I've attended the DCC for many years. Times have changed, especially in the 9-Ball division. My friend and I noticed the change this year more so than ever. The Stickland, USA style of play, run and gun, is over. Apparently most players have learned the only way to win now is to play a conservative, defensive style game. I'm not criticizing Johnny Archer at all, because he played outstanding this year, but watching him 8-10 years ago his style is totally different. Instead of getting in that zone where you can't miss, it's like he's on a tightrope all the time, hoping not to slip off. I know the pockets have tightened up alot but you do not see very many, if any, racks strung together anymore. It's hard to make a ball on the break anymore. I believe this style of play has taken some of the excitement away for people watching the game, especially those who do not understand the safeties, etc. Watching Strickland vs Bustemante 10 years ago you would be on the edge of your seat, today it would be boring. Is it the equipment, style of play, just wondering what others think?
DCC "Then and Now"
- Thread starter steveharn
- Start date
I think it's the Diamond tables. They are *very* unforgiving and I think the pros are smart about this and are just adjusting to prevailing conditions. On equipment like that, you just have to be a bit more conservative. Also, because the cloth isn't new at this year's DCC (it looked to me like it had several tournaments on it) it wasn't like they were playing on fresh Simonis.
Lou Figueroa
Lou Figueroa
steveharn said:
I don't think it's the tables. I've seen a lot of racks run (on tape, I've never been there) in the earlier Derby City Classics. Have the pocket specs on the Diamond tables changed since then?
I think that the changes come about because of the increased depth and quality of the field. Back in about '99 or 2000, Buddy is reported to have said that the U.S. Open was the only tournament where there were 40 players who could beat him. From where I sit, this year's DCC may have had a couple hundred players who could beat a top pro on any given day.
Ironically, the ability of players to run multiple racks at any given time has inhibited players from doing anything other than the absolute highest percentage play. You just can't afford to give ANYBODY any kind of air whatsover these days!
P.S.--I agree with you in general, however, that the increased difficulty of the equipment has changed the game, in my opinion, for the worse. Four inch pockets and 4.25 inch pockets are for straight pool and one pocket, in my opinion. 4.5" pockets are just fine for a nine ball game that requires accuracy while allowing for long-range cueball movement when necessary. We are seeing a "snookerization" of the game, and it is even evident in the stroke styles of the current crop of players.
I think that the changes come about because of the increased depth and quality of the field. Back in about '99 or 2000, Buddy is reported to have said that the U.S. Open was the only tournament where there were 40 players who could beat him. From where I sit, this year's DCC may have had a couple hundred players who could beat a top pro on any given day.
Ironically, the ability of players to run multiple racks at any given time has inhibited players from doing anything other than the absolute highest percentage play. You just can't afford to give ANYBODY any kind of air whatsover these days!
P.S.--I agree with you in general, however, that the increased difficulty of the equipment has changed the game, in my opinion, for the worse. Four inch pockets and 4.25 inch pockets are for straight pool and one pocket, in my opinion. 4.5" pockets are just fine for a nine ball game that requires accuracy while allowing for long-range cueball movement when necessary. We are seeing a "snookerization" of the game, and it is even evident in the stroke styles of the current crop of players.
Last edited:
One asset to a tournament player is the capability to adapt one's game to the equipment. Some players only like red-dot cueballs; others desire the blue dots. Diamond tables bank a little different than Brunswicks, as an example.
Since most pros play at multiple events throughout the year on various equipment, they can usually adapt a little easier than those who don't compete on a frequent basis.
I saw super-star players hitting balls right in the rail at an event which had Olhausen tables. These same super-star players are deadly on a Diamond and/or Brunswick.
In the old days, action players wouldn't even shoot with their own cue stick if they were on foreign turf. They'd pick a house cue and shoot with that, while the locals each had their own cues. These action players most definitely could adapt and usually played all games, if they wanted to survive.
I think it is the norm today in the year 2007, compared to, say, 2004, that the pockets have definitely tightened, most times being 4-1/2 inches. It wasn't that way at the U.S. Open, as an example, in 2003. Today, though, most professional events utilize the tighter pockets, and only the strong survive.
JAM
Since most pros play at multiple events throughout the year on various equipment, they can usually adapt a little easier than those who don't compete on a frequent basis.
I saw super-star players hitting balls right in the rail at an event which had Olhausen tables. These same super-star players are deadly on a Diamond and/or Brunswick.
In the old days, action players wouldn't even shoot with their own cue stick if they were on foreign turf. They'd pick a house cue and shoot with that, while the locals each had their own cues. These action players most definitely could adapt and usually played all games, if they wanted to survive.
I think it is the norm today in the year 2007, compared to, say, 2004, that the pockets have definitely tightened, most times being 4-1/2 inches. It wasn't that way at the U.S. Open, as an example, in 2003. Today, though, most professional events utilize the tighter pockets, and only the strong survive.
JAM
DustyLeigh
Registered
The players alternate breaks in the DCC.
From an Engineer at Diamond
I talked to an engineer at Diamond last summer about the pockets on Diamonds now. He said they came in 3 sizes. The IPT were the smallest at 4 7/16 " then 4 9/16 and 4 5/8 (10/16) . He said the biggest change was the angle that the pockets were cut and the depth of dropoff. He said they measure the point past the tip of the pocket where the ball drops in is carefully measured. I want to say the pockets are almost 3/4' deeper than older Diamonds. I do remember it was a lot. The finals between Feigen (sp) and Luat was an incredible match due to all the safety play and strategy. It was a grueling display of patience for both men. Not many break and run outs AT ALL. It was a good direction for nine ball I think.
Beware...Diamond is talking of making a 4" pocket.
I would love to see that in a major tournament.
I talked to an engineer at Diamond last summer about the pockets on Diamonds now. He said they came in 3 sizes. The IPT were the smallest at 4 7/16 " then 4 9/16 and 4 5/8 (10/16) . He said the biggest change was the angle that the pockets were cut and the depth of dropoff. He said they measure the point past the tip of the pocket where the ball drops in is carefully measured. I want to say the pockets are almost 3/4' deeper than older Diamonds. I do remember it was a lot. The finals between Feigen (sp) and Luat was an incredible match due to all the safety play and strategy. It was a grueling display of patience for both men. Not many break and run outs AT ALL. It was a good direction for nine ball I think.
Beware...Diamond is talking of making a 4" pocket.
I would love to see that in a major tournament.
I watched Sparky Ferrell play great in his second set of 9 ball against Larry Price(upstairs , late, gambling). Both players were running out from everywhere. The pockets are not the problem at all I think. Some people just play with a bigger set of balls, that's all.
The pros aim to hit the center of the pocket on all their shots except when they are cheating the pocket. If Diamond does go to 4" pockets the pros will adjust and be running out just like they always do. The only difference is, the better players will do better and miss less shots.
I saw Marlon Manalo play a local aspiring pro player a friendly set for $100, race to 11 (or was it 13?). They played on a tricked up, extremely tight table. The pockets were like 3.75 inch pockets, and they were cut in a fashion that shooting a ball down the rail, with anything harder than a medium-soft stroke, the ball will not go in, even if you hit it dead nuts perfect. (I tested the table by setting two balls frozen to the cushion down the rail, and hitting them straight in and hard, the object ball would rattle and then fly off the table or bounce and land somewhere else on the table).
Anyways, I watched the whole set and Marlon missed two balls at the max. If a ball was on the rail, he would play his patterns so he was very close to the OB, and he wouldnt have to hit it that hard, so it would fall when struck perfectly. In other cases he would play position for a bank. Just about everytime Marlon got a shot, he ran out. Even in extremely congested and difficult racks, he ran out from nowhere. The local aspiring pro held is own too, running some tough racks and playing great safes.
After watching that, I firmly believe that the great players of today will still play great 9ball on 4" pockets. Remember, that even the most seasoned pro players, like Efren, Ralf, Immonen, Deuel, etc. ALL get very nervous when playing on TV or in the finals or semifinals of tournaments. Nerves are usually the cause of most hiccups. When you see them in the back rooms playing for money (maybe not Ralf, I haven't seen him gamble), that's when you really see the best pool. You will see an insane amount of racks strung together all the time.
Just watch some of those Dennis Hatch/Steve Moore/Will Bilbrey 10ball matches on propoolvideo.com. If they get a shot on the 1ball, they are out. They were consistently stringing two or three racks of 10ball. If it was on TV like ESPN, the play would have been alot different. They were familiar with the settings and knew most people in the crowd, so they werent as nervous.
I saw Marlon Manalo play a local aspiring pro player a friendly set for $100, race to 11 (or was it 13?). They played on a tricked up, extremely tight table. The pockets were like 3.75 inch pockets, and they were cut in a fashion that shooting a ball down the rail, with anything harder than a medium-soft stroke, the ball will not go in, even if you hit it dead nuts perfect. (I tested the table by setting two balls frozen to the cushion down the rail, and hitting them straight in and hard, the object ball would rattle and then fly off the table or bounce and land somewhere else on the table).
Anyways, I watched the whole set and Marlon missed two balls at the max. If a ball was on the rail, he would play his patterns so he was very close to the OB, and he wouldnt have to hit it that hard, so it would fall when struck perfectly. In other cases he would play position for a bank. Just about everytime Marlon got a shot, he ran out. Even in extremely congested and difficult racks, he ran out from nowhere. The local aspiring pro held is own too, running some tough racks and playing great safes.
After watching that, I firmly believe that the great players of today will still play great 9ball on 4" pockets. Remember, that even the most seasoned pro players, like Efren, Ralf, Immonen, Deuel, etc. ALL get very nervous when playing on TV or in the finals or semifinals of tournaments. Nerves are usually the cause of most hiccups. When you see them in the back rooms playing for money (maybe not Ralf, I haven't seen him gamble), that's when you really see the best pool. You will see an insane amount of racks strung together all the time.
Just watch some of those Dennis Hatch/Steve Moore/Will Bilbrey 10ball matches on propoolvideo.com. If they get a shot on the 1ball, they are out. They were consistently stringing two or three racks of 10ball. If it was on TV like ESPN, the play would have been alot different. They were familiar with the settings and knew most people in the crowd, so they werent as nervous.
While I think that all the responses are great---they do not respond to the question in the original post.
"10 years ago you would be on the edge of your seat, today it would be boring. Is it the equipment, style of play, just wondering what others think?"
Pro's will adapt to the conditions and I prefer to play on tight pockets. But the question's focus in on spectators interest. The equipment has forced a more conservative style of play which spectators usually find boring.
"10 years ago you would be on the edge of your seat, today it would be boring. Is it the equipment, style of play, just wondering what others think?"
Pro's will adapt to the conditions and I prefer to play on tight pockets. But the question's focus in on spectators interest. The equipment has forced a more conservative style of play which spectators usually find boring.
cueandcushion said:
I'm not wanting to step on any toes or bust any bubbles, but as far as I know we're not looking at a 4 inch pocket at this time...Who knows about the future, the Pro's reactions direct us.....Greg/Diamond
Tennesseejoe said:
I think one answer for the different style of play, besides the stated size of pockets, would have to be the rules...... Players have adapted to todays rules and have altered their style of play to give them the best percentage of winning the game. .......I know these rules have been around for a while, but when one foul was first introduced the players took a long while to learn (some are still learning) that a great safe is often better than a great shot...... If you attempt to make a great shot which includes breaking out a cluster to continue you're run, get a bad roll, get hooked and have to kick at you're cash,,,,You may have been better off opting for a cold blooded safe that would give you ball in hand and allow you to continue you're run..........Some people would prefer to see more racks run and great shots made, which includes me, but with these rules there won't be as many racks run, because they won't be attempting them as long as a safe has so much value....Greg/Diamond
Greg/Diamond said:
Thanks for the clarification Greg...you know how internet rumours get going!!
I watched the end of the archer/judex james match, archer was down 6-3 going to 7 and when he got to the table, he ran 4 and out to win the set!! he played great and obviously broke great too. didn't seem to bother him any?
great display of pool, in my opinion
great display of pool, in my opinion