In every single straight pool tournament, you will hear this about the guy who wins.

[Bob Jewett]

Bob, I had to think about your reply.

I'm not sure Crane had a 60% shot but for the sake of arguement, let's say he did. On the shot he had, the wildcard in going for it was the chances of getting a shot afterward. Since the cueball was comng from the back of the stack with no good control of where it would hit, there was no guarantee a clear shot was available. In that case, firing a 60% shot seems like a gamble. True, he could've missed it and also left his opponent with nothing - another gamble. At the top levels, I don't see these guys taking on a gamble too often. This is what you likely mean when you say they play too conservative. I'm thinking there's a good reason for that.

Anyhow, I figure if Crane's peers thought he clearly took the wrong shot, I have to think he lucked out by firing at it and coming out good.

There's almost never any guarantee on any shot. A perfect break shot might triple kiss as the cue ball snakes its way into a pocket.

If young Crane played the hard shot against a champion, then he was probably less than 50% to get the first open shot if he had gone into a safety battle. If he felt good about running the balls if the break worked, then maybe the tough break is the right shot even with a less than 50% chance for that single shot. If he makes the break but does not get a shot, then he can start a series of safeties.

I think what a lot of players fail to ask themselves is, if I start a safety battle now, what chance do I have to win it? Some players think they're 100% to get the first shot, but not everyone can be 100%. Another possibility is that Crane had watched the other player before and was frequently surprised by how often he made a great safety that turned the game around. Crane might have put himself at 20% to get the first shot. If that's true, he has to shoot at 30% shots if the alternative is a mediocre safe.

 

[duckie]

It's been my observation that setting a a break shot that opens up a rack is harder than it looks.

If the pattern played didn't get a good setup for a break shot, than that pattern wasn't the right one.

After pocketing consistency in high runs, getting consistent quality break shots is the next.

But this is just my observation about my game.....

 

[JB Cases]

"This guy plays 14.1 all wrong but he just shoots so straight he gets away with it."

I've heard that said about Thorsten Hohmann, John Schmidt, Efren, Mike Dechaine,
probably a half dozen others. The funny thing is, often the guys saying it can actually
play so you can't just write it off.

If these guys play it wrong, who plays it right?
Anyone who isn't a senior citizen?

Maybe patterns are overrated. Discuss.

14.1 has evolved. Look at any of the 14.1 videos of yesteryear and you can see that they play pretty much the same as today EXCEPT that they miss difficult shots more when presented with them. Players today make those shots and know how to move their cue ball around the table with power. They can take worse position and they can handle tougher shots because they are better players.

I mean Darren Appleton, 200 and out in a major? Archer 199 in his first 14.1 tournament final against Nick Varner? If that's doing it wrong then no one does it right.

14.1 is played by pocketing balls and leaving one ball out to continue the run. Therefore there is not a right way and a wrong way to do this. The right way is as Mosconi said, "don't miss".

Of course, as in all games there are patterns that make it easier to get around. Such patterns reveal themselves the better a player gets. The more you play the more you see which patterns repeat. But sometimes you can't make it happen or you overrun your position and this is where the superior firepower of today's players comes into play.

 

[measureman]

There's almost never any guarantee on any shot. A perfect break shot might triple kiss as the cue ball snakes its way into a pocket.

If young Crane played the hard shot against a champion, then he was probably less than 50% to get the first open shot if he had gone into a safety battle. If he felt good about running the balls if the break worked, then maybe the tough break is the right shot even with a less than 50% chance for that single shot. If he makes the break but does not get a shot, then he can start a series of safeties.

I think what a lot of players fail to ask themselves is, if I start a safety battle now, what chance do I have to win it? Some players think they're 100% to get the first shot, but not everyone can be 100%. Another possibility is that Crane had watched the other player before and was frequently surprised by how often he made a great safety that turned the game around. Crane might have put himself at 20% to get the first shot. If that's true, he has to shoot at 30% shots if the alternative is a mediocre safe.

Great point. It's good to know your opponents strong and weak points and use this to your advantage.
I play a guy that banks better than Wells Fargo so when playing 9 ball if I can't hide the cue ball when playing a safe I always leave him a long tough shot rather then any bank shot.

 

[macguy]

14.1 has evolved. Look at any of the 14.1 videos of yesteryear and you can see that they play pretty much the same as today EXCEPT that they miss difficult shots more when presented with them. Players today make those shots and know how to move their cue ball around the table with power. They can take worse position and they can handle tougher shots because they are better players.

I mean Darren Appleton, 200 and out in a major? Archer 199 in his first 14.1 tournament final against Nick Varner? If that's doing it wrong then no one does it right.

14.1 is played by pocketing balls and leaving one ball out to continue the run. Therefore there is not a right way and a wrong way to do this. The right way is as Mosconi said, "don't miss".

Of course, as in all games there are patterns that make it easier to get around. Such patterns reveal themselves the better a player gets. The more you play the more you see which patterns repeat. But sometimes you can't make it happen or you overrun your position and this is where the superior firepower of today's players comes into play.

I don't think the players today are any better then players of old, they just play with a different philosophy. Players of old who played almost exclusively 14.1 had to play more carefully. Unlike 9 ball when a miss here and there cost you a game or two in a set. I miss in 14.1 can cost you the whole match at any point. They just did not take risks. Having said that there are players who were known as amazing shot makers when they had to. I knew a guy who played with Ponzy regularly in the pool room. He told me they would play pill games and Ponzy could make almost anything. He was the best shot maker he had ever seen.

That is hearsay, but I can tell you from my own observation that Crane was also an unbelievable shot maker. When he played 9 ball he made everything he shot at. I saw him once practicing at Weenie Beanie's before a 9 ball tournament and he would roll balls down the table and make them from where ever they stopped with such ease it was amazing. If he had decided to play in many of the 9 ball tournaments back then he would have been regarded as a great 9 ball player with his amazing ability to get out. Playing 14.1 though he dialed it back. He just did not take chances. I don't know if he was calculating probabilities but I know he would pass on a shot for a safety many times.

I don't understand the idea of being afraid of a safety battle. If I have no shot I have to play safe. Of course if the safety is going to be as hard as say taking a shot I would have to consider if I may want to play the shot instead because taking a shot has rewards if you make it, heck I could win the whole game right game there. Where as playing even the best safety brings my opponent back to the table and anything can happen from there no matter what.

That is the nature of pool. You can lose games doing the right thing and win games doing something seemingly stupid that just goes your way.

 

[Ratta]

"This guy plays 14.1 all wrong but he just shoots so straight he gets away with it."

I've heard that said about Thorsten Hohmann, John Schmidt, Efren, Mike Dechaine,
probably a half dozen others. The funny thing is, often the guys saying it can actually
play so you can't just write it off.

If these guys play it wrong, who plays it right?
Anyone who isn't a senior citizen?

Maybe patterns are overrated. Discuss.

If someone would say that about Hohmann.....he should better quit with pool-billiards. Hohmann is for sure one of the most knowledged 14.1 players alive

 

[8ballEinstein]

More about "the Deacon"

There's almost never any guarantee on any shot. A perfect break shot might triple kiss as the cue ball snakes its way into a pocket.

If young Crane played the hard shot against a champion, then he was probably less than 50% to get the first open shot if he had gone into a safety battle. If he felt good about running the balls if the break worked, then maybe the tough break is the right shot even with a less than 50% chance for that single shot. If he makes the break but does not get a shot, then he can start a series of safeties.

I think what a lot of players fail to ask themselves is, if I start a safety battle now, what chance do I have to win it? Some players think they're 100% to get the first shot, but not everyone can be 100%. Another possibility is that Crane had watched the other player before and was frequently surprised by how often he made a great safety that turned the game around. Crane might have put himself at 20% to get the first shot. If that's true, he has to shoot at 30% shots if the alternative is a mediocre safe.

Bob, I totally get your point. In fact I see many players, myself included, using your startegy to size up the odds. This happens all the time when I'm up against a player who's clearly better than I am. The reason for taking those calculated risks is because, I'm giving myself a chance to win.

In Irving's case, I don't remember who he was playing and whether or not he was the favorite. But if Crane was the underdog, I could see him taking a flyer to improve his chances of winning. But, on hearing the story, I got the impression young Crane just didn't know any better.

In later life, Crane was considered one of the toughest safety players in the game. The last thing most of his opponents wanted was to get into a safety battle with him. Crane's chances of comng out good on these battles must've been much better than 50%. In his youth, when the story took place, I can't say how strong his safety play was. Lots of possibilities, endless anaysis.

Thanks Bob, I always appreciate your contributions here.

 

[(((Satori)))]

you know guys , I was just re-reading this thread and it made me recall a day at the pool room when I was cleaning the tables. Andy, the best 14.1 player in the room was practicing and bored. He asked me why I didn't play more 14.1, and I said I can't get the hang of "patterns" or how to shoot the balls off. So, He racked em and set up a breaker, and handed me the cue.....he said this...you shoot, I'll tell you what and how to hit the shots.......ok lets go....

I ran 72 balls before missing a combo. On that day.... I realized it is NOT my pocketing ability that makes high runs....it was how to get around the balls.

From then on I practiced knowing high runs were out there waiting for my to unlock them.....not.....I'll never know how to do this!!!


G.

One other factor that I am sure helped you that day is that you had a clear plan and picture of what you were going to do before every shot. Once you were ready to shoot you were clear on one shot and how to execute.