Archer wins the 14.1 mezz event

Roy Steffensen said:
It is only hardcore fans like BlackJack who can watch 14-1 being played like that.
Click to expand...

Roy,
You see a 4 hour marathon, I see a 4 hour lesson.

I spoke to Johnny for a little while the other night, and I know how much winning this event means to him. He has a sincere love for the game of 14.1. Johnny's victory in this event should show you why I have so much respect for the way he plays this game. Slow or not, he is one of the best ever IMO.
 
Island Drive said:
Totally agree, 200, especially on a "tight" table its too long of a match. When 14.1 was in its heyday 125 was the norm and 150 maybe' in the final, my thinking is the great players of that era designed the conditions and match length to give every player a chance to run out the match at any time. The players commented that this TV table was much tighter than the other tables and felt high runs were not attainable. I think earlier matches (I heard from the players doing commentary) attained runs twice the length of any high run in the final match, tho I didn't watch the final match to its end. Straight pool conditions should be such that at any time your opponent could run out the match if you miss. Once JA had a 50 ball lead it was difficult to beat him, in Lassiters day, he would take the 3 scratch rule more than once in a match and still beat ya, with this tight table you probably would of thought twice before you would even of considerd that.
Click to expand...

Bill, you know I respect you and your game, but I have to disagree. 14.1 played at its highest level anyone can run 100 balls. If the race is too short, it becomes a game of "who gets first shot wins". Obviously a tight table can help mitigate runs. However, I see scores of 100 to 0 all the time. I absolutely loved the idea of 1000 point matches that they used in Mosconi's time. Round robin Matches that were played in blocks over several days until a champ was delared. It was here that Mosconi put his stamp of authority on straight pool.

Of course, the same can be said of 9 ball, where we are currently seeing races to 100 to declare a champ. I realize in todays fast food society, that these prolonged races are not TV friendly, but they sure do represent pool in it's purest form. I for one, would eagerly sit through a 200 point match, no problem.

On a side note Bill, get your butt into Antiques and lets play some straight pool. It's the game that I was raised on, and I could use some great competition.

Regards,

Doug
 
Salamander said:
Bill, you know I respect you and your game, but I have to disagree. 14.1 played at its highest level anyone can run 100 balls. If the race is too short, it becomes a game of "who gets first shot wins". Obviously a tight table can help mitigate runs. However, I see scores of 100 to 0 all the time. I absolutely loved the idea of 1000 point matches that they used in Mosconi's time. Round robin Matches that were played in blocks over several days until a champ was delared. It was here that Mosconi put his stamp of authority on straight pool.

Of course, the same can be said of 9 ball, where we are currently seeing races to 100 to declare a champ. I realize in todays fast food society, that these prolonged races are not TV friendly, but they sure do represent pool in it's purest form. I for one, would eagerly sit through a 200 point match, no problem.

On a side note Bill, get your butt into Antiques and lets play some straight pool. It's the game that I was raised on, and I could use some great competition.

Regards,

Doug
Click to expand...

Maybe, not now tho. During the great years of the depression and later on the players developed the rules (which are rock solid and will probably never be changed, that says allot) and I think they knew what they were doing. Mizerack won the US Open 14.1 many times against great players only going to 125 points. The mindset of those players was to never miss, and if there was a possibility they ducked, very constructively, I many times saw players during the Johnson City days play 6/8 or ten safteis before someone even got a shot. I saw JA last night till my computer locked up take a difficult cross side bank shot that made no sense, except that he probably felt the risk was worth it knowing his opponenent with these conditions could never run out the match let alone 5 racks to even the score. I feel the same way about too tight of pockets in rotation pool, it removes the agressive Sigel type play that 9 & ten ball embody. Like I've said before, in golf they don't make the hole on the greens any smaller to make their game more difficult.
 
Last edited:
You go Johnny Archer making Georgia proud ... I saw him play at The Gem City Classic .... He matched up against Varner in 10 ball and Varner never won a game (Varner and JA are two of my favs)... JA ran the tourny handled alot of people and his place and won the tourny with ease . He is playing some great pool right now and making Georgia proud ...
 
Blackjack said:
Roy,
You see a 4 hour marathon, I see a 4 hour lesson.

I spoke to Johnny for a little while the other night, and I know how much winning this event means to him. He has a sincere love for the game of 14.1. Johnny's victory in this event should show you why I have so much respect for the way he plays this game. Slow or not, he is one of the best ever IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes, as a lesson it is a good tool, but I am talking about the entertainment value.

I consider myself as more than average interested in pool, even among the users here on the forum, and I can't stand watching a 14-1 match taking 4 hours. Especially not when it is not even close, but one player wins with more than 120 balls.

When more than average interested die-hard pool fans can't watch it, doesn't that mean that there is a need for a change?

I take nothing away from JA here. He played a great tournament, and beat one of the worlds best 14-1 players in the final. As some of the people in the chat don't realize, JA is 1 of the best 14-1 also, and he is no stranger to that game.

I would just wish that organizers would help do 14-1 more interesting for the fans, and one way to do it, imo, is for example like "pooladdict" mentioned.

A shotclock with two extensions per rack per player would be a great start, and I also think that races shouldn't be longer than 150.

And the tables should definitely be cleaned before each match so there are no lint to picks! :cool:
 
Roy Steffensen said:
Yes, as a lesson it is a good tool, but I am talking about the entertainment value.

I consider myself as more than average interested in pool, even among the users here on the forum, and I can't stand watching a 14-1 match taking 4 hours. Especially not when it is not even close, but one player wins with more than 120 balls.

When more than average interested die-hard pool fans can't watch it, doesn't that mean that there is a need for a change?

I take nothing away from JA here. He played a great tournament, and beat one of the worlds best 14-1 players in the final. As some of the people in the chat don't realize, JA is 1 of the best 14-1 also, and he is no stranger to that game.

I would just wish that organizers would help do 14-1 more interesting for the fans, and one way to do it, imo, is for example like "pooladdict" mentioned.

A shotclock with two extensions per rack per player would be a great start, and I also think that races shouldn't be longer than 150.

And the tables should definitely be cleaned before each match so there are no lint to picks! :cool:
Click to expand...

Agree with you on all points.

Another factor is the table they were playing on. It's no joke, and you really have to take your time or you will pay for it dearly.

Either way, it was a great win, and the 10 ball starts today. Johnny will be tough to beat in that as well.
 
Roy Steffensen said:
Yes, as a lesson it is a good tool, but I am talking about the entertainment value.

I consider myself as more than average interested in pool, even among the users here on the forum, and I can't stand watching a 14-1 match taking 4 hours. Especially not when it is not even close, but one player wins with more than 120 balls.

When more than average interested die-hard pool fans can't watch it, doesn't that mean that there is a need for a change?

I take nothing away from JA here. He played a great tournament, and beat one of the worlds best 14-1 players in the final. As some of the people in the chat don't realize, JA is 1 of the best 14-1 also, and he is no stranger to that game.

I would just wish that organizers would help do 14-1 more interesting for the fans, and one way to do it, imo, is for example like "pooladdict" mentioned.

A shotclock with two extensions per rack per player would be a great start, and I also think that races shouldn't be longer than 150.

And the tables should definitely be cleaned before each match so there are no lint to picks! :cool:
Click to expand...

I tried watching some the match , but the feed was choppy. The feed was much better on Thusday. AND every time I went back on Friday to watch..... all I saw was Archer (standing still).~~~~ yawn~~~~
 
I think all the games should be played on demanding equipment, but not on impossible tables. I did not see this final match, so I can't comment on the size of the pockets. However, the national tournament they had last week was played on buckets. Narrow those babies down alittle, then you can have your shorter races. Otherwise, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Doug


Island Drive said:
Maybe, not now tho. During the great years of the depression and later on the players developed the rules (which are rock solid and will probably never be changed, that says allot) and I think they knew what they were doing. Mizerack won the US Open 14.1 many times against great players only going to 125 points. The mindset of those players was to never miss, and if there was a possibility they ducked, very constructively, I many times saw players during the Johnson City days play 6/8 or ten safteis before someone even got a shot. I saw JA last night till my computer locked up take a difficult cross side bank shot that made no sense, except that he probably felt the risk was worth it knowing his opponenent with these conditions could never run out the match let alone 5 racks to even the score. I feel the same way about too tight of pockets in rotation pool, it removes the agressive Sigel type play that 9 & ten ball embody. Like I've said before, in golf they don't make the hole on the greens any smaller to make their game more difficult.
Click to expand...
 
Table

For those wondering about the size of the pockets.

Table: Brunswick Gold Crown III
I added in 3/8" inch sub-rail extensions with one standard facing
which produced corner pockets of 4 1/4".
New Brunswick Superspeed cushions.
Siminos 860 HR cloth

The day before the finals J A commented that he loved playing
on tables set up like this. So, he was in a very good mind-set when he got to the finals.


The 10-Ball has started. Yu Ram could be a sleeper here if she plays any of her matches on this table. Her game is well suited for the tight pockets. She was playing sets with the Rocket before the tournament and more than holding her on.
 
Perfect. Love it when the balls jam at the points

M HOUSE said:
For those wondering about the size of the pockets.

Table: Brunswick Gold Crown III
I added in 3/8" inch sub-rail extensions with one standard facing
which produced corner pockets of 4 1/4".
New Brunswick Superspeed cushions.
Siminos 860 HR cloth

The day before the finals J A commented that he loved playing
on tables set up like this. So, he was in a very good mind-set when he got to the finals.


The 10-Ball has started. Yu Ram could be a sleeper here if she plays any of her matches on this table. Her game is well suited for the tight pockets. She was playing sets with the Rocket before the tournament and more than holding her on.
Click to expand...
 
Mika says he was in a coma after watching Johnny average 1 minute pr ball.
Click to expand...
that in itself can be a strategy to upset your oponent. i did it once in a 9ball tournament. the guy was getting pissed OFF. i won easily. lol....
 
Mika

sausage said:
that in itself can be a strategy to upset your oponent. i did it once in a 9ball tournament. the guy was getting pissed OFF. i won easily. lol....
Click to expand...



At one point during Johnny's longest run, Mika turned in his chair and started watching a 10-ball match that was in progress on the table behind them. Apparently he found it more interesting.
 
I'm just gonna say that I love pool to death, but even I couldn't even bear to watch more then 5 minutes of the live stream of SVB vs Archer yesterday.

Watching archer stand there motionless for minutes at a time scanning for this and that... blah

I mean good job on the win, but I sure as hell got better things to do lol.
 
What are the rest of the events being played and when? Is there live streaming?Thanks
Joe T
 
Last edited:
Roy Steffensen said:
Yes, as a lesson it is a good tool, but I am talking about the entertainment value.

I consider myself as more than average interested in pool, even among the users here on the forum, and I can't stand watching a 14-1 match taking 4 hours. Especially not when it is not even close, but one player wins with more than 120 balls.

When more than average interested die-hard pool fans can't watch it, doesn't that mean that there is a need for a change?

I take nothing away from JA here. He played a great tournament, and beat one of the worlds best 14-1 players in the final. As some of the people in the chat don't realize, JA is 1 of the best 14-1 also, and he is no stranger to that game.

I would just wish that organizers would help do 14-1 more interesting for the fans, and one way to do it, imo, is for example like "pooladdict" mentioned.

A shotclock with two extensions per rack per player would be a great start, and I also think that races shouldn't be longer than 150.

And the tables should definitely be cleaned before each match so there are no lint to picks! :cool:
Click to expand...


Roy, this has been the problem that has plagued Straight Pool as long as I've been around. I can remember one of the last World Championships that was televised in 1989 in Chicago. Mizerak played Ortmann in the finals, a 200 point match. George Fels and I did commentary. It was also a tight Brunswick table and it became a safety battle that lasted over four hours. It started to get embarrassing for television when you could see spectators getting up and walking out. What started with a full house of people, ended with less than half of them remaining.

And get this, they were playing with a 45 second shot clock. It was just safety after safety. Ten innings in a row at times. In the same tournament Dick Lane played several 150 point matches that lasted over three hours. He worked that shot clock to perfection, rarely shooting in less than 40 seconds.
This is an inherent problem with Straight Pool. It is, at it's roots, a slowly played pool game with many options throughout each rack. Unless your name is Lou Butera, who used to burn through racks in a minute or two.

I for one am glad to see Straight Pool making a small comeback in this country. It was nearly dead and buried ten years ago. Straight Pool remains the premier pool game. By that, I mean that the best players always will rise to the top in competition. There are no accidental wins in Straight Pool. In my younger days, everyone knew Mizerak was the best Straight Pool player and he proved it over and over again. Then it was Sigel's turn to rule. And he had to fend off Rempe, Hopkins and Varner among others. But we all knew in our hearts Sigel was "numero uno". And he proved himself too.

Regrettably, this will probably be the undoing of Straight Pool once again. These days people want to see two champions play one game of 9-Ball for all the marbles, like they do so often on the International Challenge Of Champions. But for real pool afficionados Straight Pool will remain one of the more challenging games to watch, especially when two great players lock horns. I always loved watching Lassiter, Crane and Balsis battle it out with the young Mizerak. They wanted to beat the "kid" so bad. I was rooting for Steve of course. He was my bud and I liked watching him whip it up on the all time greats. And believe me, he could do it too.
 
paksat said:
I'm just gonna say that I love pool to death, but even I couldn't even bear to watch more then 5 minutes of the live stream of SVB vs Archer yesterday.

Watching archer stand there motionless for minutes at a time scanning for this and that... blah

I mean good job on the win, but I sure as hell got better things to do lol.
Click to expand...

Mika wasn't happy about it either. He posted on his FB page about coming out of a coma after watching Johnny. I didn't see it. Someone else commented there were many shots with about a minute between shots, and plenty of lint picking. I guess maybe it wasn't the best match to sweat, but the slow steady approach must have worked well for JA.
 
jingle said:
Mika wasn't happy about it either. He posted on his FB page about coming out of a coma after watching Johnny. I didn't see it. Someone else commented there were many shots with about a minute between shots, and plenty of lint picking. I guess maybe it wasn't the best match to sweat, but the slow steady approach must have worked well for JA.
Click to expand...

Lassiter had the answer to slow playing opponents. He used to nod off in his chair while they were shooting. The referee had to come and get him when it was his turn to shoot. I can still see him, slowly rising to his feet, shaking himself a little, straightening out his clothes, then coming to the table and proceeding to run a 90 after napping in his chair for twenty or thirty minutes. The man could play, that's all I have to say.
 
Last edited:
Why focus on Johnny's play?

I watched big chunks of the match and my major issues were with poor stream quality and bad sound not Johnny's play. I can't complain about a free feed but it makes watching anyone play intolerable to me when the screen constantly stops and jerks. I suspect that Johnny's play will seem much more tolerable to those watching it on DVD.

Seems most folks are forgetting that there were two people at that table too. The match went a lot of innings with Mika seldom able to get anything going. Smart play by Johnny but it seemed that Mika wasn't willing to take the chances that he needed to in able to win either. Both competitors playing very tight most of the time made for a dull game.

Hu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top