How Long Does It Take?

[drivermaker]

As a result of the slow play threads, I did something that I've never tried before and that was to time myself in running out an entire rack. I shot my normal pace, which is neither Luc Salvas speed or Ralf Souquet speed, and especially not Danny Basavich or Jeremy Jones speed.

I only timed complete racks run while shooting alone. After breaking the rack, I started the time as I was bending down to the CB for the first shot. On tables with all 9 balls to start, it normally took 1 minute 50 seconds. I had one rack that was close to 2 minutes and some that were about 1:40.
What that comes out to is between 12-13 seconds per shot. I don't know whether I can see the layout quicker and know what I want to do better than most, or that I'm actually slow in my own right. I surely wasn't rushing.

On a table with 8 balls to start, it took 1:25.

Let's assume that someone took a full 30 seconds between each shot to analyze and pull the trigger...that would be 270 seconds. Plus another minute while the balls are rolling to a stop would bring the game to 330 seconds or 5.5 minutes for that same game.

A one minute shot clock would be totally funerial and NO shot clock is just plain insanity.

Anyone else want to try?...I think your results will amaze you.

 

[Williebetmore]

D'maker,
At that U.S. Open Straight pool tournament in the 90's where they instituted the 45 second shot clock, they asked the players for feedback on whether it was enough time. Lou Butera said something like, "Naww, I don't like the 45 second clock, they should lower it to 10 seconds." Like Lee Trevino says, "Miss 'em quick."

 

[TATE]

As a result of the slow play threads, I did something that I've never tried before and that was to time myself in running out an entire rack. I shot my normal pace, which is neither Luc Salvas speed or Ralf Souquet speed, and especially not Danny Basavich or Jeremy Jones speed.

I only timed complete racks run while shooting alone. After breaking the rack, I started the time as I was bending down to the CB for the first shot. On tables with all 9 balls to start, it normally took 1 minute 50 seconds. I had one rack that was close to 2 minutes and some that were about 1:40.
What that comes out to is between 12-13 seconds per shot. I don't know whether I can see the layout quicker and know what I want to do better than most, or that I'm actually slow in my own right. I surely wasn't rushing.

On a table with 8 balls to start, it took 1:25.

Let's assume that someone took a full 30 seconds between each shot to analyze and pull the trigger...that would be 270 seconds. Plus another minute while the balls are rolling to a stop would bring the game to 330 seconds or 5.5 minutes for that same game.

A one minute shot clock would be totally funerial and NO shot clock is just plain insanity.

Anyone else want to try?...I think your results will amaze you.

You could speed it up a little with a Predator shaft. The light tip lets you wheel it around a little quicker.

 

[Rod]

As a result of the slow play threads, I did something that I've never tried before and that was to time myself in running out an entire rack. I shot my normal pace, which is neither Luc Salvas speed or Ralf Souquet speed, and especially not Danny Basavich or Jeremy Jones speed.

I only timed complete racks run while shooting alone. After breaking the rack, I started the time as I was bending down to the CB for the first shot. On tables with all 9 balls to start, it normally took 1 minute 50 seconds. I had one rack that was close to 2 minutes and some that were about 1:40.
What that comes out to is between 12-13 seconds per shot. I don't know whether I can see the layout quicker and know what I want to do better than most, or that I'm actually slow in my own right. I surely wasn't rushing.

On a table with 8 balls to start, it took 1:25.

Let's assume that someone took a full 30 seconds between each shot to analyze and pull the trigger...that would be 270 seconds. Plus another minute while the balls are rolling to a stop would bring the game to 330 seconds or 5.5 minutes for that same game.

A one minute shot clock would be totally funerial and NO shot clock is just plain insanity.

Anyone else want to try?...I think your results will amaze you.

I'm not fast nor am I slow. I'd have to go back and look at some tapes from pro events I played in. I do remember this though because I checked it. Once I bent down the longest time was 5.5 seconds to pull the trigger. Usually it was slightly less than 4 seconds. I know I studied a bit longer than usual before getting down since the heat was on.

I think to be realistic, rather than just running balls, there needs to be some heat on you to know just how fast or slow you play. If I just run balls it will be fairly quick. Now if someone takes a long time just practicing, I don't even want to be near that table.

Rod

 

[Williebetmore]

I'm not fast nor am I slow. I'd have to go back and look at some tapes from pro events I played in. I do remember this though because I checked it. Once I bent down the longest time was 5.5 seconds to pull the trigger. Usually it was slightly less than 4 seconds. I know I studied a bit longer than usual before getting down since the heat was on.

I think to be realistic, rather than just running balls, there needs to be some heat on you to know just how fast or slow you play. If I just run balls it will be fairly quick. Now if someone takes a long time just practicing, I don't even want to be near that table.

Rod

Rodd,
I see what you are saying, but would like to get your thoughts on practicing/competing (I know you play at a fairly high level). I try to practice EXACTLY the same as I play in competition (ie. same pre-shot routine, same analysis of the table, same pace). In this way, when "the heat is on", all I have to do is rely on my muscle memory and routine from practice. The only time I would be slower in competition would be if I was having trouble focusing and thinking (doesn't happen as much now as it used to). I would think that if players are significantly faster in practice then perhaps they are not benefitting from their practice as much as they might with more disciplined practice.

 

[drivermaker]

Rodd,
I see what you are saying, but would like to get your thoughts on practicing/competing (I know you play at a fairly high level). I try to practice EXACTLY the same as I play in competition (ie. same pre-shot routine, same analysis of the table, same pace). In this way, when "the heat is on", all I have to do is rely on my muscle memory and routine from practice. The only time I would be slower in competition would be if I was having trouble focusing and thinking (doesn't happen as much now as it used to). I would think that if players are significantly faster in practice then perhaps they are not benefitting from their practice as much as they might with more disciplined practice.

I agree with this Willee...and I can tell you right now that I definitely don't get slower when the heat is on. If anything, I start walking around the table faster because my adrenaline is flowing and I'm jacked up. Therefore, I have to consciously make myself cool it.

BTW, I'm glad you responded to this because it got me to thinking about 14.1 speed and that's a totally different animal due to the myriad number of shots, and sometimes the total absence of shots until you study the rack carefully from a bunch of different angles. I don't even care that it's not timed, but there's no excuse for extraordinary 9 ball slowness.

 

[sjm]

Anyone ever here the saying "that guy plays so slow, even the ghost complains." Describes a couple of people I know.

 

[sjm]

Ask yourself, do you want to put on a show or do you want to win?.

Are you trying to suggest that Luc Salvas or Machine Gun Lou Butera would have played better if they played slow? I, for one, seriously doubt it.

Some players manage to make their decisions fast and accurately, and the fact that they pull the trigger quickly once over the cue ball can hardly be construed as haste. Slow players all seem to find all this hard to fathom. The suggestion that taking more time ensures improved decision making and more reliable execution is highly arguable. Yes, to play hastily and haphazardly is inexcusable, but decisions can and should be made thougtfully and efficiently without undue delay.

The history of pro pool in no way validates the claim that the slower players are the more thoughtful or the more effective players. The world class player that takes an eternity to shoot reduces the quality of pro pool as a product, and probably owes every fellow professional an apology for devaluing the sport.

If you're the sort of driver that comes to an intersection and needs thirty seconds to decide whether to turn left, go straight , or turn right, you don't belong on the road, for your truly ridiculous level of indecision makes the driving expereince more negative for so many other drivers, whose time you are more than willing to waste. Similarly, if you frequently need an eternity to play a shot at the pool table, your truly ridiculous level of indecision makes the pool playing experience more negative for many other members of the pool community, whose time you are willing to waste.

In short, to equate slow play with thoughtful play is absurd.

 

[sjm]

For one, I am not a slow player, nor am I a fast player. I am deliberate, and never take more than 30 seconds to shoot. As I said in my post, it's more than just your decisions at play. Your stroke can suffer if your body alignment is not precise. If one doubts their ability to successfully pull a shot off and pushes through with the usual brazen confidence it can spell disaster. The current world number one Alex Pagulayan is very deliberate, does he do the pool world a disservice?.

Hope I wasn't misinterpreted here. I was not referring to YOUR speed of play, just to slow play in general. By your description, your are not a slow player. On the contrary, you seem to play at a reasonable pace.

By the way, I've seen slow players miss "unmissable" shots often. Missing simple shots is hardly the exclusive domain of faster players.

Let's agree to disagree on this one, Brian. Nonetheless, thanks for your thoughtful and well-written reply, and have a nice evening.

 

[Rod]

Rodd,
I see what you are saying, but would like to get your thoughts on practicing/competing (I know you play at a fairly high level). I try to practice EXACTLY the same as I play in competition (ie. same pre-shot routine, same analysis of the table, same pace). In this way, when "the heat is on", all I have to do is rely on my muscle memory and routine from practice. The only time I would be slower in competition would be if I was having trouble focusing and thinking (doesn't happen as much now as it used to). I would think that if players are significantly faster in practice then perhaps they are not benefitting from their practice as much as they might with more disciplined practice.

Willie that could be, I certainly won't discount the thought. In my case, I was a little tense since being under the gun had not happened for many years, even then. I was just a hair away from playing good pool but could not get loose.

If I had continued to play on the tour (don't we wish we could make it to several events) my pace would have sped up just a tad. That is what I needed, but my time would not allow such to happen. To little to late is the moral of my story, per-say.

Rod

 

[vagabond]

Hi Driver Maker,
For treatment and rehabilitation for slow play,they should be asked to play in the womens tournaments where they have shot clocks.
Vagabond

 

[Mungtor]

They should just put both players in a match on a clock like in speed chess. Each player gets 5 minutes (30 sec/ball + 30 seconds in 9-ball) and can use it however they want. If they need to stare at a single shot for a full minute to make sure they get it right, fine. But they will need to pick up the pace for later shots.

Could also make some interesting play possible (although admittedly not likely) trying to run out the clock with safetys. Also, a big digital display with the 10ths ticking off would probably add some extra nerves.

 

[PoolBum]

Hope I wasn't misinterpreted here. I was not referring to YOUR speed of play, just to slow play in general. By your description, your are not a slow player. On the contrary, you seem to play at a reasonable pace.

Maybe by your standards 30 seconds is not long to shoot, but there are LOTS of players who think 30 seconds on average per shot is way too long. I rarely take more than 30 seconds per shot either, and I don't dilly-dally at all when I'm down to shoot--I have the same pre-shot routine each time. It's just that many players think anyone who walks around to look at an angle and to be deliberate in trying to play precise position is taking too long to shoot. I say that's crazy.

 

[drivermaker]

They should just put both players in a match on a clock like in speed chess. Each player gets 5 minutes (30 sec/ball + 30 seconds in 9-ball) and can use it however they want. If they need to stare at a single shot for a full minute to make sure they get it right, fine. But they will need to pick up the pace for later shots.

Could also make some interesting play possible (although admittedly not likely) trying to run out the clock with safetys. Also, a big digital display with the 10ths ticking off would probably add some extra nerves.

I think you might have blown your shot clock suggestion out of the water with the safety play possibilities. I'm not saying that because they were TRYING to slow it, but what happens if it actually happened because it sometimes does? There's no alternative to a prolonged defensive battle at times.
Does the game come to a draw and they restart? I don't think that would work. Do you add time onto the clock due to the circumstances of the game? Well that defeats the purpose of a shot clock.

What happens if a player dawdles throughout and uses up all of his time as he's getting in position to shoot the last ball? Is the game an automatic loss?

How much time would be affixed to each players bank if three balls were made on the break and six were only remaining?

Still seems like a normal 30 second shot clock is the way to go with an extension.

 

[drivermaker]

Maybe by your standards 30 seconds is not long to shoot, but there are LOTS of players who think 30 seconds on average per shot is way too long. I rarely take more than 30 seconds per shot either, and I don't dilly-dally at all when I'm down to shoot--I have the same pre-shot routine each time. It's just that many players think anyone who walks around to look at an angle and to be deliberate in trying to play precise position is taking too long to shoot. I say that's crazy.

You're correct...I would have to say that a certain number of players think that 30 seconds on average per shot is way to long. And the fact is, 30 seconds could be far too long on the most simple of shots, along with an easy layout with few balls on the table, and automatic position. There's no need whatsoever to waste 30 seconds on something like that.

However, if a 30 second shot clock IS being used then I would say that it's completely acceptable and tough shit for the fast players (which would include me). That is reasonable and a good compromise which everyone just accepts. That's not the problem....the problem is longer and longer time limits being requested or no time limit at all.

Another poster confessed to being "deliberate". Hey...no problem. The problem comes when "deliberate" crosses the line and goes over into slow...then crosses another line and goes into ridiculous. So....where is that line and time limit? I'll live everyday of the week with 30 seconds. Can the slowpokes?

 

[Mungtor]

I think you might have blown your shot clock suggestion out of the water with the safety play possibilities. I'm not saying that because they were TRYING to slow it, but what happens if it actually happened because it sometimes does? There's no alternative to a prolonged defensive battle at times.
Does the game come to a draw and they restart? I don't think that would work. Do you add time onto the clock due to the circumstances of the game? Well that defeats the purpose of a shot clock.

If the clock runs out on your watch, you lose. So get up and get unstuck as fast as you can. No added time.

What happens if a player dawdles throughout and uses up all of his time as he's getting in position to shoot the last ball? Is the game an automatic loss?

Yep. See above. Bad clock managment is no excuse in football or basketball, shouldn't be here either. Clock runs out, you lose.

How much time would be affixed to each players bank if three balls were made on the break and six were only remaining?

Still seems like a normal 30 second shot clock is the way to go with an extension.

Same clock regardless of how many balls are made on the break. Think of it as a reward for putting some down instead of going for the soft-break 1 ball all the time. The more you can put down, the more time you have to work on the rest.

Of course, it isn't perfect. Maybe it should only be 3-1/2 minutes, or 20 seconds for 9 balls with 1 30 second extension. I dunno. I lose faster than anybody I know anyway.

 

[drivermaker]

I lose faster than anybody I know anyway.

That's 'cause you don't know how to aim. Want me to teach you? Damn....I just looked on the registry and you're on the "no show list".


BTW...do you really think the slowpokes could live with that system...I don't.
I think faster players could.

 

[Mungtor]

That's 'cause you don't know how to aim. Want me to teach you? Damn....I just looked on the registry and you're on the "no show list".

BTW...do you really think the slowpokes could live with that system...I don't.
I think faster players could.

I don't think the slowpokes could really live with it, but I think it could add an interesting dimension to the game. Slowpokes can go play 14.1 or one-pocket or something. I don't really think that the clock applies to anything other than 7, 9, or 10 ball because there isn't any confusion over what the next shot is. What I mean is that since each of those is a rotation game your next target is obvious. 1-pocket, 14.1 and 8-ball have more options and probably more actual strategy IMO.

And actually, I'm shooting pretty well lately. Aiming has never really been my problem and I seem to have that down to an almost subconscious level. I still use parallel angles for setting up some banks, but that's about it. If I say too much more, Hal will send another nasty e-mail to my Yahoo! account.

My real problem was an inconsistent stroke that tended to pull inwards towards my body (farther in when hitting harder) and curling my wrist. I plunked down the money for a Stroke Trainer and did about 100 strokes a night for a week paying attention to how the muscles worked and how the stroke felt at slow speed. It worked wonders, and I had already tried the Coke bottle trick as well as some others. In my handicapped 9-ball leage (not affiliated with any orgs) I was playing as a 4, and have since gone up to a 6. Wasn't instant, of course, but getting the stroke working let me learn what to do instead of fighting the table all the time.

 

[chefjeff]

(snip)

In short, to equate slow play with thoughtful play is absurd.

Usually when I play too slowly I make physical errors; when I play too quickly, I make mental errors. So there's probably some truth to that equation.

When I used to watch Don play 9-ball, he'd take about 19 seconds for each and every shot, practicing or playing. Though lately, he seems to be speeding up. Perhaps aging toward death makes us want to squeeze more out of life?

Jeff Livingston