Derby 9ball rack mechanics
- Thread starter nathandumoulin
- Start date
^^^^ This. :thumbup:
I can rack and get the majority of the balls frozen in a matter of a few seconds, with old ball-sets and beat up tables/cloth.
This is really only a problem at the top of the food chain where the players are allowed to create this foolishness. Rack the damned balls, and shoot. If I can do it, anyone can do it.
Do I have the answer, no. But rack your own is a big problem, and allowing players to nit pick the rack is also a problem.
Ok, let me ask you this, Paul.
Because the balls are wired together, you are automatically calling a successful shot a "trick shot". That there is no skill involved in making the shot, just hit them and it goes.
How do you reconcile that with the better 14.1 players being able to read a stack, and seeing a combination "that goes", and making a ball from it? Intentionally. No skill? A trick shot?
I am amazed that you continue this train of thought. Even to my very inexperienced set of eyes, I see the skill involved in recognizing the pattern, AND being able to strike the ball the correct way to make the shot.
And again, I agree that the foolishness with the rack has to stop. Intentionally manipulating the rack certainly does take away from the game. That doesn't make it a problem of the rack, it makes it a problem of the players, and how they are allowed to manipulate things.
I don't have an answer for you, Paul, and I think its good that you are trying to find a solution. I merely disagree with your presumption that the break is a trick shot...
This is from my post #136: "Any shot where balls are manually set up becomes a trick shot. Yes, trick shots require skill."
This is from post #165: "Manually setting up the balls is a trick shot. Some require more skill than others."
I also added that we should not start our short games with a trick shot because it requires that the balls be set up and racked a certain way in order for the trick shot be successful. This is where the problem lies.
Last edited:
It is a shame that this thread has come to this!
Attachments
Last edited:
You can't stop them no matter what you do. If you could stop them, it would have been fixed long ago. The only solution is to rid the game of the reason to cheat.
With the No Conflict Rules, rack manipulation becomes pointless, and equipment abnormalities become inconsequential (AtLarge).
Last edited:
clearly not true and not productive.
"You can't stop them no matter what you do." -
This isn't true, you could have a ref rack the balls or you could have a mandatory "roll out" to start the game.
"If you could stop them, it would have been fixed long ago."
This isn't true, we used to have refs racking the balls in tournaments I played in many years ago. Also, there could be a mandatory "roll out" to start the game after the break.
"The only solution is to rid the game of the reason to cheat."
The reason the players cheat is to win the game/tournament/money, the "REASON" to cheat has nothing to do with the racking procedure.
This is 3 "untruths" in one post, I won't participate anymore in these type discussions, they are pointless if someone is determined to make points using the methods above, that are clearly not true and not productive.
"You can't stop them no matter what you do." -
This isn't true, you could have a ref rack the balls or you could have a mandatory "roll out" to start the game.
"If you could stop them, it would have been fixed long ago."
This isn't true, we used to have refs racking the balls in tournaments I played in many years ago. Also, there could be a mandatory "roll out" to start the game after the break.
"The only solution is to rid the game of the reason to cheat."
The reason the players cheat is to win the game/tournament/money, the "REASON" to cheat has nothing to do with the racking procedure.
This is 3 "untruths" in one post, I won't participate anymore in these type discussions, they are pointless if someone is determined to make points using the methods above, that are clearly not true and not productive.
Oh come on, C.J. Don't you get it? The harder I make my case means the more I want you to make the case against. I want you to try to blow holes in it. If it can be disproven, I want it that way. I don't just talk about things. I do stuff. I try stuff. Sometimes it is the back and forth that changes minds (and mine too).
I have been in the business for 35 years. In recent years, every billiards retailer within an hour and a half of me has closed along with countless billiard rooms. There is no help out here. I am on my own. I have to be the innovator to survive.
If I do what everyone else has done, I would be gone too. I don't give up. I fight hard.
I have been in the business for 35 years. In recent years, every billiards retailer within an hour and a half of me has closed along with countless billiard rooms. There is no help out here. I am on my own. I have to be the innovator to survive.
If I do what everyone else has done, I would be gone too. I don't give up. I fight hard.
gpeezy
for sale!
rack for each other or check the rack, no touching the balls. simple. too much time is spent on this issue. magic rack is the great for pool. or similar products. imo. level playing field as far as the rack goes. players can cry all they want about a ball going str8 in. I don't care. speeds up tournament play also
The Game MUST take a back seat to begin with.
I understand that business very well and the need to "fight to survive". I also know the value of making the places "larger than life" through TV and the presence of certain pro players.
'The Hustler' and 'The Color of Money' is what gave the entire industry a "shot in the arm" in the late 80s and early 90s and I enjoyed that "burst" as well. I've produced many TV Billiard Shows and can see a clear path to do it again. I'm not sure how it will develop, I am sure the entertainment value is there in the game of pocket billiards, especially if the "characters" are allowed to lead the way.
The Game MUST take a back seat to begin with. Our research indicates the general public will only take an interest in pool through an interest of the players first. This order must be followed.
Realistically it takes a specific and organized order of events to transpire to consummate these events and I'm at phase 4. What I see as the biggest challenge is within the billiard industry its self. I guess we are actually glad this is an issue, because if it wasn't, there would be no opportunity.
For your pool room and the tournaments you wish to produce the "Peace Rules" ( I just can't say "no conflict"
) may be ideal because they do what needs to be done to speed up play and take away dissention.
I understand that business very well and the need to "fight to survive". I also know the value of making the places "larger than life" through TV and the presence of certain pro players.
'The Hustler' and 'The Color of Money' is what gave the entire industry a "shot in the arm" in the late 80s and early 90s and I enjoyed that "burst" as well. I've produced many TV Billiard Shows and can see a clear path to do it again. I'm not sure how it will develop, I am sure the entertainment value is there in the game of pocket billiards, especially if the "characters" are allowed to lead the way.
The Game MUST take a back seat to begin with. Our research indicates the general public will only take an interest in pool through an interest of the players first. This order must be followed.
Realistically it takes a specific and organized order of events to transpire to consummate these events and I'm at phase 4. What I see as the biggest challenge is within the billiard industry its self. I guess we are actually glad this is an issue, because if it wasn't, there would be no opportunity.
For your pool room and the tournaments you wish to produce the "Peace Rules" ( I just can't say "no conflict"
) may be ideal because they do what needs to be done to speed up play and take away dissention.
There is no doubt that the Color of Money triggered interest in the game but that movie quickly came and went. It was Joe Camel that carried pool through the next decade. He was everywhere and never let anyone forget about pool. He was the coolest guy in the world and he shot pool. He was more recognizable than Mosconi, Mizerak, Fats, Cruise, Newman, Gleason, or Reyes. To young children, he was more recognizable than Mickey Mouse. He was pool's workhorse 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, shooting pool on billboards, neon signs, and a hundred different trinkets (hats, shirts, mugs....). Those were the days. RJ Reynolds did our work for us.
I wish you good fortune in getting on one of the networks.
Last edited:
AtLarge
AtLarge. After years of recording what the pros are doing on the break, it changed my mind. To my surprise, the pros (and everyone else) are just slamming the rack and slopping balls in. More times than not, this is how they get to shoot after the break. I have recorded the results of thousands of breaks. It may interest you to create another line item statistic (slopped balls, intended balls).
Another stat that surprised me was how infrequently the cue call was controlled to the middle quarter of the table. It is not much above 25%. That cue ball is going all over the place. When slamming the rack, the cue ball is just about as likely to wind up anywhere as it is in the center of the table. Perception is not even close to reality.
AtLarge. After years of recording what the pros are doing on the break, it changed my mind. To my surprise, the pros (and everyone else) are just slamming the rack and slopping balls in. More times than not, this is how they get to shoot after the break. I have recorded the results of thousands of breaks. It may interest you to create another line item statistic (slopped balls, intended balls).
Another stat that surprised me was how infrequently the cue call was controlled to the middle quarter of the table. It is not much above 25%. That cue ball is going all over the place. When slamming the rack, the cue ball is just about as likely to wind up anywhere as it is in the center of the table. Perception is not even close to reality.
The only way you're ever going to be able to keep accurate statistics of "intended balls" made on the break is for the breaker to call the shot before breaking.......and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon!!!
Maniac
Gotta disagree on this, just because all that does is punish the incoming player for a mistake made by the other player. I was talking to Earl at Tunica and he summed it up... "Did you ever see 'em make Tiger Woods hit his ball from behind a tree because Phil Michelson shanked his drive?" Pool is one of the few games where you CAN get punished for the other guys mistakes... make it a "call shot, call safe" game and if the rack your own is an issue, INSPECT THE RACK and make the guy re-rack if it's "loaded".
Last edited:
I've come to the conclusion that this is the best solution, 10-ball played by these rules.
If a couple of people want to engage in a game that goes quicker, with two-way shots, and with more luck involved, let 'em play 9-ball.
Earl makes a lot of sense when it comes to his opinions of regulating the game. More people should listen to him and his regards to the rules of the game and playing conditions.
Maniac
I gave the players the benefit of all doubt.
In Nine-Ball I gave them the 1 in the side and the wing balls.
In Ten-Ball I gave them the corner balls around the table and in the corners, the 1 in the side, and one of the balls in the second row in the side.
Even with all this, it was the slopped ball that was more prominent.
Like I said, the players are just slamming the rack and slopping balls in.
Last edited:
I think it was more common years ago for the pros to just slam the rack, as you say, and hope something goes in. Today, in 9-ball we often see the pros playing for the 1-ball in the side or a wing ball in the corner. In 10-ball we often see them playing for a second-row ball in the side (or maybe the 1-ball sometimes) or a corner-of-the-triangle ball 4-rails in the corner. But we cannot ask them before each break whether they are playing any particular ball on that break. Sometimes for 9-ball matches I have commented on the frequency with which the wing ball was made.
But suppose I watched a lot of 9-ball matches and reported that the breaker made either the 1-ball in the side or the wing ball (and did not foul) x% of the time and made some other ball y% of the time. How would that affect your argument? If x is low relative to y does it enhance your argument? If x became very high would you be less interested in your rules because the breaker is making an intended shot? I thought you still considered those "trick shots" requiring specific racking set-ups.
Squatting the CB near the middle has long been held as an objective in breaking. With cut breaks these days, that may not be so true -- the CB often winds up in the kitchen.
My point is just opposite of what you are thinking. We have talked so much about the trick-shot-intended-ball when it is the slopped ball that should be under the microscope. The slopped ball is the enabler more often than the trick shot. Look at the stats, and even if you buy into the trick shot, should the short games start with what is for the most part, a slop shot?
Many players are always advocating calling balls but yet our short games begin with a slop shot. Look at Eight-Ball: a called shot game that begins with a slop shot. What's worse, among good players, if you don't slop a ball in on the break, you lose.
Last edited:
Say they specified you had to call your shot, and top players with a 'gimmick rack' start calling the 2nd row ball in the side and making it. No other ball counted.
You'd still dismiss it right?
But why?
It's a test of skill, to determine who gets the open table.
You either make the called shot or sit down.
What's the flaw in that?
I will only make a case for what people will actually do. Ultimately, that is what carries the day.