Can/should 9-ball be made harder?

How to make the game harder?

  • Trudeau and Sigel had the right idea - slow cloth and tight pockets

    Votes: 6 6.7%

  • The cloth is fine - let's tighten up those pockets more!

    Votes: 21 23.6%

  • No jump cues

    Votes: 11 12.4%

  • Jump cues are okay, but not with phenolic tips.

    Votes: 4 4.5%

  • No phenolic tips at all! It effects the break too! Let's go back to 100% leather.

    Votes: 12 13.5%

  • Forget 9 ball - 10 ball needs to be the game of choice

    Votes: 43 48.3%

  • 9 ball is okay, but the matches are too short, let's lengthen them and make them real sets

    Votes: 17 19.1%

  • The game needs to be harder, but I have another idea (post a suggestion)

    Votes: 11 12.4%

  • Gromulan, I hate you and everything you stand for, just show me the results.

    Votes: 3 3.4%

  • The game is fine as it is!

    Votes: 15 16.9%
  • Total voters
    89
gromulan

gromulan

Reality police
Silver Member
I've been playing this game for 20 years. These days I am seeing some trends that are concerning to me:

1) Most good players are making corner balls on a remarkably consistent basis

2) Almost all good players have jump cues with phenolic tips and are extremely proficient with them. They can jump almost anything and many will make the ball they shoot at more than 50% of the time.

3) Good players today all know the right patterns and right shots most of the time. They might miss, but they don't make too many "thinking" mistakes.

As a result of this, the game has become a bit boring, especially for those of us who know it well. I ask you, the citizens of AZB, should the game be made harder to make it more entertaining, and if so, how?
 
I agree with everything you said, and would like to add that there is too much importance on the break. Pushouts are always interesting, so why not have a MANDATORY pushout after the break ? That would guarantee an interesting saftety battle or difficult shot in every rack, while eliminating the luck of the break.
 
By making it harder it will be much less interesting to watch on TV. And I believe we need pool to be on TV. Perhaps we can change the format.

Sudden Death has been a great format:
2 sets of race to 5. If both players have won 1 set then they will let 1 game decide the winner.

However, if this is a private match you can name anything you want,

tight pocket, back pocket, call pocket
9b.gif
...
 
Last edited:
The major difference in adding the 10th ball pertains to the break. It eliminates the dead wing balls and promotes the big breaks and awards those who can control the cueball after the power breaks as well.

What is boring is seeing the wing ball going in ALL THE TIME.

If you think 10 ball is boring to watch then you must deep down, think 9-ball is boring to watch as well.
 
Scottster said:
The major difference in adding the 10th ball pertains to the break. It eliminates the dead wing balls and promotes the big breaks and awards those who can control the cueball after the power breaks as well.

What is boring is seeing the wing ball going in ALL THE TIME.

If you think 10 ball is boring to watch then you must deep down, think 9-ball is boring to watch as well.
Click to expand...
9-ball is boring to watch. But then I think 10 ball is more exciting. I also think they should take the slop factor out. Especially at the pro level. Why should a pro (or anyone for that matter) be rewarded for missing his intended shot.

After watching the IPT (I know it's a dirty word) videos, I truly believe 8 ball is a much more interesting game to watch. You have just as many run outs but the approach to them is different every time.

I only watch 9-ball on tv because there's no other pool on. :rolleyes: some pool is better than no pool.
 
I would like to see the games played on a 5x10 snooker table. Actually I would just like to see them play Snooker more here in the states and put that on TV. Everywhere I go I hear about how it has to be fast for the viewing audiance. How the viewres want to see a guy run out all the time. My question is ....who has tested this theory? Has there been a nation wide poll that I didn't here about? I say its malarcy! I know I would enjoy watching a much more strategic and harder game. Sure One Pocket might put some viewers to sleep but...SNOOKER. I would love to watch snooker on TV. If no Snooker than put them back on the 5x10 with tight pockets.
 
suggestion

Because the break is so big in 9ball I think it is where the change has to happen.By the end of most events it is a break contest. It doesn't matter if it is losers breaks or winner breaks your break better be on or you are toast. So what is my suggestion? Let's call it 9BALL CONTINUOUS.


Here is the rule: When the nine ball is pocketed and cue ball has come to rest the cue ball will drawn straight up to the kitchen line and the next break will have to occur from that spot.


That's it folks...:)
 
cheesemouse said:
Because the break is so big in 9ball I think it is where the change has to happen.By the end of most events it is a break contest. It doesn't matter if it is losers breaks or winner breaks your break better be on or you are toast. So what is my suggestion? Let's call it 9BALL CONTINUOUS.


Here is the rule: When the nine ball is pocketed and cue ball has come to rest the cue ball will drawn straight up to the kitchen line and the next break will have to occur from that spot.


That's it folks...:)
Click to expand...

Screw that. Just have them break from where the cue ball lies. Then you have to play shape for the next break rather than putting them on the line all the time.
 
I think it is fine the way it is. You have to play your best to win, its that simple. People make a lot of jump shots, play better safes. If the corner ball is so automatic then it still comes down to a controlled break. There is nothing more exciting when 2 players are running racks. I do think that the races should be long that is the best way to determine who came to play that day. I am not a big fan of 10-ball just for the simple fact that it is hard to get a tight rack. My best break is from the side rail and when I rack balls myself and give myself a house rack it kinda pisses me off :D

What do you mean by "thinking" mistakes??

Eric.A.
 
Harvywallbanger said:
Screw that. Just have them break from where the cue ball lies. Then you have to play shape for the next break rather than putting them on the line all the time.
Click to expand...

You guys are inventing quite the mix of games...why not shoot them all in the same pocket, too. :p

I rack balls said:
I think it is fine the way it is. You have to play your best to win, its that simple. People make a lot of jump shots, play better safes. If the corner ball is so automatic then it still comes down to a controlled break. There is nothing more exciting when 2 players are running racks.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the exciting part is putting games together. The pressure is on, go big or go home. A safety battle for a 1 game lead, in 10-ball doesn't bring it like putting a few racks on someone. I want to see a score that increments by more than just 1 at a time, I want to see agression.
 
Last edited:
supergreenman said:
I also think they should take the slop factor out. Especially at the pro level. Why should a pro (or anyone for that matter) be rewarded for missing his intended shot.
Click to expand...

I agree with this as the only change necessary to improve the game. Of course, for all the posters who think the break needs changed because the wing balls can be made on a regular basis, I'd suggest putting the nine-ball on the spot.

Maniac
 
gromulan said:
... 1) Most good players are making corner balls on a remarkably consistent basis ...
Click to expand...
If the rack is tight, the corner ball will go in. If the corner ball doesn't go in, the player was cheated by the racker or the table. In a World Championship I watched that had very careful, tight racks, the corner ball went in 90% of the time, and 50% of the remaining breaks some other ball went in, most often the one ball.

To really eliminate the problem of the break, I think the breaker should get the next shot regardless of whether a ball falls. Then you will start to see some real skill applied to the break. You might have to have longer sets and alternate break.

But I think 10 ball is the better solution.

Here's an alternative to alternate breaks: Play winner breaks, but if the winner has had more breaks than his opponent, his opponent gets to break, and as long as he continues to win games, he continues at the table. Have a one-rack playoff for a tie. That allows racks to be strung together.
 
Harvywallbanger said:
Screw that. Just have them break from where the cue ball lies. Then you have to play shape for the next break rather than putting them on the line all the time.
Click to expand...

I agree. Might be a fun game. Johnnyt
 
Johnnyt said:
I agree. Might be a fun game. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

Thanks but I have to give cheesemouse amost of the credit.:p It does sound interesting. I mean if your playing a match why should you get ball in hand after all balls are cleared? Untill the match is over I say the cueball should never be touched unless there is a foul. I may even try this a little bit. Could catch on you never know. Cheesemouse you should take your idea to someone high up and see what happens.
 
(Quote) As a result of this, the game has become a bit boring, especially for those of us who know it well. I ask you, the citizens of AZB, should the game be made harder to make it more entertaining, and if so, how?[/QUOTE]


Is it more boring for the pro players--the average players---or the TV audience? Tighter pockets will not make it more interesting for TV. The game has to be fast and furious to keep the fans excited. TV fans want to see action such as combinations, kisses, 3 rail position, jump shots, etc. for instant replay. Speed the game up and add a little luck to the game. (There is a lot of luck in baseball, football, golf, etc.) The more you practice, the luckyer you get.

TV fans really deserve much better commentary.

These ideas may not ring good to the pool purist, but for entertainment to bring money into the game---something is needed.
 
Last edited:
Another vote for 10 ball.
To "fix" 9 ball at the pro level would take alot of changes to the current tournament concept.
1. Longer races. Short races like 5-7 games are almost like a coin flip at that skill level. 11-13 games should be the norm. It would also make it ok to leave the winner breaks format in place.
2. Spot the 9 on the break.
3. Call 9.
4. Break box counters some of the problems with the rack...... but the soft break defeats the break box. The rack itself could be changed. Maybe turn the rack 90 degrees etc etc etc.
These are just a few...
10 ball is where the pros should be. :D
Chuck
 
pool needs a seperation of men and boys. i'm tired of hearing about 16 year old wunderkins. one or two years ago, a 15 -16 year old gave archer a tough time in nyc. that should never happen. the game should challenge a player's overall skills.

a 10' tight pocket would be fine, and people who want to see 6 packs will come to appreciate a great 2 or 3 pack on a 10' even more.
 
Last edited:
Maybe tight pockets (4") and 10 ball is the ticket.

I just want to say that today's players are so good, I don't think it would make much difference except on the break shot. Getting out with an extra ball is no big deal and the good players can play fine on super tight tables.

By the way, I watch a lot of matches on accustats and those big bucket TV tables are really a laugh. Television made 9 ball a joke.


Chris
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top