Do you think these pockets were too large?

Ghost of OBC said:
It also ups the highlights for SoMe consumption
Click to expand...
I agree, although I don't know what size pockets Chris Melling's famous out was done on. I'm torn between whether we should wish pool was a major spectator sport or accept that making it a spectator sport may fundamentally change the game we love into something else. I am certain that pool, even in the current state, has more spectator potential that can be realized although I'm not sure how.

Part of the problem is that when pool is played well, it often looks unimpressive, especially to the untrained eye. I don't think the flow of the typical match builds a lot of excitement for the average person, either.

Here's a question: would you pay an extra dollar an hour for a table if that money went to professional pool purses? In this hypothetical, the money makes it to the prize fund without any administrative costs or grift. I feel like large prizes might drive more interest in the game, and make playing professionally viable for many more players.
 
tomatoshooter said:
I agree, although I don't know what size pockets Chris Melling's famous out was done on. I'm torn between whether we should wish pool was a major spectator sport or accept that making it a spectator sport may fundamentally change the game we love into something else. I am certain that pool, even in the current state, has more spectator potential that can be realized although I'm not sure how.

Part of the problem is that when pool is played well, it often looks unimpressive, especially to the untrained eye. I don't think the flow of the typical match builds a lot of excitement for the average person, either.

Here's a question: would you pay an extra dollar an hour for a table if that money went to professional pool purses? In this hypothetical, the money makes it to the prize fund without any administrative costs or grift. I feel like large prizes might drive more interest in the game, and make playing professionally viable for many more players.
Click to expand...
No, I would not pay $1 more to fund some tournament. I would buy a ticket. If I want to support a pro I will take a lesson or play them cheap. I have done that. I would potentially buy stuff from their sponsor. $1/hr for their purses? NFW.

I think people have it backwards for the most part. You need a strong amateur base to support a professional tour in many sports. Football is an exception and there are others. Most people can't play football or wouldn't if they could. You certainly can't play it for life. (For the snooker people I mean real football. Gridiron football, not association football- soccer.:)) Golf and tennis were built on the amateur game. Sometimes it was too snobby as a result, but some could make a living playing even before the explosion in professional sports. The cue sports aren't as generally popular for spectators as other sports. Not sure why. Generally though, if the amateur base is strong, the money may follow. That hasn't seemed to happen as much in pool, at least in the US. If somebody figures out a way to present it in a new way maybe things will change. The hole card camera did it for poker. I actually thought 3C might get a little traction after it was on ESPN some years ago. Big impressive shots for the people who have never seen it, etc... It didn't happen.
 
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man."
"Embiggen" has been added to a US dictionary - a word first heard on The Simpsons in 1996.

 
JPB2 said:
No, I would not pay $1 more to fund some tournament
Click to expand...
It just occurred to me that we already are, in a way. That's where that $100 added came from.

JPB2 said:
Golf and tennis were built on the amateur game.
Click to expand...
And playing those sports often requires supporting courts, courses, and clubs that pay into the national organization. I should have actually stated that, but I do think a good strong governing body could help. I may be mistaken, but the majority of pool tournaments seem to be independent operations. Leagues don't seem to be closely aligned with the professional game.


JPB2 said:
I actually thought 3C might get a little traction after it was on ESPN some years ago. Big impressive shots for the people who have never seen it, etc...
Click to expand...
three cushion can be mesmerizing to watch. I'm convinced some of those guys should be burned at the stake for witchcraft.
 
"It just occurred to me that we already are, in a way. That's where that $100 added came from."

Maybe, but it seems different. Once a room owner has my money, they can spend it on whatever. New cloth, $100 added, better bathroom towel dispenser, whatev.... Seems different to say $X of what you paid today goes to some tournament you won't play in. Perhaps it's just perception.

"And playing those sports often requires supporting courts, courses, and clubs that pay into the national organization. I should have actually stated that, but I do think a good strong governing body could help. I may be mistaken, but the majority of pool tournaments seem to be independent operations. Leagues don't seem to be closely aligned with the professional game."

But those organizations don't fund that much professional stuff. I am more familiar with golf than other sports, so I'll use that as an example. USGA and R&A have a couple big pro events and more national amateur events. Back in the day they didn't pay a ton. I don't know all their funding sources. Playing the Open Championship used to be a losing proposition for the American pros. PGA of America has their championship, the Ryder Cup and the Club Pro Championship. The PGA Tour isn't a governing body. The players got together and separated from the PGA of America in the '60's. It's an organization of and by touring professionals that draws money from amateurs and sponsors. When I pay club dues or handicap fees or take a lesson from a PGA of America club pro, nothing goes to the purse of a tour event. Maybe the USGA somehow gets something that goes to the prize fund of the US Open, but I'm not sure how and it can't be much.
 
tomatoshooter said:
Yes.

Realistically, you have to have more skill than the other player, regardless of pocket size. And maybe for every unknown that goes on a heater, there's someone else that sits in their chair watching Filler run out a set. I do honestly believe that the highlight reel shots can generate some interest in the game. How many shots from the top tournaments do you think are highlight material? Not to us, who know how difficult it is, but to someone watching sportscenter. I think the circus shots make the game exciting and are important.

The problem is that the pros have gotten so good that the pockets had to be tightened up, reducing the spectacular shots, and hoping the consequences for a missed one.
Click to expand...

tomatoshooter said:
Yes.

Realistically, you have to have more skill than the other player, regardless of pocket size. And maybe for every unknown that goes on a heater, there's someone else that sits in their chair watching Filler run out a set. I do honestly believe that the highlight reel shots can generate some interest in the game. How many shots from the top tournaments do you think are highlight material? Not to us, who know how difficult it is, but to someone watching sportscenter. I think the circus shots make the game exciting and are important.

The problem is that the pros have gotten so good that the pockets had to be tightened up, reducing the spectacular shots, and hoping the consequences for a missed one.
Click to expand...

The spectacular shots of the professional pool players, from back in the day, is what made the game very exciting and enticing to budding amateurs. The likes of Keith mcCready Morrow Paez, Bernado "King Kong" Chavez, et al, would have a very difficult time playing today's game using the skills from when they were in their prime.. The younger players have better equipment, more responsive cushions, faster cloth (than 860), low deflection shafts, YouTube and many instructional videos which were not available to the pros of back in the day, also have changed the game of pool. Also, it appears to me that the younger players don't stroke the ball to overcome the friction of the felt. They push through the cue ball and use more spin than they do stroke or tangent line for position. Furthermore, the game has changed into Precision pool, where lively characters, trash talkers, hustlers, are no longer able to hone their craft with their spectacular shots, wild strokes, and the ability to cheat the pockets for position on long shots, due to the deeper pocket shelves, more lively cushions, tighter pocket jaws, and newer equipment then what was available during the gold crown era... just my two cents. What do I know, I'm just a raill bird.. LOL
 
Not sure why this keeps coming up. We all just need to recognize that as the game has grown, and turned into a more international affair, the players have gotten better. With this improvement, we had to change the game or change the equipment. We sort of settled on keeping 9 ball and changing the equipment. If we wanted to keep the cavernous pockets and with them -- all the kisses, caroms, rail-first shots, and combos, we would have needed to change the game. Maybe moving to full rack rotation would have done the trick.
 
BasementDweller said:
Not sure why this keeps coming up. We all just need to recognize that as the game has grown, and turned into a more international affair, the players have gotten better. With this improvement, we had to change the game or change the equipment. We sort of settled on keeping 9 ball and changing the equipment. If we wanted to keep the cavernous pockets and with them -- all the kisses, caroms, rail-first shots, and combos, we would have needed to change the game. Maybe moving to full rack rotation would have done the trick.
Click to expand...

and without exception some people who discuss this wander into their own playing preferences, which has nothing to do with the pro tour. i saw plenty of great shots and exciting play this year
 
Pool became the thing I enjoyed the most when I saw what real pool looked like back in the 90s on ESPN. I grew up in Raleigh, NC. Pool central at the time. On tv: earl, Johnny, Reyes, bustamante, Parica. These dudes ran balls. They rifled in shots, the cue ball did ish I didn’t know was possible and they had personality.

That’s pool in America. It didn’t and doesn’t need to change. I hate robot stop shot pool. It’s unwatchable. 0 emotion. It sucks. Glass table No stroke required. No thank you.

Go back to slow cloth, 4.5” pockets, gold crown IV’s (best table ever made. I’ve had 2 massaged Anniversaries. Give me a GCIV. Hate the 5 and 6) led lights, centennial balls. Delta rack. Collard shirts and slacks. 9/10 ball first to 15 games. No win by 2. One pocket first to 5.
 
This "keeps coming up" because the problem keeps getting worse. It has even filtered down to amateur pool where it completely counterproductive, pushing away new players and making the game less fun for everyone. You hear APA 4s saying that 5-inch pockets are "buckets" even while they can't run more than 3 balls in a row.
 
skip100 said:
This "keeps coming up" because the problem keeps getting worse. It has even filtered down to amateur pool where it completely counterproductive, pushing away new players and making the game less fun for everyone. You hear APA 4s saying that 5-inch pockets are "buckets" even while they can't run more than 3 balls in a row.
Click to expand...
Got that right. See it all the time.
 
skip100 said:
This "keeps coming up" because the problem keeps getting worse. It has even filtered down to amateur pool where it completely counterproductive, pushing away new players and making the game less fun for everyone. You hear APA 4s saying that 5-inch pockets are "buckets" even while they can't run more than 3 balls in a row.
Click to expand...
I don't entirely disagree with you regarding how amateur players think and talk, but amateur pool is thriving! It's even thriving on Valley bar tables. It doesn't get any easier than that! So I don't actually see a problem at all on the amateur side. Would APA 6's have more fun playing on 5 inch Gold Crowns than tight Diamonds? Probably, but very few of them are going to be playing on 9 foot tables at all so why's it even matter?

Part of the issue is there has never been a larger chasm between amateur and professional pool. FargoRate has helped clear up the illusion of the working stiff playing alongside the globe-trotting professional. The nine to fiver just can't compete with the best players anymore. That's just the reality. So amateurs can play on whatever table they choose but the pros...

Do pros need to play on looser equipment? Not if they are playing 9 ball. That ship has sailed. There are a few more complicated games that would be interesting on looser equipment, like last-pocket 8 ball or banks but those are fringe games at best. Even with tight 4 inch pockets, top pros can still accomplish all the beautiful stroke shots so why would it be better for them to play on looser equipment? I don't think it would be.
 
I’ll ask the question: What would happen in a pro tournament if tables were 4.5” on GCIV’s with slow cloth, no jump sticks allowed (ok to jump with full length cue), and let’s just say for giggles no break cues allowed either. Winner breaks. First to 18 games wins (since it’s so easy, people would run out like tap water then, right?). Heck, 18 games might not be enough. May need to be 25.

Sounds better than a stop shot safety jump a ball snooze fest.

Invite the world. Top 10 pays out.
 
Mark V said:
I’ll ask the question: What would happen in a pro tournament if tables were 4.5” on GCIV’s with slow cloth, no jump sticks allowed (ok to jump with full length cue), and let’s just say for giggles no break cues allowed either. Winner breaks. First to 18 games wins (since it’s so easy, people would run out like tap water then, right?). Heck, 18 games might not be enough. May need to be 25.

Sounds better than a stop shot safety jump a ball snooze fest.

Invite the world. Top 10 pays out.
Click to expand...
How far back in time do we need to go to see the slow cloth that everyone speaks of? Simonis has been the standard for over 30 years. IPT did the "slow cloth" gimic and it didn't change a thing.

There's so much nostalgic wishful thinking when it comes to sports, and pool is no different. The idea that yesterday's players had better strokes than today's players falls prey to this thinking. Shaw and SVB have strokes as powerful as any top pro I've watched in 30 years.

No jump cues? I could live without jump shots but they aren't there for me. They are for the spectators. They are interesting shots and they breakup the "stop shot...snooze fest" that many complain about.

The reason the game has gotten more boring to watch for those that don't appreciate excellence is because the ever increasing demands of the game have caused the players to get more technically sound. The only thing that can disrupt this is an ever shortening shot clock. Going backwards to an easier game isn't the answer, nor is playing 8 ball.
 
So what could we expect to see under the conditions I proposed and why would the results be problematic?

What I’m getting at is this. The solution to the perceived problem completely changed the game, and in its current state, it barely resembles the once beautiful, charismatic, almost poetic, art form that was enjoyable to watch. Stop shot, stop shot, safe, jump. Alternate break. Barf.


I feel like Michael Douglas in Falling Down (one hell of a good movie) asking over and over “what’s wrong with the street?!?”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top