Sigel doing commentary say he would take the 3 fouls and break before taking a low percentage shot. I did notice a lot of players failing to execute a good break and leaving the opponent a good shot. Maybe some of them aren't confident in the ability to break and not leave the opponent a shot.

Quite right, and I saw Mike Sigel do just that several times back in the day.

Generally, the approach in a super-tough spot (in which opponent is not on a foul) was to take a no-risk** first foul, and unless the situation improved, take another no-risk foul and, unless the situation improved, take a third. There were, of course, times when there was little hope of improving the situation.

Your point about mastery of the opening break is important. Unless you are good at it, you have fewer tactical options and there's less reason to take the first foul. Let's note, though, in the sequence that ultimately defined the final, that Kaci was on a foul, so the three foul strategy wasn't in play (other than for Kaci if Hohmann took a foul). Hohmann could have tapped the cue ball so that the three ball was no longer available, and there's a possibility that the sequence ends in Kaci taking three. In that sequence, Kaci's subsequent break would have had to leave Hohmann something tougher than the three ball for Hohmann not to have gained.

** by a no-risk foul, I mean one in which there is practically no chance of leaving something tasty for your opponent

 

[Bob Jewett]

I've heard Sigel doing commentary say he would take the 3 fouls and break before taking a low percentage shot. I did notice a lot of players failing to execute a good break and leaving the opponent a good shot. Maybe some of them aren't confident in the ability to break and not leave the opponent a shot.

I saw Lassiter take the third intentional foul three times in one match. (That's 54 points total of foul.) Of course each time after his new break shot his opponent was on two fouls and stuck on the end rail with no good shot and no really good safe. Lassiter won that match. I have seen Immonen take his third two or three times (in separate matches:smile.

 

[ChrisinNC]

No, I don't think that's the reason, as this has been the case in all the recent 14.1 events played in America, both those on looser pockets and those on tighter pockets. Extremely few players are well versed at 14.1 safety play and are, consequently, less inclined that they might otherwise be to engage an opponent in a defensive sequence or attempt subtle tactical maneuvers.

On the 3 ball Hohmann shot (the score was about 193-170 in favor of Kaci) that, essentially, cost him the final, Dan Barouty, commentator, straight pool guru, and old-schooler extraordinaire, noted the possibility of taking a foul to either a) create a slightly different shot on the three or b) to begin a defensive sequence (and, yes, there was a way to start a defensive sequence that I noticed). This type of play was quite common in the good old days, but I'd have bet the house against all but of few of today's players even considering it as an option.

Kaci was on a foul, and if Hohmann had simply tapped the cue ball a fraction of an inch to eliminate the three ball completely, Kaci would come back to the table without any shot and a little behind in the safety battle that would follow.

In fact, I'm not sure that any of the 25 best 14.1 defensive players I've ever watched are presently under 50 years old. Defensive/tactical play in 14.1 is a lost art form. That said, though, it's excusable in an era in which little 14.1 is contested at the highest levels of the sport. Players simply don't learn the relatively complicated moves game that goes with 14.1.

This is not meant to suggest that the players of yesteryear often chose defense when there was a shot available, for that was not the case, but the old masters had a few more ways/tactics than today's players to beat an opponent to the first good shot.

It's worth noting that, although generally remembered for a) his titles, b) how well he ran the table and c) how often he ran 100+ in major competition, Mike Sigel was a magnificent defensive/tactical player in 14.1, with only Irving Crane and Allen Hopkins notably stronger in this area of the game.

Even back in the day, though, there were two players who, philosophically, were more like the players of today, choosing even the most difficult shot over defense, and they are Luther Lassiter and Jimmy Caras, who will always be remembered for their willingness to take on very difficult shots in competition. Then again, more than a few old timers I've spoke to consider Lassiter to be the best ball pocketer in the game's history.

To sum, players poorly schooled in the defensive and tactical parts of straight pool are usually correct when they shun a tactical sequence, so let's not suggest they are making the wrong choices. That said, though, to put it the way Crane used to put it, mastery of the tactical part of the straight pool will, over time, "buy you a few extra good looks at the table", which will, in turn buy you a few extra match victories. Learning that part of the game wouldn't be a bad idea for today's top pros, but I clearly understand why they don't bother to do so in a discipline so rarely contested.

If Kaci was already on 1 foul when Hohmann attempted that extremely low percentage jump/combo shot on the 3-ball, that was simply a critical mental mistake there is absolutely no excuse for from a player with the experience of Hohmann. As I remember he was on a relatively long run at the time, I'm guessing Hohmann completely forgot Kaci was already on 1 foul. As you explained, If he'd known Kaci would get to 3 fouls before he did, taking an intentional foul and daring Kaci to either attempt that very low percentage shot or commit a 3 consecutive foul violation would have clearly been the better option at that point of the match.

 

[sjm]

If Kaci was already on 1 foul when Hohmann attempted that extremely low percentage jump/combo shot on the 3-ball, that was simply a critical mental mistake there is absolutely no excuse for from a player with the experience of Hohmann. As I remember he was on a relatively long run at the time, I'm guessing Hohmann completely forgot Kaci was already on 1 foul. As you explained, If he'd known Kaci would get to 3 fouls before he did, taking an intentional foul and daring Kaci to either attempt that very low percentage shot or commit a 3 consecutive foul violation would have clearly been the better option at that point of the match.

Hohmann's run at the time he faced the super-tough three ball was about four. Kaci scratched on one of the last few balls of the previous rack and Hohmann got unlucky on the rack-opening break shot. My guess, based on many years of watching Hohmann frequently, is that even if he knew Kaci was on a foul, he'd have still bet the match on the three.

Calling Hohmann experienced is inaccurate when it comes to 14.1 defense. He has shunned safety play in 14.1 since I met him about fifteen years ago and he has always been quick to admit it. It's not for me to state what his pocketing percentage would normally be on the three ball (I'd have called it about 25% for me!) but even if it was 50/50 (and clearly commentator Dan Barouty thought it to be less), it was still not, in my view, the best path to victory with Kaci on a foul.

Finally, as he was not frozen to the seven, he was able to tap the cue ball behind the edge of the seven ball so that the three ball would no longer available, the matter of daring Kaci to shoot the three is not relevant. Had that been his only option, Hohmann's choice would have made a lot more sense.

In short, this was not an error that defied Thorsten's experience, but instead a decision that reinforced his inexperience in 14.1 tactical play. As far as making long runs in competition, he's the Mike Sigel of this generation of players, but his tactical mediocrity costs him a match every once in a while. Unfortunately, this time it cost him a title.

Even so, Hohmann's still the best there is.

 

[Poolmanis]

I just want to address one point to Hohmann´s choise.
IMO he have to shoot it. That shot is 70-90% at practice table and even with pressure over 50%. If he does not try it means to him : "I can´t do it" Pro players have to have tremendous trust to their pocketing skills or they start fall short.
I can´t write this right way (lack of English skill)but what i try to tell he have to shoot for mental game. Now and future.

 

[sjm]

I just want to address one point to Hohmann´s choise.
IMO he have to shoot it. That shot is 70-90% at practice table and even with pressure over 50%. If he does not try it means to him : "I can´t do it" Pro players have to have tremendous trust to their pocketing skills or they start fall short.
I can´t write this right way (lack of English skill)but what i try to tell he have to shoot for mental game. Now and future.

Point well taken, but .....

While I respect your opinion, I'd be in shock if he, or any player that's ever played the game, could make 7 out of 10 from there with a title riding on it. It was a long, difficult diagonal cut. The cue ball was a few feet from the object ball and the object ball was a few feet from the pocket. That's about as tough as it gets.

If he'd made it, we'd have all remembered it for a long time as the shot that won the title. I remember a lot of great shots that I've seen over more than 40 years of watching pro level 14.1, but probably not any in which the player pocketed a shot that was 7 out of 10.

If, as you suggest due to pressure it's 50%, and he shoots it, he'd have been passing on a sequence in which Kaci may well have had to take three fouls and break the rack for him. That approach would have given him a significantly greater chance than 50% to win the race to the first good shot.

To be honest, because of the immense amount of time he took before attempting the shot, it is safe to assume that even Hohmann considered it a difficult shot and that he considered passing on it.

Commentator Dan Barouty, an old school legend of the game, also considered it difficult and thought passing it was right with Kaci on a foul.

Nonetheless, there is little point debating this, because I'll have to concede to you that if he saw this shot as 7 out of 10, he was right to shoot it. If it was just 5 out of 10, though, I strongly disagree with your suggestion that shooting it was the right choice.

Anyway, good subject here that raises important theoretical subject matter in the game. Thanks for participating in the discussion.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Hohmann's run at the time he faced the super-tough three ball was about four. Kaci scratched on one of the last few balls of the previous rack and Hohmann got unlucky on the rack-opening break shot. My guess, based on many years of watching Hohmann frequently, is that even if he knew Kaci was on a foul, he'd have still bet the match on the three.

Calling Hohmann experienced is inaccurate when it comes to 14.1 defense. He has shunned safety play in 14.1 since I met him about fifteen years ago and he has always been quick to admit it. It's not for me to state what his pocketing percentage would normally be on the three ball (I'd have called it about 25% for me!) but even if it was 50/50 (and clearly commentator Dan Barouty thought it to be less), it was still not, in my view, the best path to victory with Kaci on a foul.

Finally, as he was not frozen to the seven, he was able to tap the cue ball behind the edge of the seven ball so that the three ball would no longer available, the matter of daring Kaci to shoot the three is not relevant. Had that been his only option, Hohmann's choice would have made a lot more sense.

In short, this was not an error that defied Thorsten's experience, but instead a decision that reinforced his inexperience in 14.1 tactical play. As far as making long runs in competition, he's the Mike Sigel of this generation of players, but his tactical mediocrity costs him a match every once in a while. Unfortunately, this time it cost him a title.

Even so, Hohmann's still the best there is.

In the end, it wasn't the missed 3-ball that cost Hohmann the match. He was able to make it back to the table one more time due to Kaci's scratch in the side, and the bad roll on the break shot is what did him in. The cross table shot he narrowly missed, his last miss, although an extremely tough shot, was a far more managable shot than the jump / combo shot he missed on the 3-ball, and he had to shoot at, as there was no apparent safety available to him at that time. Yes, he could have considered passing that shot to Kaci by simply touching the tip of his tip to the cue ball, but that shot was likely at least a 50/50 shot for either of them, which is why he had to shoot it.

 

[sjm]

In the end, it wasn't the missed 3-ball that cost Hohmann the match. He was able to make it back to the table one more time due to Kaci's scratch in the side, and the bad roll on the break shot is what did him in. The cross table shot he narrowly missed, his last miss, although an extremely tough shot, was a far more managable shot than the jump / combo shot he missed on the 3-ball, and he had to shoot at, as there was no apparent safety available to him at that time. Yes, he could have considered passing that shot to Kaci by simply touching the tip of his tip to the cue ball, but that shot was likely at least a 50/50 shot for either of them, which is why he had to shoot it.

Not accurate.

First, Kaci's scratch came before the three ball with Kaci at 193, needing 7 to end the match. line. Second, a Hohmann foul instead of shooting the three would not have left a shot on the three, which he could only barely see enough of to pocket. Had Hohmann tapped the cue ball, which was not quite frozen to the seven, behind the very edge of the seven, Kaci doesn't have the three ball at all and Kaci will likely reply with a scratch. After that, as long as Hohmann denies the three ball a second time, Kaci will have a choice between taking three and playing a crazy difficult safety. My guess is that he'd take the third foul.

Yes, Thorsten got a terrible roll on his break shot, but I'm still contending that he didn't manage the resulting position as well as he might have.

 

[Positively Ralf]

Just a few observations if I may.

1. The idea of reading a rack is long gone. I may be 35 and I was not around for the heydays of major 14.1 competition, but these guys today are such good shot makers that I feel they do not need to read anything. they just shoot and pick out a ball that will make a good break ball. I only say this because during a lot of the stream matches the announcers were scratching their heads as to why they chose to do what they did.

2. Even the players who play a lot of 14.1(which there didn't seem to be much in this tournament) don't seem to want engage in safety play. maybe the size of the pockets had something to do with it?

3. This is coming from the older crowd in the room I play at and who mainly still play 14.1 and saw the American 14.1 event. they say that the days of the great 14.1 player beating the great 9 ball player is long gone. according to them it was easier to see why, but with 9 ball being the dominant game for what seems the last 3 decades, they know enough to get by without having to know the deeper tactics 14.1 offers.

4. Great production value. This was well put and I wish I could have made it there to see it up close. But still, good show for the people at home.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Not accurate.

First, Kaci's scratch came before the three ball with Kaci at 193, needing 7 to end the match. line. Second, a Hohmann foul instead of shooting the three would not have left a shot on the three, which he could only barely see enough of to pocket. Had Hohmann tapped the cue ball, which was not quite frozen to the seven, behind the very edge of the seven, Kaci doesn't have the three ball at all and Kaci will likely reply with a scratch. After that, as long as Hohmann denies the three ball a second time, Kaci will have a choice between taking three and playing a crazy difficult safety. My guess is that he'd take the third foul.

Yes, Thorsten got a terrible roll on his break shot, but I'm still contending that he didn't manage the resulting position as well as he might have.

Sorry, but I guess I need to go back and watch the late stages of that match to accurately remember the order of sequence of both their misses / scratches. Apparently we can agree on one thing - Hohmann had possible options he should have considered other than trying that extremely low percentage shot on the 3-ball, which is what surprised me that he chose to shoot that shot. Once you informed me that at that point, Kaci was already on one foul, that surprises me even more that Hohmann chose to go for such a tough shot.

 

[alstl]

Not accurate.

First, Kaci's scratch came before the three ball with Kaci at 193, needing 7 to end the match. line. Second, a Hohmann foul instead of shooting the three would not have left a shot on the three, which he could only barely see enough of to pocket. Had Hohmann tapped the cue ball, which was not quite frozen to the seven, behind the very edge of the seven, Kaci doesn't have the three ball at all and Kaci will likely reply with a scratch. After that, as long as Hohmann denies the three ball a second time, Kaci will have a choice between taking three and playing a crazy difficult safety. My guess is that he'd take the third foul.

Yes, Thorsten got a terrible roll on his break shot, but I'm still contending that he didn't manage the resulting position as well as he might have.

https://www.facebook.com/HighRockstore/videos/571716256578673/?t=12123

I have to disagree Hohmann could have left Kaci safe. I believe his only option was to touch the cue ball and leave Kaci essentially the same shot. If he pushes the cue ball below the 7 leaves the 2.

I hesitate to critique a player who would slaughter me at straight pool but his mistake was getting greedy and trying to open the entire rack in the break. If he had just hit it hard enough to open the rack and get the cue ball free he would have been fine.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I have to disagree Hohmann could have left Kaci safe. I believe his only option was to touch the cue ball and leave Kaci essentially the same shot. If he pushes the cue ball below the 7 leaves the 2.
...

I think he could have tried to freeze the cue ball against the 7 to hide the 3. It's not an easy play but I think it doesn't leave anything better than what he shot at.

But I think he is well over 50% on the 3 ball on a normal day. In that situation, I'm not so sure.

 

[sjm]

https://www.facebook.com/HighRockstore/videos/571716256578673/?t=12123

I have to disagree Hohmann could have left Kaci safe. I believe his only option was to touch the cue ball and leave Kaci essentially the same shot. If he pushes the cue ball below the 7 leaves the 2.

I hesitate to critique a player who would slaughter me at straight pool but his mistake was getting greedy and trying to open the entire rack in the break. If he had just hit it hard enough to open the rack and get the cue ball free he would have been fine.

Difficult to tell from the picture whether the two would have been playable, but in the end, and there was another constructive foul available, no matter how you see it, the position is illustrative of how tricky it can be to see all the options in the heat of battle. Whoever you are and whatever your level, if you see the three as better than 50%, a strong case can be made for shooting it.

I think it more daring of you to challenge the great power with which Hohmann hits the break shots, which is indeed unlike most other pros, as he's undeniably a legend when it comes to running the balls, and this method has worked in a big way for him. I'm kind of letting it go for that very reason.

Conversely, Thorsten has not been especially effective as a tactician throughout his 14.1 career, much of which I've watched live, and for old schoolers like Dan Barouty, who was commentating, (and yes, me) to feel that a scratch should at least have been considered, is not too far fetched.

Anyway, if only a player that is better than Hohmann has a right to critique his 14.1 play, then his play will always go uncritiqued, for he is the best player of this generation of 14.1 players, a living legend of the game. He's a future Hall of Famer in my books.

 

[stevekur1]

I would take the intentional foul all day by just touching the top of the cueball as a downward stroke not moving the cueball all day. let Kaci deal with it since he's on the first foul.

Sometimes the adrenalin gets the best of you and it's tough to fight it !!

Steve

 

[Bob Jewett]

I would take the intentional foul all day by just touching the top of the cueball as a downward stroke not moving the cueball all day. let Kaci deal with it since he's on the first foul.

Sometimes the adrenalin gets the best of you and it's tough to fight it !!

Steve

But if he leaves the same shot he tried (3 ball), I think Kaci is likely to make it. If he can he has to make the shot harder.

 

[ChrisinNC]

But if he leaves the same shot he tried (3 ball), I think Kaci is likely to make it. If he can he has to make the shot harder.

Agreed, I don't think Thorsten had much choice in that spot. It was a hard shot, but he had to go for it. The situation earlier in the match I really thought he could have touched the CB for an intentional foul to see what Kaci would do was when he also stuck himself in the pack and he tried that extremely low percentage length of the table jump-combo shot, which he missed badly. I can't remember the score at the time, but I believe Kaci went on a relatively long run after that miss.

 

[AtLarge]

... The situation earlier in the match I really thought he could have touched the CB for an intentional foul to see what Kaci would do was when he also stuck himself in the pack and he tried that extremely low percentage length of the table jump-combo shot, which he missed badly. I can't remember the score at the time, but I believe Kaci went on a relatively long run after that miss.

I think the shot you are remembering was on a different day, in a different match, against a different opponent -- namely, the shot that ended Hohmann's run of 144 against Chinahov the previous day in the Round of 16.

Chinahov ran 86 and missed a cross-side bank. Hohmann ran 144, but got stuck in the pack with no good shot. So then (after 3½ minutes) he tried that jacked-up swerve shot on the 7-ball/3-ball combination at the head of the table and missed.

It is certainly debatable what he should have done in that situation. Chinahov was not on a foul, but Hohmann could have taken an intentional to see whether Chinahov would botch the situation, and, if Chinahov did not, then proceed to 3 consecutive fouls. But, hey, who doesn't want to run 150 and out? Orcollo had run 149 in the previous round to take the lead for the tournament high run.

So Hohmann missed and gave Chinahov a chance to knock him out of the tournament. Instead, Chinahov ran 9 and missed (on another cross-side bank), and Hohmann got the last 6.

Edit -- As for the Finals match, how it went, inning by inning, can be seen here: https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6248951&postcount=3

 

[stevekur1]

But if he leaves the same shot he tried (3 ball), I think Kaci is likely to make it. If he can he has to make the shot harder.

Agreed on that. Thor was in a tough spot for sure !!!