How many would like to see pool like a championship fight? CJ Wiley

[CJ Wiley]

This is no easy task, but can be scientifically achieved.

Like SF Leinen and Celtic, I too feel that nine-ball has had its chance and failed.


The thing about it is "9 Ball" has not failed at anything. People are responsible for failure and/or success, not Games.

Failure is a frame of mind and a disease. People that have it or get it are hanging around toxic envirements. "9 Ball" or any other game needs healthy minded people doing what's essential and that's reframing how normal every day people feel/think/perceive the people PLAYING POOL.

It's not the Game's fault at all, I've seen the game many times and it doesn't do a whole lot without humans involved. And these humans must understand how anchoring, reframing and neuro linguistic programming is used to change the real problem once and for all. The public's perception of pool and pool players. This is no easy task, but can be scientifically achieved. 'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[CJ Wiley]

I'm not suggesting I like boxing or want any "Don King" like characters

Haven't read all the posts but isn't this what the TAR matches already are? Without the acting and the hype though.

I think that the closest we came to actual blows has been the Harriman/Schmidt saga of trash talk, before, during, and after their matches.

Well, if it's worth anything and I am sure it's been mentioned, some of the highest rated shows ABC ever had was the Moconi/Fats showdowns on Wide World of Sports. In fact the promoter of those events was Big Fights who normally did the big boxing events.

It's all in RA Dyer's book, The Hustler and The Champ if anyone cares to read it.

The whole Boxing analogy was just comparing pool to another sport. I've heard people compare it to golf, tennis, etc. and from my experience Boxing has a lot in common with the actual pool match, nothing more than that.

If you've ever been in a gambling match you will relate to trading blows and how the momentum is a big factor when you get someone "down".

I'm not suggesting I like boxing or want any "Don King" like characters to apppear. We've had our own "Don" before and that didn't work out so well.

 

[JB Cases]

The whole Boxing analogy was just comparing pool to another sport. I've heard people compare it to golf, tennis, etc. and from my experience Boxing has a lot in common with the actual pool match, nothing more than that.

If you've ever been in a gambling match you will relate to trading blows and how the momentum is a big factor when you get someone "down".

I'm not suggesting I like boxing or want any "Don King" like characters to apppear. We've had our own "Don" before and that didn't work out so well.

Yes you did and no it didn't. I have been in plenty of action and can relate. The difference though with pool and boxing or pool and tennis is physical action. You don't need anyone to tell you what's going on when you see people trading punches or volleys. But in pool you often have to explain the reasons players do one thing and not the other. The announcer often has to try and educate the viewer as to why certain shots are tough or why they are hard under pressure and where the pressure is coming from.

I wasn't calling for a Don King type guy. I was just making the point that the highest rated shows for Wide World of Sports were in fact the Mosconi/Fats showdowns and that coincidentally they were promoted/produced by a company that specialized in televising boxing matches.

 

[CJ Wiley]

"they're all just shots"

Yes you did and no it didn't. I have been in plenty of action and can relate. The difference though with pool and boxing or pool and tennis is physical action. You don't need anyone to tell you what's going on when you see people trading punches or volleys. But in pool you often have to explain the reasons players do one thing and not the other. The announcer often has to try and educate the viewer as to why certain shots are tough or why they are hard under pressure and where the pressure is coming from.

I wasn't calling for a Don King type guy. I was just making the point that the highest rated shows for Wide World of Sports were in fact the Mosconi/Fats showdowns and that coincidentally they were promoted/produced by a company that specialized in televising boxing matches.

I'm not sure the announcers really need to try to explain or educate the viewer. I know that's been done and is continuing, however, trying to tell "the viewer" why one shot is tough or difficult under pressure "may" not be needed. I'm under the impression that paradigm must change.

If you notice the commentary in the "Fats/Mosconi Showdown" the announcers used a different approach. The human interest story and interactions seemed to play a much bigger role than just the shot by shot analysis that's used today. I personally like it much better, as a player I never really thought one shot was any more difficult than another. "they're all just shots" :wink:

 

[Celtic]

The thing about it is "9 Ball" has not failed at anything. People are responsible for failure and/or success, not Games.

So the only reason "jump rope" is not as big a sport as basketball or football is because of "people". Jump rope could in fact have a league just a successful as the NFL and a league championships that rivals the Superbowl, if only the "people" running the pro jump rope league were equal to those running the NFL?

If you truly believe this this I guess Bonus Ball can work for pro pool, all they need is the right "people" and they are golden and will build pool into a huge success, playing Bonus Ball.

 

[Celtic]

I'm not sure the announcers really need to try to explain or educate the viewer. I know that's been done and is continuing, however, trying to tell "the viewer" why one shot is tough or difficult under pressure "may" not be needed.

On this you are 100% correct and I have been telling this forum that for years.

I made a post on this back in this thread http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=229066

Since someone else started a commentary thread I will mention here that I am currently watching streams of the World Snooker Championships and am noticing a HUGE difference in the type of commentary.

In the snooker alot of the time the commentators are not actually talking. They mention key moments when a person falls of out shape, they will comment on a particularily well made shot, they will add some color commentary here and there or mention the score at the end of a game, but alot of the time it is quiet and they let the game speak for itself, let you hear the click of the balls, get absorbed into the game itself.

In pool though? Commentators never stop talking. It is like they think as a commentator you need to start talking the instant the lag takes place and you need to keep talking until the last ball of the match drops. The announcers comment on which pocket the player will shoot a ball into, even when the shot is straight in and clearly obvious, they will mention obvious shape play, and when they run out of things to talk about in the game they will start talking about past players, past matches, the weather, what kind of beer they are drinking, how good the food is in the pool hall, anything at all to keep the banter alive.

After having watched some of the snooker I gotta say I am loving the limited commentary. I thought about other sports, tennis, golf, the commentators are reserved in their comments, they say what needs to be said and they don't feel the need to keep the viewers ears in constant use. It is great to have commentary that is functional, they talk when it is warrented, and otherwise they just let you watch the game.

I gotta say as much as I love TAR and the other streamers and what they are doing for the game they need to look into commentary and realise they do NOT have to be talking every moment of the stream, let the players play the game, mention key moments, but let the game flow and let the quiet and the click of the balls be a large part of the viewing, I am loving that aspect of the snooker commentary.

Snooker has it right. They do not sit there and say "he will shoot that red to the left of the pack, then he will roll down to the black and come off the rail and play the red to the right in the side pocket, probably drawing back to the black...." They simply let the guys play pool and do NOT sit there and try to pre-determine what the players are going to do. They comment on the extra special shots, they will comment on a miss when it happens, they might mention when a player misses their shape abit and has a tough shot coming up.

Pool commentary is for the most part terrible and it has been for decades.

 

[TheThaiger]

Pool commentary is for the most part terrible and it has been for decades.

I don't watch much pool but have to agree with you. The commentators seem to have no sense of timing, often with one of them wittering on about something inconsequential during pivotal moments. Others seem to know NOTHING about the game at all.

I think experience is very important here - the snooker commentators often reference their 'commentators' eye' when it comes to spotting a shot, and it's true to say new commentators often fail to anticipate what shot a player is likely to play. The likes of Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry have been clueless at first, which is amazing given their reading of the game was impeccable whilst on the table.

Snooker commentary is light-touch, insightful and entertaining. Most of all, it is complementary to the game itself.

 

[West Point 1987]

I don't watch much pool but have to agree with you. The commentators seem to have no sense of timing, often with one of them wittering on about something inconsequential during pivotal moments. Others seem to know NOTHING about the game at all.

I think experience is very important here - the snooker commentators often reference their 'commentators' eye' when it comes to spotting a shot, and it's true to say new commentators often fail to anticipate what shot a player is likely to play. The likes of Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry have been clueless at first, which is amazing given their reading of the game was impeccable whilst on the table.

Snooker commentary is light-touch, insightful and entertaining. Most of all, it is complementary to the game itself.

I agree completely...it was one of the things that could keep me glued to four or more hours of it on SKY Sports, pushing my remote's red and black buttons to toggle between matches. If I had to contend with commentators like we often get in U.S. broadcasts, I'd go mental.

That said, my favorite commentators are the ones that just sit there BS'ing about the players, old road stories, etc, occasionally paying attention to the game at hand...sort of another dimension of entertainment that you could listen too while just watching the game unfold. I loved Grady's commentary, which was always spot on and never overbearing or frantic/loud...Mataya used to add a lot of color to commentary that was very entertaining, but I haven't heard him in years. I love Danny DiLiberto's color, although he's often paired with someone I won't like as much. Sid Waddell kept me in stitches with his commentary, it's tragic that I won't hear that again. :frown:

 

[CJ Wiley]

the jury's still out on jump rope

On this you are 100% correct and I have been telling this forum that for years.

I made a post on this back in this thread http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=229066



Snooker has it right. They do not sit there and say "he will shoot that red to the left of the pack, then he will roll down to the black and come off the rail and play the red to the right in the side pocket, probably drawing back to the black...." They simply let the guys play pool and do NOT sit there and try to pre-determine what the players are going to do. They comment on the extra special shots, they will comment on a miss when it happens, they might mention when a player misses their shape abit and has a tough shot coming up.

Pool commentary is for the most part terrible and it has been for decades.

I'm glad we agree on the commentary, but the jury's still out on jump rope. Many will think the football may have an advantage on the rope.

Some may have a feeling the commentary of jump rope and pool have many things in common though. I'm not sure about the bonus ball scenario you brought up. I think they are doing 80% of their potential, however, that may not be enough if they don't change a couple of elements of the TV Production. I'm just not sure any "Game" has enough strength on it's own accord to do it. 'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[CJ Wiley]

Jimmy Mataya is an awesome commentator

I agree completely...it was one of the things that could keep me glued to four or more hours of it on SKY Sports, pushing my remote's red and black buttons to toggle between matches. If I had to contend with commentators like we often get in U.S. broadcasts, I'd go mental.

That said, my favorite commentators are the ones that just sit there BS'ing about the players, old road stories, etc, occasionally paying attention to the game at hand...sort of another dimension of entertainment that you could listen too while just watching the game unfold. I loved Grady's commentary, which was always spot on and never overbearing or frantic/loud...Mataya used to add a lot of color to commentary that was very entertaining, but I haven't heard him in years. I love Danny DiLiberto's color, although he's often paired with someone I won't like as much. Sid Waddell kept me in stitches with his commentary, it's tragic that I won't hear that again. :frown:

Jimmy Mataya is an awesome commentator and he did several of my TV matches produced here in Dallas. I have two matches getting ready to be released with him doing the color, which you will be able to see in December. He certainly used the boxing style presentation for effect.

Yes, the whole key is the human interest end of the game to begin with. At some point the game would be more interesting, but at first ALL sports and games rely on the characters they generate. Back to the boxing analogy with Ali, Foreman, Sugar Ray, Tyson, etc. they were watched by so many people because of their personalities OUTSIDE the ring, not because of their jabs, uppper cuts, or the kind of gloves they used.

 

[CJ Wiley]

must be entertaining

Wow, kinda like the association to boxing the hype, the trash, then who goes down and who's on top .
I would like to see it more like a jousting competition in the days of yore.
More noble, where you came from,who mentored you, etc. :thumbup:

Yes indeed.....I don't think it's the game that must be entertaining as much as the characters ... maybe like the Sopranos LoL

 

[CJ Wiley]

Yes, what do you think of the US OPEN commentary?

I don't watch much pool but have to agree with you. The commentators seem to have no sense of timing, often with one of them wittering on about something inconsequential during pivotal moments. Others seem to know NOTHING about the game at all.

I think experience is very important here - the snooker commentators often reference their 'commentators' eye' when it comes to spotting a shot, and it's true to say new commentators often fail to anticipate what shot a player is likely to play. The likes of Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry have been clueless at first, which is amazing given their reading of the game was impeccable whilst on the table.

Snooker commentary is light-touch, insightful and entertaining. Most of all, it is complementary to the game itself.

Yes, what do you think of the US OPEN commentary? Is it complementary to the Game? Is it informing you of the players themselves?

 

[TheThaiger]

Opinions, eh? We've all got 'em

Yes, what do you think of the US OPEN commentary? Is it complementary to the Game? Is it informing you of the players themselves?

I find pool unwatchable, so haven't seen a shot of the US Open.

Pool's problems are on the table. It's boring to watch. Period. The players are one dimensional. You can't have boring players AND a boring game. You can get away with one or the other, but not both. No amount of human interest stories from the commentators will alter this. The players are boring because it's in their best interests to be so. An overly aggressive player will lose, so he plays conservatively, which means they ALL play conservatively. You can only alter this paradigm through salary, although that brings its own risks and limitations.

If you go to championship match, you want to see something you can't do yourself. A piece of skill that's worth the entrance fee alone. Consistently great positional play is an impressive skill to possess but it is uninteresting to watch. Aggressive potting is the way to go. The three rail bank shot you can't do is the way to go.

Set-piece, big money, grudge matches, with bad boys and filthy women. Sex sells. Fast, furious, aggressive. The James Dean of pool is...?

Have real-time gambling, with odds changing by the shot/rack, and punters able to bet instantly via hand held devices (or phones?).

Make it a points scored, time-based game, with a count-down clock to add pressure to the player that's losing. Banks, caroms and combinations score double. Attack, attack, attack. Find a workable risk Vs reward ratio.

Play best of three games - 8 ball, 9 ball and a wildcard. I like the idea of a game where each player has their own CB, and they alternate shots. A new game stimulates interest.

Anyway, enough steam of consciousness rambling. I don't thinking adding a bit of colour to the players in commentary or manufacturing a personality for them off the table is sufficient to revive the game. Make it exciting ON the table first.

Good luck.