earl and ‘placement pool’

[btal]

Just a thought to satisfy Earl and those who share his sentiments. How about following this trick shot tournament format?
Substitute "layouts" for "trick shots" below. Layouts would change for every tournament.

In WTSAA and APTSA competitions, competitors would have three chances to successfully perform each trick, earning full points if they are successful on their first attempts and incrementally reduced points for subsequent attempts. Each shot has an associated difficulty rating (also the point value) with a higher rating being more difficult. A preliminary round of 40 shots is performed, and the top players (the number varies depending on the number of competitors, but usually the top 12) proceed into a head-to-head playoff format to determine the winner.

Then in the televised round - use the same rules we see today.

 

[Island Drive]

Like someone mentioned the game of cards, where duplicate hands are played.
It might be this.

First player up....
Break the balls and before shooting em in, digitize ball positions with overhead spot lighting creating marks for all ball locations.

Next rack opponent doesn't break, but balls are set in place.....balls are.............

Positioned Exactly like the prior rack using the digitized lighting that denotes the exact position where all balls were in the prior game.

Third game you rack opponent breaks and spot lighting used again to determine ball positions for the 4th game and so on.

 

[The_JV]

I guess it's entertaining to spit ball ideas on how to appease Earl. However all of this just seems to suck the life out of the game.

In reality, once he starts losing at 'placement pool' (aka: drill competitions), he'll just dream up something else that's 'a true measure of skill' and 'not just lucky'.

 

[jay helfert]

Maybe "placement pool" is another term for something with which we're already familiar. Then again, Earl, who, not long ago was challenging the top players to a match on a table having no side pockets, has been known to invent games from time to time.

That said, Earl's sentiments are understood. Back in the early 1980's, when Earl and Sigel were combining to win so many titles, the game was more difficult, played on slower cloth with poorer quality balls , lower quality cushions, and even the big events were often contested on worn (rather than new) cloth. Earl probably feels that the game, over the years, has become easier, and Sigel has said the same.

In short, Earl's call for a stiffer test of cueing skills is not without merit.

I will agree on some of your points and disagree on others. No question the Stevens cloth played slower and thus players needed to have a more powerful stroke to move the cue ball around. That's a very big difference right there. That said the original Gold Crowns (the most popular tournament table at the time) were super solid tables with good rails (Brunswick Super Speed cushions) and they played true, something that cannot be said for all the various tournament tables being used today. You rarely if ever saw a ball roll off on them! The Centennial balls were the standard of the day and imo not much different than what we are using today, as good or better in many cases (with the right colors too!). Your statement about worn cloth is also incorrect for the most part. In fact, the players preferred to play on tables where the cloth had been broken in. The tables were most difficult to play on when the cloth was brand new, with balls sliding all over and being easier to pocket because of it. Once the cloth got broken in, after maybe a couple of days of play they played much better. One other big difference was pocket size and in general the pockets are tighter on today's tournament equipment, but not always.

The most difficult tables I ever saw in any event were used in the 1987 Peter Vitalie Invitational held at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles. I asked Gil and Andi Atkisson to make the Vitalie tables play tough and they went over the top, with 4" corners and super deep shelves. It was actually possible for a ball to be inside the edge of the corner pocket where you couldn't make it shooting down the rail. CRAZY! Those tables gave the players nightmares and two of the best (Buddy and Sigel) made it into the finals. Sigel and Efren had an epic semifinal match where Efren unscrewed his cue and was ready to quit when a bad foul was called on him. Sigel got BIH and ran down to I think the seven ball which was maybe a diamond and half above the corner pocket on the side rail. He played good shape on the ball but hit it a little too hard and it refused to go in the pocket, hanging there for Efren, who promptly screwed his cue back together and ran out. Thank God for that, as there must have been a couple of hundred Filipinos in the crowd and they would have rioted if Efren had quit.

I will also agree that the Diamond bar boxes are light years ahead of the Valleys that were used in almost all the small table events back then. They play like a real pool table and not some gaffy little box with phony cue balls.

 

[jay helfert]

I also saw Earl as early as 1980 when he was just a late teen. One of the things I remember about him is how often the young Earl beat stone cold champions like Sigel, Hall, Varner and Rempe 11-2 or 11-3. Sigel payed as well as Earl, but he didn't beat opponents into submission the way Earl so often did. Earl had a top gear that had to be seen to be believed.

Earl was the all time best tournament 9-Ball player I ever saw (Parica was the best money player)! He dominated by stringing more racks together then anyone past or present. It was nothing for him to put together five, six and seven rack runs and that was what you could expect when you played him. He put his opponents to sleep running rack after rack with the crowd chanting the numbers (THREE! FOUR! FIVE! SIX! SEVEN! ) and loving every minute of it, while he tortured his opponent. It didn't matter who he was playing, if he got off to the races it was all over and they knew it. I can remember matches with great players like those mentioned above by Stu (and many more damn good players) where they were leading maybe 4-2. 5-3 or 3-0 and the next time they came to the table they were behind 9-4, 8-5 or 7-3! That was demoralizing. Often in close matches with the score 5-5 or 6-5, Earl would come to the table and the match would be over from there! He flat ran out the match! They packed the stands to see Earl in high gear and there were no Earl hi-jinks back then. He was dominating the game like no one had before and he was on top of the pool world.

 

[Island Drive]

Totally agree Jay, only other player that seems to roll' like earl is Shaw, but Earl's swing was a ''one of a kind'' perfectly straight. Having played em for over 6 hrs Straight in Long Beach, on old, damp, dirty wet cloth........in all those hours.........he NEVER missed the pocket Once, ever, he just entered it at too much speed. I still have NEVER seen any player ''swing it'' like he did....Also was in Dallas at CJ's Million dollar challenge, where me Mike and Francinne Massey going to a movie....ran into Earl in the parking lot, before that day of play. He was animated, smiling and telling us how amazing and impossible it would be for anyone to do this.

 

[sjm]

I will agree on some of your points and disagree on others. No question the Stevens cloth played slower and thus players needed to have a more powerful stroke to move the cue ball around. That's a very big difference right there. That said the original Gold Crowns (the most popular tournament table at the time) were super solid tables with good rails (Brunswick Super Speed cushions) and they played true, something that cannot be said for all the various tournament tables being used today. You rarely if ever saw a ball roll off on them! The Centennial balls were the standard of the day and imo not much different than what we are using today, as good or better in many cases (with the right colors too!). Your statement about worn cloth is also incorrect for the most part. In fact, the players preferred to play on tables where the cloth had been broken in. The tables were most difficult to play on when the cloth was brand new, with balls sliding all over and being easier to pocket because of it. Once the cloth got broken in, after maybe a couple of days of play they played much better. One other big difference was pocket size and in general the pockets are tighter on today's tournament equipment, but not always.

The most difficult tables I ever saw in any event were used in the 1987 Peter Vitalie Invitational held at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles. I asked Gil and Andi Atkisson to make the Vitalie tables play tough and they went over the top, with 4" corners and super deep shelves. It was actually possible for a ball to be inside the edge of the corner pocket where you couldn't make it shooting down the rail. CRAZY! Those tables gave the players nightmares and two of the best (Buddy and Sigel) made it into the finals. Sigel and Efren had an epic semifinal match where Efren unscrewed his cue and was ready to quit when a bad foul was called on him. Sigel got BIH and ran down to I think the seven ball which was maybe a diamond and half above the corner pocket on the side rail. He played good shape on the ball but hit it a little too hard and it refused to go in the pocket, hanging there for Efren, who promptly screwed his cue back together and ran out. Thank God for that, as there must have been a couple of hundred Filipinos in the crowd and they would have rioted if Efren had quit.

I will also agree that the Diamond bar boxes are light years ahead of the Valleys that were used in almost all the small table events back then. They play like a real pool table and not some gaffy little box with phony cue balls.

Thanks for the education, Jay.

 

[9andout]

Maybe "placement pool" is another term for something with which we're already familiar. Then again, Earl, who, not long ago was challenging the top players to a match on a table having no side pockets, has been known to invent games from time to time.

That said, Earl's sentiments are understood. Back in the early 1980's, when Earl and Sigel were combining to win so many titles, the game was more difficult, played on slower cloth with poorer quality balls , lower quality cushions, and even the big events were often contested on worn (rather than new) cloth. Earl probably feels that the game, over the years, has become easier, and Sigel has said the same.

In short, Earl's call for a stiffer test of cueing skills is not without merit.

Siegel said at their last match: "These tables retired me."

 

[johnnysd]

I would think straight pool would also cover like 99% of what Earl wants to accomplish with Placement Pool.

 

[Cameron Smith]

I've never seen this game played, but I attended a BCA tourney and Earl was explaining this concept to the crowd. As I understand it, placement pool is a game where the balls are placed identically for each frame and the players run out. This eliminates the break, pattern racking and also reduces randomness/luck. Each player has an opportunity to shoot the exact same layout and the better shooter should be apparent.

I think this could be a great game and technology should enable this, even in tournament conditions.

-td

This concept would be fun as a once a year tournament or a “mid session” challenge during a bigger tournament as something entertaining during downtime between matches. But if you tried to create an entire tour based on it, you’d lose interest after probably one or two events.

 

[markjames]

and also, snooker is a type of placement pool.

 

[chefjeff]

I would bet all your dollars to someone else's doughnutz he is referring to target pool.

IMO, a great idea that never really gained traction.

P.S. Earl still doesn't like it, vs. today's elite.

It was in BD a few months ago with a few of the placement shots shown.


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Placement pool makes it more like a golf hole, where every player has the same challenge.

I'd think fans would enjoy it, especially as they tried those shots at home. It gives a little consistency and the same chance for everyone.


Jeff Livingston

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...placement pool is a game where the balls are placed identically for each frame and the players run out.

Like duplicate bridge, except without partners or opponents.

pj
chgo

 

[skip100]

Earl was the all time best tournament 9-Ball player I ever saw (Parica was the best money player)! He dominated by stringing more racks together then anyone past or present. It was nothing for him to put together five, six and seven rack runs and that was what you could expect when you played him. He put his opponents to sleep running rack after rack with the crowd chanting the numbers (THREE! FOUR! FIVE! SIX! SEVEN! ) and loving every minute of it, while he tortured his opponent. It didn't matter who he was playing, if he got off to the races it was all over and they knew it. I can remember matches with great players like those mentioned above by Stu (and many more damn good players) where they were leading maybe 4-2. 5-3 or 3-0 and the next time they came to the table they were behind 9-4, 8-5 or 7-3! That was demoralizing. Often in close matches with the score 5-5 or 6-5, Earl would come to the table and the match would be over from there! He flat ran out the match! They packed the stands to see Earl in high gear and there were no Earl hi-jinks back then. He was dominating the game like no one had before and he was on top of the pool world.

I've been looking at the mid 80s major tournament results and this is true.

One wrinkle is that Earl underperformed a bit against his peers - he had a losing record against the very best players, especially Reyes and Sigel. However, while other players would play down to their competition he absolutely dominated lower level players, even guys who were only slightly lower on the pecking order. It all net out to having Reyes, Sigel and Strickland basically tied at the top.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I've never seen this game played, but I attended a BCA tourney and Earl was explaining this concept to the crowd. As I understand it, placement pool is a game where the balls are placed identically for each frame and the players run out. This eliminates the break, pattern racking and also reduces randomness/luck. Each player has an opportunity to shoot the exact same layout and the better shooter should be apparent.

I think this could be a great game and technology should enable this, even in tournament conditions.

-td

That is pretty much it in a nutshell. There was a black pool promoter in Los Angeles who tried to get placement pool off the ground there for several years about 20 years ago or so. He even held at least one invitational tournament with a number of mostly local to the LA area pros where all or many of the matches were put online. I remember watching all of at least one event. Two of the players I definitely recall being in it were Ernesto Dominguez and Ming Ng. Being a local, Jay Helfert would almost certainly remember placement pool and know who the promoter was and could maybe share some of the history. The placement pool guy had a website up for many years after that which still showed all the matches, but somewhere around a dozen years ago or so the site disappeared. No idea if any of the matches are available anywhere else. I also don't remember what it was called, but whatever he called it, it has to be what Earl is referring to as "placement pool".

I don't recall all the details any longer about scoring etc (did you only get a point if you ran the whole rack, or did you get points based on how many balls you managed to get through in each rack, etc?), but as td873 said above, essentially they created a specific layout of the 1-9 balls, and each player then made an attempt at running that same layout. They had quite a few unique layouts like that, and everybody got an attempt at each one. Many/most of the layouts were quite clever and extremely difficult and the success rates for running some of them was extremely low.

It was actually fairly interesting to watch at least for a while anyway because it was all offense, and they weren't routine runout type layouts at all, they were tough as crap and would require ingenuity and precision and shot making and creativity and unique shots and ideas etc. It was also interesting to see the differing approaches each player would take to the layouts and the various things they would try or the pattern they would attempt. It did in fact make it very apparent very quickly which players were better than which.

Based on what I recall about it I highly doubt this would ever replace traditional pool tournaments because they players are not competing directly against each other but against the course as in golf, but I do think it could be something that could attract some viewing interest if it were done every so often as an invitational maybe once or twice a year (or possibly as an open but I don't know that the format would lend itself well to a very large field?). I also think many would find it fun as a local tournament on occasion as well. It looked interesting/challenging/fun enough for me to be willing to give it a shot if I found a placement pool tournament around somewhere.

 

[book collector]

Maybe "placement pool" is another term for something with which we're already familiar. Then again, Earl, who, not long ago was challenging the top players to a match on a table having no side pockets, has been known to invent games from time to time.

That said, Earl's sentiments are understood. Back in the early 1980's, when Earl and Sigel were combining to win so many titles, the game was more difficult, played on slower cloth with poorer quality balls , lower quality cushions, and even the big events were often contested on worn (rather than new) cloth. Earl probably feels that the game, over the years, has become easier, and Sigel has said the same.

In short, Earl's call for a stiffer test of cueing skills is not without merit.

I remember at least one tournament was played using card table felt. Parica vs Varner I believe. It was brutal.