As for shot clocks

alphadog

alphadog

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I am a big advocate of timely play.
For those who are against shot clocks because they change the game(?) I have 2 questions for you...

1. If a emphasis was put on timely play since forever would the game really be any different today ?

2. How often does a player find a new option after a extended time of "eyeballing" ? I believe they often play what they saw in the first 15/20 seconds.
 
I think a lot of players just use the extra time to psyche them selves up to take the tough shot that they knew at the beginning they had to play. I good user of this is Sky Woodward. I love his pace of play. It's probably one of the big reasons he "over performs" at Mosconi Cup.
 
I prefer chess-like time clocks.
If a player takes several shots in a row fast, then they build up a buffer to really think through a tough shot.
If a player thinks a long time on a tough shot, he then has to shot a series of shots quickly to get back in rhythm with the clock.
Say 4-minutes per player per game.
 
MitchAlsup said:
I prefer chess-like time clocks.
If a player takes several shots in a row fast, then they build up a buffer to really think through a tough shot.
If a player thinks a long time on a tough shot, he then has to shot a series of shots quickly to get back in rhythm with the clock.
Say 4-minutes per player per game.
Click to expand...

Chess clock is the best for a lot of reasons, but has practicality issues and there's challenges with how end-game scenarios go down when someone is about to lose a match due to time.
 
alphadog said:
I am a big advocate of timely play.
For those who are against shot clocks because they change the game(?) I have 2 questions for you...

1. If a emphasis was put on timely play since forever would the game really be any different today ?

2. How often does a player find a new option after a extended time of "eyeballing" ? I believe they often play what they saw in the first 15/20 seconds.
Click to expand...

Like you, I like timely reasonable play.

To answer your question, no, they don't discover or all of a sudden see a shot that they didn't see in the first few seconds of analysis. If a pro cannot see a shot within a little bit of brainstorming, they never will until they LEARN that new shot. It's not a shot "in the arsenal" or part of their experience scope. That's true of of every player.

They know exactly what they need to shoot. Rarely are there genuinely "two ways to shoot this shot" ...one of those ways is almost always advantageous. For example, should I go one rail or two rails? Well, when 99% of the time pros go two rails it's because it comes with a series of advantages or less dangers than the one rail play. That sort of thing. This makes that shot the real shot to play, and they know it.

They know the shots. They have shot them literally a million times. Even Earl used those very words on this very subject "they shot that a million times, why they taking so long?"

I can concede that some players are psyching themselves up, clearing their mind, trying to get "locked in" for the shot. But every shot? Give us a break already. I can see that for some brutal tough shot, but routine shots? No. Unacceptable.

What they are doing is deliberately delaying to "ice the opponent in the chair" tactics in 9-ball. That's all it is.
 
Grilled Cheese said:
Chess clock is the best for a lot of reasons, but has practicality issues and there's challenges with how end-game scenarios go down when someone is about to lose a match due to time.
Click to expand...
We have used chess clocks for league matches around here. I think the fairest way to penalize running out of time is with pro-rated points to the other player, depending on the game.
 
Icing works both ways, just look at the Alex and Tony recent matchup where Tony realized if he took a smoke break every game it pissed Alex off and threw him off his game. Alex takes the next break, for 49 minutes and Tony was DONE. Players have a rhythm and all of them are different. If you want to see the best matches let them play.
 
Last edited:
alphadog said:
I am a big advocate of timely play.
For those who are against shot clocks because they change the game(?) I have 2 questions for you...

1. If a emphasis was put on timely play since forever would the game really be any different today ?

2. How often does a player find a new option after a extended time of "eyeballing" ? I believe they often play what they saw in the first 15/20 seconds.
Click to expand...

There are often patterns to run to be thought of not just how to shoot a shot. Especially if the balls get moved around the prior turn.

1 Not a bit

2 Sometimes

I use my time thinking over the shot mostly to figure out the pattern play first turn at the table, then to speed and spin I need to use. That usually does not take any more than 30-40 seconds even for the longer shots when I watch my play on recordings. Some shots I know what I was thinking and the amount of time I spent in my head seems way longer than the time I see myself shoot it on video.

Unless there is a ref or a team-mate looking at the clock it's also just an extra pain in the ass to think about and like the 3 point break rule will introduce more issues than it tries to "fix". When I'm at the table I want to play the game the best I can, not have to spend extra brain energy or focus to worry about time-keeping any more than I want to have to try to play around the 6 drunk kids at the next table.
 
Very few shot clock advocates ever mention the simple fact that some people just don't physically move as quickly as the clock thinks they should. One recent unfortunate event is that Alex had to forfeit a match against Jason Shaw because he knew that his legs wouldn't let him move quickly enough.
 
NobodySpecial said:
Very few shot clock advocates ever mention the simple fact that some people just don't physically move as quickly as the clock thinks they should. One recent unfortunate event is that Alex had to forfeit a match against Jason Shaw because he knew that his legs wouldn't let him move quickly enough.
Click to expand...
If that was the case , his legs needed the rest. 😉
 
MitchAlsup said:
I prefer chess-like time clocks.
If a player takes several shots in a row fast, then they build up a buffer to really think through a tough shot.
If a player thinks a long time on a tough shot, he then has to shot a series of shots quickly to get back in rhythm with the clock.
Say 4-minutes per player per game.
Click to expand...
I love this idea. But i would increase it to probably 5 minutes or we could do something like 4 +10
 
4-minutes, each, per game makes each game fit between TV commercials, whereas 5 minutes, each, does not.
 
Renegade_56 said:
When is the last time you saw live pool matches on TV?
Click to expand...

Well it would probably be because there is really not much other need to keep games or match time limits past holding up the tournament too much, and any reasonable time clock limit like 45 seconds a shot with an extension is good enough for that. With maybe a minute to look over the rack after the break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top