If you NEED to speed up one-pocket, do this......

will ball in hand speed the game up?

Enzo,

One of the real issues with your idea is that it will not necessarily speed individual matches up. When two crafty players are playing an uptable game they may go an hour or two without scratching. What good is your ball in hand on a scratch rule then? What you are likely to do is speed up the games that don't need speeding up while the games that get the tournament schedule all out of whack take as long as ever meaning even more waiting around for the people that get their matches over with quick.

I don't know how it works endgame with less than four balls in the kitchen but spotting balls when too many are in the kitchen seems to be a better solution to shortening the game and has worked for years according to reports. Although it was half in fun I do think going to ten balls would work too but this would mean that spot ratios would be further apart which would perhaps cause more trouble.

Another way to speed handicapped tournaments is to lower the numbers of balls needed to win for weaker players. For example, going to 7-6 instead of 9-8 is a slightly different spot but by not getting down to the last balls on the table people are more likely to have something to shoot at and be unable to defend against all possible shots. When shooting even, going to 7-7 or even 6-6 is still playing even while leaving more balls in play.

There are ways to speed up one pocket without changing one of the basic strategies of the game and as I mentioned early in this post, I suspect ball in hand anywhere on the table will have zero effect on the matches that actually need to be speeded up.

Hu



enzo said:
people keep asking "why speed the game up??" well, even though i kinda agree with you, i'll tell you why......

a guy in your town wants to run a "ball in hand" one pocket tournament once a month, race to 3, 500 added, but doesn't want a 2 day tournament. with the attitude of most of you guys, it would just be like, ok, forget that guy, he wants to change the rules of one pocket. do you realize you've just screwed a bunch of players out a nice tournament and out of putting some money in your local pool halls, and in general just screwed the game of pool on a small scale. this is the attitude that leads us nowhere! we need to be more flexible in order to bring more money and interest into the game.

so, now why is the cue ball in hand a good way to do this? first, you tell me why it is a bad idea and i'll tell you why i think you're wrong, i think that is the best way to go. to clearly state, here is what i propose....

-scratch on the break is still cb behind the line, any other scratch (in the pocket) is cb in hand.

i dont think this rule will favor any particular type of player, what i mean more is i think the best player will still win with this rule.

let me just state one last thing: JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN DOING SOMETHING FOR 100 YEARS DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!! I really can't overemphasize this. Take this for example, a guy is on the hill (needs one ball), he hangs his 8th ball is his pocket..... his opponent invariably scratches following in his winning ball, right? do you know what a football analogy to this would be? with 15 seconds left to play in the game, guy passes, receiver catches the ball and gets to the 1 yard line, 1 yard away from the winning touchdown. opposing team now purposfully commits a penalty, ball is taken away from the 1 yard line and fouling team has to score 2 field goals to other teams 1 field goal. in other words, THEY ARE TOTALLY IN THE GAME. JUST BECASUE WE HAVE BEEN DOING SOMETHING FOR 100 YEARS DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!

We really have to remember this because the way we have always played biases us!!! But the way we have always played doesn't necessarily have to be right, believe me.
Click to expand...
 
Str8PoolPlayer said:
Rafael Martinez told me several months ago that he would play ANYONE
in the world for the $$$$$ at One Pocket .......BUT.......there would be
a 10 second shot clock.

I want to see that match and my $$$$$ are on Rafael.
Click to expand...

I'll see your $$$$$ and raise you a $.

Rafael aint gonna play nobody like that....if he will...he's got action! Hell, he can play a couple of weak players before the tough ones LOL LOL.


All we need to do is post some $$$$$$$$$$$$.

If I get Fatboy in we can post some $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
 
gulfportdoc said:
Playing the CB from the kitchen is not a source of slow play in one-pocket. A pocket scratch in 1P usually results in a bad outcome for the scratcher.

More and more, most tournaments today have a solution for slow play if that situation presents itself. However sometimes there is simply a long game. Just like in baseball, once in awhile it goes extra innings. There is no provision in baseball to speed the game up.

People who like to shoot at a lot of balls with comparatively less defense might enjoy straight pool. And of course if two guys want to play a private match using BIH, they can do so.

Doc
Click to expand...


I agree Doc.......there are ways to speed the game up. Perfect example is your one pocket tourny last year in Gulfport. It was a work of "art" (get the pun). I know when the field gets bigger than 100 players things get a little more complicated. But most local tournaments are around 30 to 50 players..... I think.

I'm kinda new at this myself. But I just think Enzo and some of the other guys don't really understand the game to be advocating for such radical changes as "ball in hand" after any scratch except the break.

I think a good rule for people that want to change something at a local event would be something similar to what Grady suggested: If there are 10 or more balls on the table and all of them are in the kitchen, then at some agreed upon time three of them will be spotted and the person will get ball in hand behind the line. Maybe not exactly that but something similar.

george
 
Ball in hand on a scratch really changes the game a lot more than respotting balls in the headstring. For one, it makes the standard shot of leaving the cueball near your opponents pocket a potentially game losing shot and quite possibly may end up increasing the uptable game more than decreasing it.

It's the long up table matches that stretch the games out and kill any possible fan interest in one pocket. I'm sorry but a race to three shouldn't EVER take longer than an entire football or baseball game. At DCC, some one pocket matches, race to three, were taking OVER five freakin' hours!

Maybe they could use videos of those long matches on the terrorists instead of waterboarding. :D
 
Am I missing something here? If for some reason you need to speed the game up, simply play to 6 points, or play to 5 points, or even 4 points.

The balls going up table is a part of the game's strategy, as is putting the cue ball near your opponent's pocket. The least invasive way IMO is to keep everything the same and shorten the darned thing.
 
Last edited:
Tom In Cincy said:
I have seen Nick play 1pkt many times... but he didn't win the 1pocket tournament.
Of course Nick has won 1pocket tournaments, I just haven't had the pleasure of seeing any or them.
Click to expand...


You need to watch some of his matches from the 2000 World Tournament. At least I think this was the year, Id have to look at my tape. I have the finals and would like to get more of his matches from this tourney.

He had some crazy record that year, like only losing 4 RACKS the whole tournament.

I think this is the same tournament when Parika and Pagulian had a great match that was caught on tape.

See if that bum Ken has any of the matches from that year :grin-square:

Woody
 
I think the tournament director and players should just know enough about 1p to understand that games can take a while, and if they have a problem with that... they should not hold or enter a 1P event.

If you hate funerals because they're depressing, your solution should be to avoid going to them, not bringing a clown..
 
Forgot to give my oppinion on the original thread. I hate the idea. True sometimes changes are good, but a change like that in One Pocket could change the texture of the game. I find it hard to believe anyone who really enjoys One Pocket would like a change that extreme.

If someone wants to put up 500 and run a tournament, they can change any rule they want. And they will have players show up, but to change it that way for standard play would be bad IMO.

They changed the rules of 9ball to make it faster, and from what I remember of it before I think I wish they would have left it alone. I think luck plays an even bigger part in nineball now than it did then.

The spot shot used to be a VERY important shot in nineball, now how often do you see nineball players practice a spot shot? :)

Woody
 
enzo said:
people keep asking "why speed the game up??" well, even though i kinda agree with you, i'll tell you why......

a guy in your town wants to run a "ball in hand" one pocket tournament once a month, race to 3, 500 added, but doesn't want a 2 day tournament. with the attitude of most of you guys, it would just be like, ok, forget that guy, he wants to change the rules of one pocket. do you realize you've just screwed a bunch of players out a nice tournament and out of putting some money in your local pool halls, and in general just screwed the game of pool on a small scale. this is the attitude that leads us nowhere! we need to be more flexible in order to bring more money and interest into the game.

so, now why is the cue ball in hand a good way to do this? first, you tell me why it is a bad idea and i'll tell you why i think you're wrong, i think that is the best way to go. to clearly state, here is what i propose....

-scratch on the break is still cb behind the line, any other scratch (in the pocket) is cb in hand.

i dont think this rule will favor any particular type of player, what i mean more is i think the best player will still win with this rule.

let me just state one last thing: JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN DOING SOMETHING FOR 100 YEARS DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!! I really can't overemphasize this. Take this for example, a guy is on the hill (needs one ball), he hangs his 8th ball is his pocket..... his opponent invariably scratches following in his winning ball, right? do you know what a football analogy to this would be? with 15 seconds left to play in the game, guy passes, receiver catches the ball and gets to the 1 yard line, 1 yard away from the winning touchdown. opposing team now purposfully commits a penalty, ball is taken away from the 1 yard line and fouling team has to score 2 field goals to other teams 1 field goal. in other words, THEY ARE TOTALLY IN THE GAME. JUST BECASUE WE HAVE BEEN DOING SOMETHING FOR 100 YEARS DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!

We really have to remember this because the way we have always played biases us!!! But the way we have always played doesn't necessarily have to be right, believe me.
Click to expand...

I agree. What are the real negative points to just playing it all one foul ball in hand?
 
Please don't "Texas Express" One Pocket

enzo said:
there should be a huge penalty for a scratch! but i guess this is arguable. what happens if you scratch agaist corey playing nine-ball? further, what happens if you scratch playing corey in a game of one-pocket? i guess in a way this would level the playing field b/w great shooters and less than great, that is not necessarily a good thing, BUT REWARDING GOOD CB CONTROL IS MOST DEFINITELY A GOOD THING.

but, if you do need to speed up the game, something i dont want to do mind you, this is WAY better that "spot all balls if 5 or more balls are up table etc"
Click to expand...

enzo:

While I may agree with you that in some instances One Pocket should be "sped up," I humbly disagree with you about the ball-in-hand anywhere on the table idea on a pocket scratch.

Take a look at the bolded sentence in your post above. IMHO, this very comparison is invalid -- one is trying to "9-ball-ize" One Pocket. One Pocket was intended to be a very different game -- one where strategy is the foundation of the game. It's just like chess -- you don't speed up chess by advocating that whenever a player gets his/her queen taken, that the player that took the queen then gets to move one of his/her other pieces to the opponent's back row, thereby transforming it into another queen and checkmating the opponent in the process! Yes, losing your queen in chess is a big mistake -- but you shouldn't lose the game in one fell swoop for it! This would be the result if one got ball-in-hand anywhere on the table when his/her opponent scratched -- that's usually a death sentence for the player that scratched. Instead, scratches can be part of the strategy -- just like when both players have 7 in their hole (one ball is left on the table), and the remaining ball is sitting in the jaws of the opponents pocket -- the player then follows-in that ball and intentionally scratches, bring it (and one of his/her pocketed balls to satisfy the 1-ball penalty) onto the spot. The strategy of the game just changed from "sinking the ball sitting the jaws" to "how do I play the two frozen balls on the spot to maximize the outcome for me?".

As SanJoseDick mentioned, depending on when in the game the pocket-scratch occurred, it usually is severely punished, even from behind the kitchen. The only time this is not the case is when all the remaining balls have been pushed up into the kitchen. But the rules of the game have accommodated that as well -- by spotting those balls as previous posters have mentioned.

Please don't "9-ball-ize" or "Texas Express-ize" One Pocket. Yes, it's true just because things have been done a certain way for a hundred years doesn't make it right. But neither does taking hasty decisions and imparting foundation-cutting shortcuts into the game -- just like what happened to 9-ball, when it was transformed from a push-out / spot-shot game (with greater room for strategy), to these television-friendly Texas Express rules that basically "Romper Room'ed" the great game of 9-ball? (These are just my humble thoughts.)

One Pocket, unfortunately, is not the type of game to "fit" within the constrained boundaries that you mentioned. If you must speed up the game, why not a shorter race (i.e. race to 6 balls in pocket), with "spot all kitchened balls" as previously mentioned?

Anyway, that's just my thoughts, which may be worth far less than the penny I'm picking up from the floor. :frown:

-Sean
 
Last edited:
ShootingArts said:
Enzo,

One of the real issues with your idea is that it will not necessarily speed individual matches up. When two crafty players are playing an uptable game they may go an hour or two without scratching. What good is your ball in hand on a scratch rule then? What you are likely to do is speed up the games that don't need speeding up while the games that get the tournament schedule all out of whack take as long as ever meaning even more waiting around for the people that get their matches over with quick.

I don't know how it works endgame with less than four balls in the kitchen but spotting balls when too many are in the kitchen seems to be a better solution to shortening the game and has worked for years according to reports. Although it was half in fun I do think going to ten balls would work too but this would mean that spot ratios would be further apart which would perhaps cause more trouble.

Another way to speed handicapped tournaments is to lower the numbers of balls needed to win for weaker players. For example, going to 7-6 instead of 9-8 is a slightly different spot but by not getting down to the last balls on the table people are more likely to have something to shoot at and be unable to defend against all possible shots. When shooting even, going to 7-7 or even 6-6 is still playing even while leaving more balls in play.

There are ways to speed up one pocket without changing one of the basic strategies of the game and as I mentioned early in this post, I suspect ball in hand anywhere on the table will have zero effect on the matches that actually need to be speeded up.

Hu
Click to expand...

ill try to go one by one.....

maybe ball in hand wont speed up the game, i think it will, but if you think it wont its hard to argue that. BUT, what are your arguments against ball in hand, tell me and i bet there is some flawed logic there, maybe not but i bet there is.

again, what are the logical arguments against ball in hand, other than it may not speed up the game (if you really watch the average match closely, esp with weaker, non pros, i think you'll notice matches would go WAY faster. i highly disagree with the last statement you made. if a guy needs one, puts game ball in his hole, the other guy follows it in and the games can last 30 minutes (or more) from there.
 
gbru said:
I agree Doc.......there are ways to speed the game up. Perfect example is your one pocket tourny last year in Gulfport. It was a work of "art" (get the pun). I know when the field gets bigger than 100 players things get a little more complicated. But most local tournaments are around 30 to 50 players..... I think.

I'm kinda new at this myself. But I just think Enzo and some of the other guys don't really understand the game to be advocating for such radical changes as "ball in hand" after any scratch except the break.

I think a good rule for people that want to change something at a local event would be something similar to what Grady suggested: If there are 10 or more balls on the table and all of them are in the kitchen, then at some agreed upon time three of them will be spotted and the person will get ball in hand behind the line. Maybe not exactly that but something similar.

george
Click to expand...

i want to keep this nice, but if you're ever in southern CA, i will assuredely attempt to show you how i "dont understand one-pocket" :)

the thing is, you used the word "radical" change, but if it just so happened (by chance) that the initial rule makers made one pocket a ball in hand game, i'd literally bet my mother's life that you (and all of you) would be arguing AGAINST cb in the kitchen rules, I GUARANTEE THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.

remember, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN DOING SOMETHING 100 YEARS DOESN'T MEAN ITS RIGHT.
 
gulfportdoc said:
Playing the CB from the kitchen is not a source of slow play in one-pocket. A pocket scratch in 1P usually results in a bad outcome for the scratcher.

...
Doc
Click to expand...

guys scratch, and MANY times the incoming players runs 1, or runs none. i have NO idea why you dont think kitchen rules are a source of a guy not getting to 8 quicker.
 
"T" said:
Ball in hand on a scratch really changes the game a lot more than respotting balls in the headstring. For one, it makes the standard shot of leaving the cueball near your opponents pocket a potentially game losing shot and quite possibly may end up increasing the uptable game more than decreasing it.

It's the long up table matches that stretch the games out and kill any possible fan interest in one pocket. I'm sorry but a race to three shouldn't EVER take longer than an entire football or baseball game. At DCC, some one pocket matches, race to three, were taking OVER five freakin' hours!

Maybe they could use videos of those long matches on the terrorists instead of waterboarding. :D
Click to expand...

thanks, this is a good point. the only way to see if it would take longer is to try it. as far as it changing the game..... i take it you mean in a bad way, right? tell me why.

so far you've said the standard shot of leaving you opponent in his pocket is a much more precarious shot. true, but this is all just risk vs reward, i mean, do you think the better players would not adapt, practice those over and over until they had ways to preclude scratches maybe.
 
3andstop said:
Am I missing something here? If for some reason you need to speed the game up, simply play to 6 points, or play to 5 points, or even 4 points.

The balls going up table is a part of the game's strategy, as is putting the cue ball near your opponent's pocket. The least invasive way IMO is to keep everything the same and shorten the darned thing.
Click to expand...

i like your suggestion, the biggest problem, if you play to 5, you make one ball and youve got 20 percent of your balls. another way to put it, if you're gonna do it your way, why not say just play a race to 2 (normal) instead of a race to 3 (going to 5).
 
CreeDo said:
I think the tournament director and players should just know enough about 1p to understand that games can take a while, and if they have a problem with that... they should not hold or enter a 1P event.

If you hate funerals because they're depressing, your solution should be to avoid going to them, not bringing a clown..
Click to expand...

this is the worst to me, to say "if he doesn't understand the game then screw the guy." lets just say a td wanted to run a faster 1 pocket tournament 1000 added with ball in hand rules, your closemindedness just cost the local poolrooms all that potentially monthly cash. whay is ball in hand bad, tell me specifically. im challenging you all to some up with actual, logical assertions.
 
sfleinen said:
enzo:

While I may agree with you that in some instances One Pocket should be "sped up," I humbly disagree with you about the ball-in-hand anywhere on the table idea on a pocket scratch.

Take a look at the bolded sentence in your post above. IMHO, this very comparison is invalid -- one is trying to "9-ball-ize" One Pocket. One Pocket was intended to be a very different game -- one where strategy is the foundation of the game. It's just like chess -- you don't speed up chess by advocating that whenever a player gets his/her queen taken, that the player that took the queen then gets to move one of his/her other pieces to the opponent's back row, thereby transforming it into another queen and checkmating the opponent in the process! Yes, losing your queen in chess is a big mistake -- but you shouldn't lose the game in one fell swoop for it! This would be the result if one got ball-in-hand anywhere on the table when his/her opponent scratched -- that's usually a death sentence for the player that scratched. Instead, scratches can be part of the strategy -- just like when both players have 7 in their hole (one ball is left on the table), and the remaining ball is sitting in the jaws of the opponents pocket -- the player then follows-in that ball and intentionally scratches, bring it (and one of his/her pocketed balls to satisfy the 1-ball penalty) onto the spot. The strategy of the game just changed from "sinking the ball sitting the jaws" to "how do I play the two frozen balls on the spot to maximize the outcome for me?".

As SanJoseDick mentioned, depending on when in the game the pocket-scratch occurred, it usually is severely punished, even from behind the kitchen. The only time this is not the case is when all the remaining balls have been pushed up into the kitchen. But the rules of the game have accommodated that as well -- by spotting those balls as previous posters have mentioned.

Please don't "9-ball-ize" or "Texas Express-ize" One Pocket. Yes, it's true just because things have been done a certain way for a hundred years doesn't make it right. But neither does taking hasty decisions and imparting foundation-cutting shortcuts into the game -- just like what happened to 9-ball, when it was transformed from a push-out / spot-shot game (with greater room for strategy), to these television-friendly Texas Express rules that basically "Romper Room'ed" the great game of 9-ball? (These are just my humble thoughts.)

One Pocket, unfortunately, is not the type of game to "fit" within the constrained boundaries that you mentioned. If you must speed up the game, why not a shorter race (i.e. race to 6 balls in pocket), with "spot all kitchened balls" as previously mentioned?

Anyway, that's just my thoughts, which may be worth far less than the penny I'm picking up from the floor. :frown:

-Sean
Click to expand...

let me tell you a question i think you have to answer with this above logic, hopefully i can explain it clear enough to be followed. if a guy scratches on his shot, and the ball he shot comes around and stops just in front of the kitchen, thereby enabling the nonscratcher to shoot it, get down table, and get out where he other wise couldn't, why, just by the chance of that ball stopping an inch in front of the kitchen should the guy then have the ability to win the game? my way, if the ball stopped in or out hed have an equal opportunity to have a shot. why leave things up to such random luck and chance?

i will contend to you, in my mind this is 100% true, if the initial framers made a ball in hand rule, youd all be arguing against the kitchen rule right now. that speaks volumes about your position, what it means is you're simply arguing in terms of the tradition that you feel so close to. but the fact is this rule would not make it any less of a tactical or strategic game, do you really feel you can contend that? in fact, it may help alleviate some of the, as i see them, unfair zero balls runs after a scratch innings..... which is brutally ridiculous if you think about it.

as ive said, id like people, if you're kind enough to give the time, to say what specifically this would change in a bad way. i truly dont feel youve done that, but your thoughts are of course appreciated :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top