Americans will never Dominate 'Pool' again and here's why

[Desmondp]

There can definitely be more Americans at the top of the game than there are now, no doubt, but there will never be a situation again where say 7 or 8 out of the Top 10 players in the world are Americans

The transfer of knowledge is so different nowadays, not just with Pool but for everything. You no longer need to rely on learning pool in a smokey poolhall from an old master who has taken you under your wing.

There's so much pool knowledge available online but more than that, from a much wider diversity of experts all round the world.

You also have the use of technology in analyzing cue actions which wasn't available before.

About my comment about English pool, yes it is still a popular game amongst casual players in the UK and a few other countries but there are very very few professionals making a good living solely from English pool. The best english pool players have moved to either American pool (Appleton, Boyes etc)or Chinese pool (Gareth Potts, Melling etc) .

Here in Australia there are more and more ameican pool tournaments and the best pool players (we call it two shot here in Australia, basically world rules english pool) play both two shot pool and american pool or two shot pool and snooker

It's always good for any sport to have people at the top from a wide diversity of countries

Look at the world game, football (or soccer as americans call it), the top players are usually a mix of europeans v south americans and that has always elevated the game and level of intrigue.

 

[Swighey]

It's hard to win world titles when I or most Americans don't travel to play in them. I promise you if I got to play 8 majors a year overseas for even a few years I would win one or a some and be in contention. Our best players don't go you have guys going over there that aren't even in the top 20 or even 50. They just want their name out there and that's great, but I'm not going to the Middle East and spending $5,000 to win $30,000 for a major. That's a joke!!

Between 2001 and 2007, when the prize for the World 9 Ball Championship started at $65,000 (15 years ago) and grew to $100,000, Earl Strickland won one of them but no other US player made the final.

QUOTE=Justin Bergman;5762206] Pool is a tough game with a lot of skill involved if played properly... For 9 ball between two top players, a real tournament match should be races to 21 with 30 second shot clock that should take an hour and a half to two hours... Then you would have a sport, a real match, and not where you lose the lag and your a huge underdog.... Just the way I see it. [/QUOTE]

Take an event like the Mosconi Cup - It is not a test of skill between two players (but the aforementioned 9 ball events were with their races to 17 in the final). The Mosconi Cup is a team event with lots of short races. It doesn't matter if an individual player loses all of his matches - if his team wins more races than the other team then he is still a winning member of the *team* event. The USA can win this event again if they get the run of the balls, they play better (as a team) than Europe and if they adopt the right attitude and mindset to it. This mindset is then adaptable to other events and formats.

Yes, $30k is a paltry amount for a tournament that should command a far bigger prize for the winner and prize pool in general. It's a two way thing though - it needs players committed to growing the game, and an organization and sponsors committed to the same. It was growing but then (they say because of the financial downturn in Asia but that seems far too simplistic) it crashed. Regarding winning majors, it boils down to one thing - if you respect the status of those majors and the players that play in them then invest some money in trying to win them. If you don't, then claiming you would win one or more or be in contention is a waste of your words. Those guys who "aren't even in the top 20 or even 50" work hard at their games, put the hours in on the practice table, and play their hardest while trying to play their best. They value the title and kudos it gives them - good for them,

There are a couple of big Chinese 8 Ball tournaments that offer big prize money. Many snooker tournaments too. The players that win them work hard for it.

 

[HawaiianEye]

Between 2001 and 2007, when the prize for the World 9 Ball Championship started at $65,000 (15 years ago) and grew to $100,000, Earl Strickland won one of them but no other US player made the final.

QUOTE=Justin Bergman;5762206] Pool is a tough game with a lot of skill involved if played properly... For 9 ball between two top players, a real tournament match should be races to 21 with 30 second shot clock that should take an hour and a half to two hours... Then you would have a sport, a real match, and not where you lose the lag and your a huge underdog.... Just the way I see it.

Take an event like the Mosconi Cup - It is not a test of skill between two players (but the aforementioned 9 ball events were with their races to 17 in the final). The Mosconi Cup is a team event with lots of short races. It doesn't matter if an individual player loses all of his matches - if his team wins more races than the other team then he is still a winning member of the *team* event. The USA can win this event again if they get the run of the balls, they play better (as a team) than Europe and if they adopt the right attitude and mindset to it. This mindset is then adaptable to other events and formats.

Yes, $30k is a paltry amount for a tournament that should command a far bigger prize for the winner and prize pool in general. It's a two way thing though - it needs players committed to growing the game, and an organization and sponsors committed to the same. It was growing but then (they say because of the financial downturn in Asia but that seems far too simplistic) it crashed. Regarding winning majors, it boils down to one thing - if you respect the status of those majors and the players that play in them then invest some money in trying to win them. If you don't, then claiming you would win one or more or be in contention is a waste of your words. Those guys who "aren't even in the top 20 or even 50" work hard at their games, put the hours in on the practice table, and play their hardest while trying to play their best. They value the title and kudos it gives them - good for them,

There are a couple of big Chinese 8 Ball tournaments that offer big prize money. Many snooker tournaments too. The players that win them work hard for it.[/QUOTE]

FWIW, I don't consider the MC to be a "tournament". To me, it is more like the Pro Bowl. Lots of great players show up, one side wins, and both teams get paid.

It is a "show".

 

[actionplayer]

No chance Germany or Holland is a favorite of every country except Philippines... Taiwain is a HUGE favorite over them and would be a big favorite I think over all of Europe. Chang Jung Lin, Ko brother, Wu Chia Ching ( I think he's from Taiwan but lives in China now), Kevin Cheng.

Shane Van Boening I have a lot of respect for him as a person and even more for his game but he isn't the only American that can compete with Europe. As far as most people on here saying well we will never win again since Europe has 6 world titles and we have none. It's hard to win world titles when I or most Americans don't travel to play in them. I promise you if I got to play 8 majors a year overseas for even a few years I would win one or a some and be in contention. Our best players don't go you have guys going over there that aren't even in the top 20 or even 50. They just want their name out there and that's great, but I'm not going to the Middle East and spending $5,000 to win $30,000 for a major. That's a joke!! We have very tough tournaments over too and if Europe is so great for pool why do half the Europeans move to the United States and no Americans move over to Europe?

On top of all that just say you guys are right... Europe is two balls better than all us it's a race to 5.... Lol so in a doubles match right it's possible to win a match and literally hit 10-15 balls even if it goes hill hill you will be lucky to shoot 20-25 shots... That's a full rack of 15 ball ONE RACK... It's just way too short to determine skill level.... Can you imagine another sport like Tennis or Golf where a player gets 10-20 shots like in tennis that's not even ONE rally lmao..... You would see upsets all the time... Nasal and Federer would get beat by guys and then all the experts would come out and say wow Federer lost 3 sets in a row in the biggest tournament that guy just can't handle pressure

Pool is a tough game with a lot of skill involved if played properly... For 9 ball between two top players, a real tournament match should be races to 21 with 30 second shot clock that should take an hour and a half to two hours... Then you would have a sport, a real match, and not where you lose the lag and your a huge underdog.... Just the way I see it..

And unlike most I am willing to back up my words with money. I'm going to try and put on a few tournaments $1,000 to $2,000 entry with money added and play different games 8 ball, 9 ball, and 10 ball... All 9ft diamond tables, call shot, shot clock, longer races 15 or 21... That's a real tournament... I think if we could play one of those a month or every two weeks we would see big improvement.... I didn't start playing pool to go to a bar and play a race to 7 9 ball magic rack for $2,000 1st place.

fair enough on a few points. I dont think you personally are far away from a major title but your other points dont make sense. you are saying especially because of lack of shots played and short races anyone can win? well yes thats right the fact is 9 ball short race alternate break it is designed to be a coin toss hence for tv however it is not been a coin flip since the early 00s. Europe has only lost once since 2006,

so where is the luck in 9 ball you are talking about>> if anything USA should be a lot closer but its not can you imagine if the races were longer oh gosh it would be a massacre.

and for euros coming to US well quality of life maybe one spouse and fact it easier to making living than playing on eurotour with 50 guys who can win. in usa no disrespect but guyys like shane mcminn robb saez chip compton joey gray richie richeson dan louie TK andersojn and many more can survive from playing pool as there are so many tournaments and america so big easier to travel with no visa restrictions.

reality is Europe can field a team of world champions usa cant. its really not fair anymore but im with you i do not know who it can be so lopsided considering its nine balll alternate break race to 5, surely we can get lucky one time and not trounced for last decade??

good luck with your tournaments

 

[Pathetic Shark]

Between 2001 and 2007, when the prize for the World 9 Ball Championship started at $65,000 (15 years ago) and grew to $100,000, Earl Strickland won one of them but no other US player made the final.

Pool is a tough game with a lot of skill involved if played properly... For 9 ball between two top players, a real tournament match should be races to 21 with 30 second shot clock that should take an hour and a half to two hours... Then you would have a sport, a real match, and not where you lose the lag and your a huge underdog.... Just the way I see it.

Take an event like the Mosconi Cup - It is not a test of skill between two players (but the aforementioned 9 ball events were with their races to 17 in the final). The Mosconi Cup is a team event with lots of short races. It doesn't matter if an individual player loses all of his matches - if his team wins more races than the other team then he is still a winning member of the *team* event. The USA can win this event again if they get the run of the balls, they play better (as a team) than Europe and if they adopt the right attitude and mindset to it. This mindset is then adaptable to other events and formats.

Yes, $30k is a paltry amount for a tournament that should command a far bigger prize for the winner and prize pool in general. It's a two way thing though - it needs players committed to growing the game, and an organization and sponsors committed to the same. It was growing but then (they say because of the financial downturn in Asia but that seems far too simplistic) it crashed. Regarding winning majors, it boils down to one thing - if you respect the status of those majors and the players that play in them then invest some money in trying to win them. If you don't, then claiming you would win one or more or be in contention is a waste of your words. Those guys who "aren't even in the top 20 or even 50" work hard at their games, put the hours in on the practice table, and play their hardest while trying to play their best. They value the title and kudos it gives them - good for them,

There are a couple of big Chinese 8 Ball tournaments that offer big prize money. Many snooker tournaments too. The players that win them work hard for it.

There will never be any money in pro pool whilst it's boring to watch. If there is no organising body strong enough to implement change, the pros must do it themselves. There's not a chance in hell I'll sit and watch Alex or Ko take an age to pot a simple ball, let alone pay for the privilege.

As ever, the game speeds up or it dies. If anything, it appears to be slowing down.

 

[9andout]

Pool is a tough game with a lot of skill involved if played properly... For 9 ball between two top players, a real tournament match should be races to 21 with 30 second shot clock that should take an hour and a half to two hours... Then you would have a sport, a real match, and not where you lose the lag and your a huge underdog.... Just the way I see it..

And unlike most I am willing to back up my words with money. I'm going to try and put on a few tournaments $1,000 to $2,000 entry with money added and play different games 8 ball, 9 ball, and 10 ball... All 9ft diamond tables, call shot, shot clock, longer races 15 or 21... That's a real tournament... I think if we could play one of those a month or every two weeks we would see big improvement..

I love that format idea!
Look forward to it. Good luck

 

[BeiberLvr]

No joke, could be persuaded to go to 15, if you ask nicely lol. Top snooker players can have average shot times within 15 seconds, and that includes walking around a 12' table and waiting for the ref to spot the colours...insane when you consider the complexity of the game as well.

Assessing a shot and executing quickly is a skill. It's also the same for both posters, so more mistakes evens out. The best will still win. I bet Asian players will struggle like mad.

More natural talents and fewer grinders, i say. Get pool back to favouring fast, aggressive shot makers, i say. Anything to make it more exciting...

In snooker, during a safety battle, players can average between 20 and 30 seconds per shot. When they are running the balls, it's down to about 15-20 as long as they don't get out of line.

I remember a match last year where they showed average shot time, and ROS was at 17 seconds.

But to be fair, the players rarely (if ever) actually walk around the entire 12' table.

 

[LC3]

How do the Europeans and Taiwanese champions typically train? How do the American champions typically train?

 

[JAMSGOLF]

I think the OP had some valid points. I don't think it's too far off from what Tiger Woods did in golf. He FORCED the rest of the field to step up their game...and they did...it took a few years, but he single handedly (IMHO) elevated the sport (e.g. the work ethic of other players) to a level far beyond where it was...and golf will never be the same again.

 

[Pathetic Shark]

In snooker, during a safety battle, players can average between 20 and 30 seconds per shot. When they are running the balls, it's down to about 15-20 as long as they don't get out of line.

I remember a match last year where they showed average shot time, and ROS was at 17 seconds.

But to be fair, the players rarely (if ever) actually walk around the entire 12' table.

O'Sullivan was at 14 secs for the recent UK's...aside from a few - Robertson, Rory McCloud - most play quickly these days, even Selby can get on with it when he needs to...I'm not sure whether Hearn has given them the hurry-up, or they've realised it's in their own best interests, but things have changed in recent years.

No reason why pool should be slower than snooker. In fact, it's a disgrace it is, and the reason is purely cultural. Players need to realise the fans need to be entertained - nothing entertaining about watching a player shake his head for 30 seconds, then get down, get up, shift left, shift right, get down, get up, shake head for 30 seconds...rinse and repeat. I'd rather gnaw my own testicles off than watch pro pool.

 

[Tin Man]

shot clock

No joke, could be persuaded to go to 15, if you ask nicely lol. Top snooker players can have average shot times within 15 seconds, and that includes walking around a 12' table and waiting for the ref to spot the colours...insane when you consider the complexity of the game as well.

Assessing a shot and executing quickly is a skill. It's also the same for both posters, so more mistakes evens out. The best will still win. I bet Asian players will struggle like mad.

More natural talents and fewer grinders, i say. Get pool back to favouring fast, aggressive shot makers, i say. Anything to make it more exciting...

This sounded so ridiculous I had to look into it. I went to youtube and searched for "snooker", then arrowed down to the first suggestion for "2016 championship final game". Link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNBkJZoSdzg

After his opponent breaks he takes exactly 57 seconds to play a return safety. I shut it off at this point. When the very first shot I watch takes a full minute there is no question that there are many situations that come up which wouldn't be practical for a 15 or 20 second shot clock.

I don't really agree with the premise that speed and viewership are absolutely correlated. Yes, ultra slow play can be hard on an audience. But speed pool isn't the answer. They tried that on ESPN, didn't exactly bring pool back to watch guys running around the table.

The reality is that it may not be possible to make pool into a main stream game. If that's the case, why kill a beautiful game that many people love trying to attract attention from an audience that will never care?

I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't think everything is horrible or broken. I like the game the way it is. I think our US top players play absolutely amazing. If there are people overseas that play great too or not many viewers watching this doesn't mean everything is horrible. It means that there are other good players and pool is a niche not a mainstream. I fail to see the catastrophe.

 

[BeiberLvr]

This sounded so ridiculous I had to look into it. I went to youtube and searched for "snooker", then arrowed down to the first suggestion for "2016 championship final game". Link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNBkJZoSdzg

After his opponent breaks he takes exactly 57 seconds to play a return safety. I shut it off at this point. When the very first shot I watch takes a full minute there is no question that there are many situations that come up which wouldn't be practical for a 15 or 20 second shot clock.

I don't really agree with the premise that speed and viewership are absolutely correlated. Yes, ultra slow play can be hard on an audience. But speed pool isn't the answer. They tried that on ESPN, didn't exactly bring pool back to watch guys running around the table.

The reality is that it may not be possible to make pool into a main stream game. If that's the case, why kill a beautiful game that many people love trying to attract attention from an audience that will never care?

I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't think everything is horrible or broken. I like the game the way it is. I think our US top players play absolutely amazing. If there are people overseas that play great too or not many viewers watching this doesn't mean everything is horrible. It means that there are other good players and pool is a niche not a mainstream. I fail to see the catastrophe.

So you base your opinion off one shot?

Not very bright are we?

 

[Tin Man]

yes

So you base your opinion off one shot?

Not very bright are we?

poster stated a 20 second shot clock wouldn't impact snooker. When the very first shot I see takes a minute then yes, it's very clear there would be an impact.

If you want to watch the entire video and tally up how many shots take over 20 seconds then feel free. To me that doesn't sound very bright but if you do please let us know the totals. Thanks.

 

[Pathetic Shark]

This sounded so ridiculous I had to look into it. I went to youtube and searched for "snooker", then arrowed down to the first suggestion for "2016 championship final game". Link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNBkJZoSdzg

After his opponent breaks he takes exactly 57 seconds to play a return safety. I shut it off at this point. When the very first shot I watch takes a full minute there is no question that there are many situations that come up which wouldn't be practical for a 15 or 20 second shot clock.

I don't really agree with the premise that speed and viewership are absolutely correlated. Yes, ultra slow play can be hard on an audience. But speed pool isn't the answer. They tried that on ESPN, didn't exactly bring pool back to watch guys running around the table.

The reality is that it may not be possible to make pool into a main stream game. If that's the case, why kill a beautiful game that many people love trying to attract attention from an audience that will never care?

I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't think everything is horrible or broken. I like the game the way it is. I think our US top players play absolutely amazing. If there are people overseas that play great too or not many viewers watching this doesn't mean everything is horrible. It means that there are other good players and pool is a niche not a mainstream. I fail to see the catastrophe.

https://youtu.be/bpeBugHSCnU

You're welcome to try to beat it, but it ain't no stinkin' pool table. Watch till the end, for the commentator's final remarks.

Not many play snooker but millions watch. Loads of people play pool but nobody watches. You may be happy with the state of pool but it'll be gone entirely within a generation if it doesn't change.

 

[Pathetic Shark]

poster stated a 20 second shot clock wouldn't impact snooker. When the very first shot I see takes a minute then yes, it's very clear there would be an impact.

If you want to watch the entire video and tally up how many shots take over 20 seconds then feel free. To me that doesn't sound very bright but if you do please let us know the totals. Thanks.

There are tournaments with 20 second stop clocks. Top players still win. The more frivolous Snooker Shoot-out starts at 15 secs and goes down to 10 as the match progresses iirc, with no extensions. On a 12 ft table!

And the clip you linked was the world championship finals, with them playing for half a million dollars...it's at the end of 17 grueling day's of play...nobody is in any fit shape to play quickly then.

 

[Tin Man]

fastest in history

https://youtu.be/bpeBugHSCnU

You're welcome to try to beat it, but it ain't no stinkin' pool table. Watch till the end, for the commentator's final remarks.

Not many play snooker but millions watch. Loads of people play pool but nobody watches. You may be happy with the state of pool but it'll be gone entirely within a generation if it doesn't change.

We're talking about several different things. One is whether speed and viewership correlate. Another is whether a 20 second shot clock would impact pool or snooker negatively. One is debatable, whether speed and viewership correlate. There is no doubt in my mind though that a 20 second shot clock would be impossible for any cue sport to sustain.

This link you just posted was to: "Ronnie O' Sullivan Fastest 147 in History - 5 minutes 20 seconds - 1997 World Championship". If you have to go back 19 years and find something captioned "fastest in history" to show an example of a game that could meet this requirement I think it just proves it wouldn't work.

Now, I grant you that the commentator said "It's his fast play that brings audiences to their feet". But that's one man's comment, not definitive proof. I just watched a match between Mike Siegel and Nick Varner that had audiences on their feet as well, the commentators said it was the best match they ever watched, there was roaring, suspense, and more. And part of the suspense was watching them deal with difficult situations under pressure.

You're right though, I don't really care about the 'state of pool'. I have no emotional attachment to it being some way other than how it is. I just like to play. Many things evolve in this world. I'm more distressed by the growing divorce rate or climate change. Pool is just my break from it all. And if it's just me hitting balls in my basement remembering a game no one else does then that's just fine. But I don't think that's the case. I think it will go on as it's gone on. Played and enjoyed by many, not in the mainstream, not in the Olympics, but just for something to do.

But whether I'm right or wrong on what pool 'needs' or what the future of pool holds, I know this much...it won't be happening with a 20 second shot clock.

 

[Tin Man]

There are tournaments with 20 second stop clocks. Top players still win. The more frivolous Snooker Shoot-out starts at 15 secs and goes down to 10 as the match progresses iirc, with no extensions. On a 12 ft table!

And the clip you linked was the world championship finals, with them playing for half a million dollars...it's at the end of 17 grueling day's of play...nobody is in any fit shape to play quickly then.

OK Pathetic, you can cast your vote for a 20 or 15 second shot clock. But let me ask you a different question- if we polled AZB or the top 100 players in the world, do you think they'd vote for a 20 second shot clock? If not, can you accept that the majority simply doesn't share your views on this and accept the nearly unanimous consensus?

 

[BeiberLvr]

OK Pathetic, you can cast your vote for a 20 or 15 second shot clock. But let me ask you a different question- if we polled AZB or the top 100 players in the world, do you think they'd vote for a 20 second shot clock? If not, can you accept that the majority simply doesn't share your views on this and accept the nearly unanimous consensus?

You and the majority of AZB should not be the target market.

Going after non pool players should be the primary goal, and the first step is to increase the speed at which the game is played. Mind you, it's not the only step, but an important one nonetheless.

Also, please understand that there is a difference between speeding up the game and playing speed pool. The latter is a gimmick we should try to avoid at all costs.

 

[BeiberLvr]

poster stated a 20 second shot clock wouldn't impact snooker. When the very first shot I see takes a minute then yes, it's very clear there would be an impact.

If you want to watch the entire video and tally up how many shots take over 20 seconds then feel free. To me that doesn't sound very bright but if you do please let us know the totals. Thanks.

Or maybe the first shot took over a minute because there was no shot clock.

Had there been a 20 second shot clock, then I'm sure both players would have been just fine.

 

[Pathetic Shark]

OK Pathetic, you can cast your vote for a 20 or 15 second shot clock. But let me ask you a different question- if we polled AZB or the top 100 players in the world, do you think they'd vote for a 20 second shot clock? If not, can you accept that the majority simply doesn't share your views on this and accept the nearly unanimous consensus?

Good god no. People like what they like and they like what they know. Rely on current fans and current players and the game dies with them.

People also tend to be too stupid to know what's good for them. A strong governing body, with the gonads to ruffle feathers, is required. This is the reason snooker is professional and with a 15 million dollar yearly pot, and pool is a farce without a pot to piss in.

Ask people what they want and you get Brexit and trump...New broom required.