Do you have a "learning style"? Maybe not

[evergruven]

I'd say it was perfect timing.

I think a lot of people don't realize how much of an artist Ray was and still is. I've sat in the stands and watched him play many times and have had many hours of conversations with him and I've always felt that he had the mentality of a true artist of his craft. He always stayed quiet within himself and focused on his game. Everyone knew he was in the room, because of who he is, but if not for that no one would know he was there. He stayed pretty much to himself.

I admittedly don't know a lot about ray..the only whole match of his I can recall watching was vs. efren at IPT, and ray wasn't getting to play much
I am enjoying his book so far, tho, and was admiring the way how, in vintage pictures, he looked very comfortable and at ease on the pool table
look forward to seeing/learning more-

 

[Pin]

personally, I often find fine athletes akin to fine musicians- what instrument would efren play? anyway, a pool cue seems to work well enough.
to serious fans, not sure I agree with the narrative that joe x and billy y are exchangeable. casual is of course another story, and not just in sports.
otherwise, and as ever, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. but that's exactly why it's good that people do what calls to them. "wage beauty"-

Objectively, I think pro pool would be a better entertainment spectacle if the players were less good, so that run-outs were a bit rarer and more special, and there was more back-and-forth, more drama.

Of course, it would be madness to imagine a world where the pro game was deliberately weakened, and I'm not suggesting that. Although you could argue tighter pockets would have something of the same effect...

Personalities make the game too, but it's pretty much random where a great (entertaining/likeable) personality sits in the pecking order, so it's random whether taking out Joe X removes a good personality, or pushes them more into the limelight.

 

[evergruven]

Objectively, I think pro pool would be a better entertainment spectacle if the players were less good, so that run-outs were a bit rarer and more special, and there was more back-and-forth, more drama.

Of course, it would be madness to imagine a world where the pro game was deliberately weakened, and I'm not suggesting that. Although you could argue tighter pockets would have something of the same effect...

Personalities make the game too, but it's pretty much random where a great (entertaining/likeable) personality sits in the pecking order, so it's random whether taking out Joe X removes a good personality, or pushes them more into the limelight.

I hear you.
to me, one of the very things that makes pool so beautiful, is what handicaps it from being more popular/better understood- precision.
it seems easy enough, and it is- throw out some balls, and bang. but there is a major disconnect between banging, and playing well.
personally, it's taken me many years, and still, for the majesty of pool to unfold in my mind- and I feel as if I had a leg up to get there!
pool also suffers from an embarrassment of riches- there are so many cool games you can do with a felt-covered slate slab- too many?

if the goal is to grow pool, and make it more accessible to a wider audience, I think pool needs to reach out to kids. show kids pool.
how that's done is another discussion, but I'm not sure how you grow the sport long-term, without focusing on generations coming up.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

if the goal is to grow pool, and make it more accessible to a wider audience, I think pool needs to reach out to kids.

I think there's room for pool to grow in popularity, but I also think that's inherently limited by the nature of the beast. For non-players it's boring to watch, expensive and difficult to learn, and probably won't get anybody laid.

pj
chgo

 

[Pin]

I struggled with this too and it hurt me in a lot of ways because I felt guilty about my selfishness from time-to-time as I worked on my game and pretty much ignored things that were going on around me. Then I'd stop and give myself a reality check, and it would immediately hurt my game.

So, is there such a thing as finding balance when you're striving for excellence? The answer is no. Not if you're truly striving for excellence, and it doesn't matter what it is. The process is a selfish process while you are going through it. If the person struggles with it and is unwilling to accept it, then they will achieve something less than excellence in the end. Your comment is about the end result, but there's a whole lot the comes before that.

It's rare, but some people can go it alone, but most people can't. They need at least one person in their corner, protecting them from being affected by things around them, removing all sense of guilt, so that they can achieve excellence. For me, the times when there was someone in my corner and when I was protected, were the times when I soared the most.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I feel I'm a little bit wiser for having read it! I guess that's an aspect of the pro's journey you don't ever really see.

 

[frankw]

I struggled with this too and it hurt me in a lot of ways because I felt guilty about my selfishness from time-to-time as I worked on my game and pretty much ignored things that were going on around me. Then I'd stop and give myself a reality check, and it would immediately hurt my game.

So, is there such a thing as finding balance when you're striving for excellence? The answer is no. Not if you're truly striving for excellence, and it doesn't matter what it is. The process is a selfish process while you are going through it. If the person struggles with it and is unwilling to accept it, then they will achieve something less than excellence in the end. Your comment is about the end result, but there's a whole lot the comes before that.

It's rare, but some people can go it alone, but most people can't. They need at least one person in their corner, protecting them from being affected by things around them, removing all sense of guilt, so that they can achieve excellence. For me, the times when there was someone in my corner and when I was protected, were the times when I soared the most.

This is an extremely profound statement...Thank you Fran

 

[evergruven]

I think there's room for pool to grow in popularity, but I also think that's inherently limited by the nature of the beast. For non-players it's boring to watch, expensive and difficult to learn, and probably won't get anybody laid.

pj
chgo

hey pat, I think it's all relative-
even to an enthusiast, some pool boring to watch, but there are many different ways to play/watch
it can be pricey, but it can also be cheap- especially compared to other sports/pastimes
I can vouch pool is difficult to learn, but not always, and we take our successes with our lumps
the getting laid thing I have no rebuttal for..no rebutt..nevermind ^_^
see my sig. tho- grissim got it right. there is both science, and magic in pool. we just gotta see it

 

[Imac007]

hey pat, I think it's all relative-
even to an enthusiast, some pool boring to watch, but there are many different ways to play/watch
it can be pricey, but it can also be cheap- especially compared to other sports/pastimes
I can vouch pool is difficult to learn, but not always, and we take our successes with our lumps
the getting laid thing I have no rebuttal for..no rebutt..nevermind ^_^
see my sig. tho- grissim got it right. there is both science, and magic in pool. we just gotta see it

In a TAR podcast, Corey Deuel and John Schmidt discussed this.
There was an Interesting point where they talked about the fragmentation of the game in America.

They talked about how big an audience there is in Britain for snooker, a single game.
At one point it was noted that a little old lady there, knows what 147 is.
Their take was that 8 ball is the game that should be promoted to the masses.
Rules are simple, there are multiple balls a player can pocket and the game also has a difficulty factor.
Bar tables are widespread, plus small tables with big pockets mean getting a ball in a hole is easier.

Billiards was the original gentleman’s game in England, and matches could be days long.
Snooker was invented as a diversion, and took off, mainly because it fixed the boredom factor.

This gives us a set of criteria when choosing what to promote here.
1. Widespread equipment availability.
2. Multiple chances to make a ball (success reward).
3. Simple rules.
4. Broad based knowledge of the game.
5. Significant challenge regardless of skill level.
6. Watchable, not boring.
7. Affordable.

 

[Cameron Smith]

In a TAR podcast, Corey Deuel and John Schmidt discussed this.
There was an Interesting point where they talked about the fragmentation of the game in America.

They talked about how big an audience there is in Britain for snooker, a single game.
At one point it was noted that a little old lady there, knows what 147 is.
Their take was that 8 ball is the game that should be promoted to the masses.
Rules are simple, there are multiple balls a player can pocket and the game also has a difficulty factor.
Bar tables are widespread, plus small tables with big pockets mean getting a ball in a hole is easier.

Billiards was the original gentleman’s game in England, and matches could be days long.
Snooker was invented as a diversion, and took off, mainly because it fixed the boredom factor.

This gives us a set of criteria when choosing what to promote here.
1. Widespread equipment availability.
2. Multiple chances to make a ball (success reward).
3. Simple rules.
4. Broad based knowledge of the game.
5. Significant challenge regardless of skill level.
6. Watchable, not boring.
7. Affordable.

A bit of a nit pick, but snooker was basically in the right place at the right time. The BBC was looking for programming that took advantage of colour tv and snooker fit the bill. That and having far fewer channels to choose from in those days put snooker in front of a lot of people. But yes it did get around the issue of billiard players relying on repetitive shots and sequences.

Fragmentation in North America is a big issue, but what pool is missing, that snooker has, is the same kind of exhibition scene. The top snooker players relied on the exhibition circuit to make a living and were as much as entertainers as they were players. I don’t think we have nearly as much participation among our top pool players in selling the game.

Alex Higgins is often credited with being the personality that the game needed to propel snooker to greater heights. But that wouldn’t have mattered if he wasn’t constantly on tour doing exhibitions.

 

[Pin]

You know, you don't see that many small-venue snooker/pool exhibitions now. Snooker clearly 'outgrew' them, and I wonder if now it can't quite bring itself to shrink back into doing them again - even though they might make sense again.

I suppose in snooker, the prize money is such that the top (recognizable/crowd-pulling) players don't need to do it,
and in (the English version of) pool, maybe the game's still too small and there wouldn't be enough interest to make it pay.

I wonder if the frequent small events business model would work for any similar niche.

 

[FranCrimi]

You know, you don't see that many small-venue snooker/pool exhibitions now. Snooker clearly 'outgrew' them, and I wonder if now it can't quite bring itself to shrink back into doing them again - even though they might make sense again.

I suppose in snooker, the prize money is such that the top (recognizable/crowd-pulling) players don't need to do it,
and in (the English version of) pool, maybe the game's still too small and there wouldn't be enough interest to make it pay.

I wonder if the frequent small events business model would work for any similar niche.

I really like the small venue model of tournament play. That's how we did it in the WPBA for many years before we formed the Classic Tour and wound up in casinos. We used to have an event every month in a different pool room and we really got to meet and great the pool players in that particular city. For those 5 days that we were there, that pool room was filled with excitement and lots of happy pool players. I felt like we were really in touch with our sport around the country at that time. Once we moved to Casinos, it was all about TV and ratings and basically nobody came to watch, and it wasn't nearly as exciting.

But the reality was that we were going broke going to 12 events a year in pool rooms. There just wasn't enough money to go around. Casinos and the Classic Tour model changed all that for us, but at the same time it took us farther away from the heart of the game --- the people.

 

[Imac007]

A bit of a nit pick, but snooker was basically in the right place at the right time. The BBC was looking for programming that took advantage of colour tv and snooker fit the bill. That and having far fewer channels to choose from in those days put snooker in front of a lot of people. But yes it did get around the issue of billiard players relying on repetitive shots and sequences.

Fragmentation in North America is a big issue, but what pool is missing, that snooker has, is the same kind of exhibition scene. The top snooker players relied on the exhibition circuit to make a living and were as much as entertainers as they were players. I don’t think we have nearly as much participation among our top pool players in selling the game.

Alex Higgins is often credited with being the personality that the game needed to propel snooker to greater heights. But that wouldn’t have mattered if he wasn’t constantly on tour doing exhibitions.

The seedy underbelly of pool in America didn’t help its reputation as a wholesome family activity model.
The adoption of the games by the much larger Asian population, will eventually relegate American influence to the margins unless they own it as a national past time.
Asia are taking aim at owning snooker already.
https://www.insidethegames.biz/arti...w-home-of-snooker-to-rival-crucible-in-yushan
They offer the biggest money snooker tournament and already host at least 6 tournaments on the circuit.
Matchroom playing a larger role in promotion and expansion is taking ownership off the American plate already and for the betterment of the game.
In this era, of the need for new content daily, the future of venues like YouTube, promise revenue without the restriction of streaming admission based gateways.
This also offers free widespread access to interested patrons.
Each affordable option has potential for growth.
Revenue streams need to support the sport and vice versa.

 

[Cameron Smith]

You know, you don't see that many small-venue snooker/pool exhibitions now. Snooker clearly 'outgrew' them, and I wonder if now it can't quite bring itself to shrink back into doing them again - even though they might make sense again.

I suppose in snooker, the prize money is such that the top (recognizable/crowd-pulling) players don't need to do it,
and in (the English version of) pool, maybe the game's still too small and there wouldn't be enough interest to make it pay.

I wonder if the frequent small events business model would work for any similar niche.

That still exists in snooker. Many of the top players give small venue exhibitions. Here is Ronnie as an example,

You also do see some small tournaments with top players in them, but they are pro-ams. The pink ribbon event at the South West Snooker Centre is one of the bigger ones.

Snooker hasn’t outgrown the small grassroots stuff. In fact, the game struggles with participation even though viewership has improved. So this type of stuff is crucial.

 

[Dan Harriman]

Will you be attending the American 14.1 tournament Danny Boy? Or the one pocket at Pat's event the week after. Or the 9 ball. What about the US Open?
JS will be at all of them while you hide in your basement.

Looks like u were spreading more dis info here on az (probly yer wheelhouse) js is not competing at all. He said it was his nerves getting to him, well I can not argue with him there - he does lose it in competition - I have seen his antics first hand. So he was invited to these events but I guess he is afraid to show up at these events u mentioned - due's owed to his and c.w. bogus 626 marketing scheme. I think full rack bank would be a good even game between js and myself. Let me know if he wants an unedited video of that. Till then - u may refer to me as Dan, almost a half a century on this planet - not really a boy - butt what ever helps u see straight lol.

 

[Dan Harriman]

Snooker was invented as a diversion, and took off, mainly because it fixed the boredom factor.

Not really sure about yer historical claim here, I never cared for the term "fixed". Billiards is not boring, I think u may have failed to mention u were referencing the English were originally playing - Straight Rail or Contact billiards (uh little bit boring - yes) and not 3-cushion. So snooker is also a form of 'Billiards'. Billiards (without pockets) is the most played cue sport world wide - from a global demo - snooker does not even come close as far as a participation Sport.

 

[Dan Harriman]

the times when there was someone in my corner

I would assume this 'someone' is a trusted individual - kinda hard to come by. there are a Few out there I guess, as fer protection - Eye wage my own.

 

[Imac007]

Not really sure about yer historical claim here, I never cared for the term "fixed". Billiards is not boring, I think u may have failed to mention u were referencing the English were originally playing - Straight Rail or Contact billiards (uh little bit boring - yes) and not 3-cushion. So snooker is also a form of 'Billiards'. Billiards (without pockets) is the most played cue sport world wide - from a global demo - snooker does not even come close as far as a participation Sport.

My take on this was Joe Davis claiming it was a diversion adopted by billiard pros.
Billiards research talked about snooker replacing billiards as the game of choice over time in the halls.

 

[FranCrimi]

I would assume this 'someone' is a trusted individual - kinda hard to come by. there are a Few out there I guess, as fer protection - Eye wage my own.

Well, by 'protection,' I meant someone who makes you feel that it's okay to focus solely on yourself. They've got you covered.

 

[Dan Harriman]

My take on this was Joe Davis claiming it was a diversion adopted by billiard pros.
Billiards research talked about snooker replacing billiards as the game of choice over time in the halls.

Again Snooker is a form of Billiards.

 

[Dan Harriman]

Well, by 'protection,' I meant someone who makes you feel that it's okay to focus solely on yourself. They've got you covered.

Roger that, however when I was playing my best - I never considered my focus to be solely on myself. My focus was on the table and ball's and not myself? As you know Fran when talkin bout top performance in any sporting venture - better to leave the ego/self - a quite mind is essential. So it would seem that some media outlets would offer protection - to certain people who Claim to have broke World Records in Pocket Billiards - without providing any definitive evidence. As for books that can help out "The Inner Game of Tennis" was a personal favorite for me - both self 1 'n' 2 - has taught me to not trust folklore 626 media. I have a learnin stile'.