Archer wins the 14.1 mezz event

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...
iguess if i got beat that bad i would blame it on slow play to what a joke. he had chances he missed alot of shots simply put johnny played better.
 
Good win for Johnny, he had a nice run on that tight tv table. Commentary from Hohman was also great to hear.
 
jay helfert said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you would agree with me that playing on a table with normal pockets is one way to speed up 14.1. I like to see big runs more than guys missing shots on super tight tables like the one Archer beat Immonen on. It's amazing that Archer ran 70 at one point on that table. I think the high run on that table prior to that was 30, kind of ridiculous for the top pros.

If you take a close look at Irving Crane's famous 150 and out vs Balsis, he rattles a couple balls which fall in on what appears to be 5" pockets. I didn't see anybody walk out because the table wasn't super tight. I would rather see 5" pockets and a game where if a guy misses a shot he might not get out of his chair.
 
Last edited:
alstl said:
I wonder if you would agree with me that playing on a table with normal pockets is one way to speed up 14.1. I like to see big runs more than guys missing shots on super tight tables like the one Archer beat Immonen on. It's amazing that Archer ran 70 at one point on that table. I think the high run on that table prior to that was 30, kind of ridiculous for the top pros.

If you take a close look at Irving Crane's famous 150 and out vs Balsis, he rattles a couple balls which fall in on what appears to be 5" pockets. I didn't see anybody walk out because the table wasn't super tight. I would rather see 5" pockets and a game where if a guy misses a shot he might not get out of his chair.
Click to expand...

Bigger pockets would make a difference. Longer runs usually equates to faster matches, as long as the players don't stall between shots. Like I said before, there were a lot slower players in the old days than Johnny. I ref'd for McGown and he almost had me asleep on my feet. :smile:
 
At the Gem City, I watched Johnny break and run five racks. He'd often pick up balls and move them from pocket to pocket, whether or not the pocket was full or he was shooting into it. I suppose it was just something to do while he thought about the shot. He took his time but he did run 50. Anyway, it was more exciting than watching cricket.
 
Congrats Johnny! He is one of my favorite players. I am glad to see him win one after the past year or two of not finishing first. He is a great teacher too!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top