In search of the Perfect Game

[Wags]

I like to see players make balls. When I started playing all I wanted was to make balls. Somewhere over the years that has been lost in the professional game. Don’t get me wrong, I like a good safety interchange as well as the next, but, bottom line, MAKE THE BALL STUPID.

9-ball on a 9-footer is a great game, or at least it was until all these “improvements” to take the luck out of it. Yet, Corey D. figures out how to make a ball on the break and get shape and the rules of the break need to get changed. Pros don’t want the lesser players to have a chance, so, at the detriment of the game (making balls) the pockets get smaller. They don’t want to get beat by a lucky shot and the races get longer.

People are applauding the Earl/Shane table. What? I don’t get it? How many break and runs were there? Were there any? What is there to applaud? Big deal that it was a 10 foot table with questionable pockets, I don’t understand.

Where does this stop? I guess you might as well build a 10’ X 20’ table with 3” pockets because that will tell you for sure who the best is. (dripping with sarcasm)

Since 1982 snooker has only had 77 maximum breaks (a perfect game for those who don’t know) in an organized event. Snooker players have reached the pinnacle of perfection. I don’t hear them saying how they want conditions to be tougher. I have NEVER heard of any player break and run out a race to 9 in a pro 9-ball event. Has that ever happened? So what is with all the wanting to change things when perfection hasn’t even been reached?

I can understand changing rules, equipment specs, etc. if perfection is reached by many players every tournament. Why make it harder when today’s players can’t even break and run out a set in a tournament? This just doesn’t make sense to me.

I miss doing a “jam” shot down the rail and know that it will go. I miss that when just over ¾ of a ball is inside the point that it should go. I miss when players went after a shot because they didn’t want to give up their turn at the table.

I love pool. I’ve played for 50 years. I’ve been teaching for 30 years. I used to enjoy watching the better players go at it. Now, today’s game, is just a yawner for me.

 

[Masayoshi]

I like to see players make balls. When I started playing all I wanted was to make balls. Somewhere over the years that has been lost in the professional game. Don’t get me wrong, I like a good safety interchange as well as the next, but, bottom line, MAKE THE BALL STUPID.

9-ball on a 9-footer is a great game, or at least it was until all these “improvements” to take the luck out of it. Yet, Corey D. figures out how to make a ball on the break and get shape and the rules of the break need to get changed. Pros don’t want the lesser players to have a chance, so, at the detriment of the game (making balls) the pockets get smaller. They don’t want to get beat by a lucky shot and the races get longer.

People are applauding the Earl/Shane table. What? I don’t get it? How many break and runs were there? Were there any? What is there to applaud? Big deal that it was a 10 foot table with questionable pockets, I don’t understand.

Where does this stop? I guess you might as well build a 10’ X 20’ table with 3” pockets because that will tell you for sure who the best is. (dripping with sarcasm)

Since 1982 snooker has only had 77 maximum breaks (a perfect game for those who don’t know) in an organized event. Snooker players have reached the pinnacle of perfection. I don’t hear them saying how they want conditions to be tougher. I have NEVER heard of any player break and run out a race to 9 in a pro 9-ball event. Has that ever happened? So what is with all the wanting to change things when perfection hasn’t even been reached?

I can understand changing rules, equipment specs, etc. if perfection is reached by many players every tournament. Why make it harder when today’s players can’t even break and run out a set in a tournament? This just doesn’t make sense to me.

I miss doing a “jam” shot down the rail and know that it will go. I miss that when just over ¾ of a ball is inside the point that it should go. I miss when players went after a shot because they didn’t want to give up their turn at the table.

I love pool. I’ve played for 50 years. I’ve been teaching for 30 years. I used to enjoy watching the better players go at it. Now, today’s game, is just a yawner for me.

Earl broke and ran a set out for 1 million dollars in some big tournament a long time ago, but on average, safety play in rotation games is far to high percentage to even consider going for the run out in certain situations. Perfection isn't necessarily a runout of the set, it can also be just never making an error, which has happened in many pro level sets.

In snooker, a maximum break doesn't necessarily have to be a perfect game. In order to make a maximum break, they have to win the safety battle at the start of the frame. They can miss 10 balls before they start their run if the opponent doesn't do anything about it.

Also, snooker is played in sets just like in 9 ball, so you are comparing 1 frame of snooker to a whole set in 9 ball, which I believe is unfair.

Plus, who wants perfection anyway? Watching guys make it look extremely easy is extremely boring. If you want perfection, play tic-tac-toe.

Making the tables more difficult is just an evolution of a game which was too easy in the first place.

 

[JesseAllred]

Watching a guy run 7 or 8 racks isn't as exciting as you make it sound, it's monotonous and looks simple and boring to the average player. I think the majority of people would agree that watching Shane and Earl playing and knowing they could miss at any moment made the tension and excitement higher than any match we've watched in the last few years.

 

[softshot]

well just look at a snooker cue... it's obvious.. most are just short bent pieces of wood with a bit of fuzz glued to a brass grommet..


if the shaft was low deflection and the tip was layered elephant foreskin .. chalked with sand from king tuts tomb... snooker players would shoot as accurate as 9ball players.......


(dripping with sarcasm)

 

[Wags]

Earl broke and ran a set out for 1 million dollars in some big tournament a long time ago, but on average, safety play in rotation games is far to high percentage to even consider going for the run out in certain situations. Perfection isn't necessarily a runout of the set, it can also be just never making an error, which has happened in many pro level sets.

Did Earl do it in a tournament or gambling? I certainly remember that but thought he was gambling and had witnesses. I remember he had some trouble getting the cash. I agree about the safety play, but that is what I was saying. The table set up is so tough that it is a huge part of the game. I thought Accu-Stats only recorded 1 errorless match.? I think Strickland and Archer are the only ones to break and run a set.

Also, snooker is played in sets just like in 9 ball, so you are comparing 1 frame of snooker to a whole set in 9 ball, which I believe is unfair.

Yes I am and I thinks its fair because they have to run 36 balls for a maximum. I watched a streamed 14.1 match with Mr. 400 where there were no runs that high. If Duell can make a ball on the break and get shape everytime, so can others.

Plus, who wants perfection anyway? Watching guys make it look extremely easy is extremely boring. If you want perfection, play tic-tac-toe.

Have you seen somebody put a 4, 5, 6 pack together? That is not boring!

Making the tables more difficult is just an evolution of a game which was too easy in the first place.

If it was/is so easy, then why haven't we had 77 break and run out sets? That is my point.

 

[Wags]

Watching a guy run 7 or 8 racks isn't as exciting as you make it sound, it's monotonous and looks simple and boring to the average player. I think the majority of people would agree that watching Shane and Earl playing and knowing they could miss at any moment made the tension and excitement higher than any match we've watched in the last few years.

How many times have you seen or done that? My high is 9 and it took making 4 9-balls on the break and a few lucky rolls. I think the majority of the players in the United States haven't a clue to 9-ball, the best players, or how difficult those conditions are. But they do know bar box 8-ball, have seen a 9 foot table and maybe a 10 footer and can't relate to the Shane/Earl match what-so-ever.

The majority you are thinking of must be the pool elitists. I know you are a good player but I respectfully believe that it is that type of thinking that is hurting pool. Instead of appealing to the masses and giving them something to relate to, the game is being taken farther from a possible relationship. Unless the masses can relate to the game there is no chance of it ever becoming mainstream.

 

[Wags]

well just look at a snooker cue... it's obvious.. most are just short bent pieces of wood with a bit of fuzz glued to a brass grommet..


if the shaft was low deflection and the tip was layered elephant foreskin .. chalked with sand from king tuts tomb... snooker players would shoot as accurate as 9ball players.......


(dripping with sarcasm)

HaHaHaHaHa Thankyou. You brought a big smile and a bit of a belly laugh to my being.

 

[Masayoshi]

Did Earl do it in a tournament or gambling? I certainly remember that but thought he was gambling and had witnesses. I remember he had some trouble getting the cash. I agree about the safety play, but that is what I was saying. The table set up is so tough that it is a huge part of the game. I thought Accu-Stats only recorded 1 errorless match.? I think Strickland and Archer are the only ones to break and run a set.

Strickland did it in a tournament, Archer did it gambling. Hell I've done it in a race to 5 tournament and had it done to me 3 times and I suck. It happens quite a lot in shorter race tournaments (well relative to the famous examples like Strickland and Archer). The reason there isn't a lot of video coverage on it is because there is very little video coverage in pool in general. As far as accustats 1.000s go, I believe there were at least 3 (on video, remember, very few matches percentage wise are actually recorded on video, and even less by accustats). One was Parica, another was Wade Crane, and I think the other might be Efren, but I'm not sure.

Yes I am and I thinks its fair because they have to run 36 balls for a maximum. I watched a streamed 14.1 match with Mr. 400 where there were no runs that high. If Duell can make a ball on the break and get shape everytime, so can others.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. The fact that there are matches where nobody runs more than 20 sometimes in 14.1 doesn't relate at all to a comparison between the difficulty between a set of 9 ball and a frame of snooker.

By that reasoning, I can point out professional snooker frames where neither player ran over 5 balls. I doubt you can find a professional pool match in any game (besides 3 ball and possible one pocket) where players never run more than 5 balls at any point in the match. Does that mean snooker player suck? No! Its just a faulty comparison.

Have you seen somebody put a 4, 5, 6 pack together? That is not boring!

Yes, I've done it myself. It can be boring, and it can be exciting. It depends on the lay out of the table. If Corey Deuel is using his soft break and it is working well, it is boring as ****. Its like watching a guy solve the same sudoku puzzle many times in a row. That is the perfection you are seeking. There is a reason it was effectively banned. The packages that are fun to watch are the ones that are obviously not perfect.

If it was/is so easy, then why haven't we had 77 break and run out sets? That is my point.

You didn't read my post. Safety play in 9 ball is far too easy and rewarding to risk missing trying to be a hero running out a set. Coincidentally, when there was 1 million on the line, Earl Strickland did it in the first tournament ever to have the million dollar prize. If you gave players incentive to break and run out sets, you would have plenty given a few years.

 

[Wags]

You didn't read my post. Safety play in 9 ball is far too easy and rewarding to risk missing trying to be a hero running out a set. Coincidentally, when there was 1 million on the line, Earl Strickland did it in the first tournament ever to have the million dollar prize. If you gave players incentive to break and run out sets, you would have plenty given a few years.

I did read your post and I do know what you are saying. I just think it is completely the wrong direction and attitude to make the game grow.

And that is my point (in bold). The changes in the equipment and game have made it far too easy to play the safe and duck rather than take the shot. This kind of pool is not enticing to a possible audience. Everyone remembers when Earl was taking the riskier shots (and making them) that most players ducked.

I think pro pool is shooting itself in the foot by further removing it from what the mainstream norm is. As I said to JesseAllred: The majority you are thinking of must be the pool elitists. I know you are a good player but I respectfully believe that it is that type of thinking that is hurting pool. Instead of appealing to the masses and giving them something to relate to, the game is being taken farther from a possible relationship. Unless the masses can relate to the game there is no chance of it ever becoming mainstream.

 

[Salty]

well just look at a snooker cue... it's obvious.. most are just short bent pieces of wood with a bit of fuzz glued to a brass grommet..


if the shaft was low deflection and the tip was layered elephant foreskin .. chalked with sand from king tuts tomb... snooker players would shoot as accurate as 9ball players.......


(dripping with sarcasm)

They do have low deflection cues now (Acueratecues.com). But I don't think they know of the elephant foreskin tips

 

[JAW725]

How many times have you seen or done that? My high is 9 and it took making 4 9-balls on the break and a few lucky rolls. I think the majority of the players in the United States haven't a clue to 9-ball, the best players, or how difficult those conditions are. But they do know bar box 8-ball, have seen a 9 foot table and maybe a 10 footer and can't relate to the Shane/Earl match what-so-ever.

The majority you are thinking of must be the pool elitists. I know you are a good player but I respectfully believe that it is that type of thinking that is hurting pool. Instead of appealing to the masses and giving them something to relate to, the game is being taken farther from a possible relationship. Unless the masses can relate to the game there is no chance of it ever becoming mainstream.

Good post, especially for the second paragraph.

 

[Masayoshi]

I did read your post and I do know what you are saying. I just think it is completely the wrong direction and attitude to make the game grow.

And that is my point (in bold). The changes in the equipment and game have made it far too easy to play the safe and duck rather than take the shot. This kind of pool is not enticing to a possible audience. Everyone remembers when Earl was taking the riskier shots (and making them) that most players ducked.

I think pro pool is shooting itself in the foot by further removing it from what the mainstream norm is. As I said to JesseAllred: The majority you are thinking of must be the pool elitists. I know you are a good player but I respectfully believe that it is that type of thinking that is hurting pool. Instead of appealing to the masses and giving them something to relate to, the game is being taken farther from a possible relationship. Unless the masses can relate to the game there is no chance of it ever becoming mainstream.

I never said it was enticing to the audience, just that that is the reason you don't see more people running out sets. Perfect play is also not enticing to an audience. If somebody who doesn't play pool often sees somebody playing perfect, he thinks "that isn't so hard, he didn't make one tough shot."

 

[houmatroy]

Earl broke and ran a set out for 1 million dollars in some big tournament a long time ago, but on average, safety play in rotation games is far to high percentage to even consider going for the run out in certain situations. Perfection isn't necessarily a runout of the set, it can also be just never making an error, which has happened in many pro level sets.

Earl actually had a few combo's and i think a few on the snap to make up his string of 11...Since he changed the rules with Shane that no combo's or on the breaks constituted a win just makes you wonder if he would have got mad if it was in the fine print of the tournement that he did do that in & wouldn't have got paid for his effort.

 

[brandoncook26]

I did read your post and I do know what you are saying. I just think it is completely the wrong direction and attitude to make the game grow.

And that is my point (in bold). The changes in the equipment and game have made it far too easy to play the safe and duck rather than take the shot. This kind of pool is not enticing to a possible audience. Everyone remembers when Earl was taking the riskier shots (and making them) that most players ducked.

I think pro pool is shooting itself in the foot by further removing it from what the mainstream norm is. As I said to JesseAllred: The majority you are thinking of must be the pool elitists. I know you are a good player but I respectfully believe that it is that type of thinking that is hurting pool. Instead of appealing to the masses and giving them something to relate to, the game is being taken farther from a possible relationship. Unless the masses can relate to the game there is no chance of it ever becoming mainstream.

If I'm a professional player, I travel to a tournament and have to spend money on a hotel, food, etc, now my nut for the week is say $500. The tournament pays, let's say, $2500, $1500, $1000, $500 for first through fourth. Now I have to place at least fourth just to break even and get third to make some money.

In that situation when I have the choice between taking a tough shot to continue a run (say 40% to make) or shooting a dead nuts safe that will all but guarantee ball in hand (95%) and a win in that game, I'm obviously taking the safe. Those are the percentages people are talking about.

It's easy to say "pool won't grow unless we do this...", but those are statements made in a vacuum. In the real world, a guys gotta eat. And if I'm shooting a shot to not go hungry, I dare someone to tell me to make it more exciting.

I understand your point about equipment but I don't think it would change anything. I would still play the percentages to win. Sure, there may be more shots, but professionals aren't going to shoot the spectacular shots unless they have to. For the record, many of those type shots are done often, I have the videos to prove it. The videos I have of big break and runs are kind of boring. When someone makes a great kick to get out of a safety is pretty exciting to me.

 

[ShootingRazbone]

Break and runs are fantastic.... but watching the likes of Earl, Efren, Shane and Alex kick safe and play the caliber of safe they play is absolutely astonishing. the cueball control they have in playing safe is mind boggling. I can't play safe like those guys or kick balls like those guys. So why wouldn't that be interesting to me? Hell, I can't do anything on a pool table as good as those guys so in essence whatever they do is interesting to me.

 

[Wags]

If I'm a professional player, I travel to a tournament and have to spend money on a hotel, food, etc, now my nut for the week is say $500. The tournament pays, let's say, $2500, $1500, $1000, $500 for first through fourth. Now I have to place at least fourth just to break even and get third to make some money.

In that situation when I have the choice between taking a tough shot to continue a run (say 40% to make) or shooting a dead nuts safe that will all but guarantee ball in hand (95%) and a win in that game, I'm obviously taking the safe. Those are the percentages people are talking about.

It's easy to say "pool won't grow unless we do this...", but those are statements made in a vacuum. In the real world, a guys gotta eat. And if I'm shooting a shot to not go hungry, I dare someone to tell me to make it more exciting.

I understand your point about equipment but I don't think it would change anything. I would still play the percentages to win. Sure, there may be more shots, but professionals aren't going to shoot the spectacular shots unless they have to. For the record, many of those type shots are done often, I have the videos to prove it. The videos I have of big break and runs are kind of boring. When someone makes a great kick to get out of a safety is pretty exciting to me.

Thank you for your response. I know what you are saying. Too many years back if I was faced with a 40% shot versus an 80% safety versus a possible 60% two-way, I'm still probably playing the safe. That's just smart pool. As I get older, I find I'm playing safe more. Yes, eating is a good thing.

This isn't about me. I understand the difficulty in the Shane/Earl match and appreciate it. I understand why "players" want more difficult conditions. I too love to see that great kick/safe. I also thought that pool would get somewhere in my lifetime. From my perspective it is going the wrong way.

I deal with league players constantly. They want to learn but there is most always difficulty in that when getting to safety play. They don't care about pool on TV, the streams, who the best players are, AZ Billiards, etc. The feedback I get is almost consistent. The can't relate to 9-ball or the table. They can only relate to 8-ball on the bar box.

With 17 million players in the US, the majority, by far, playing 8-ball on bar box, and over 500,000 definitely playing in organized leagues, why not give them a show that they can relate to.

I know that you can't do anything as a player. You have to go with what is. The change in thinking has to go to the promoters and sponsors to have a game that will create an audience and entice more entries.

By tapping into a game and equipment that can be understood by the lesser players there would be more money in the tournaments, just from increased entries. There is a reason that the SBE amatuer event is huge. There is a reason that May in Las Vegas is huge.

Even tho' I don't care for 8-ball on the bar box, that's where the money is. We only wish that the money given away at the BCAPL and the APA nationals could be diverted to the pros. I just don't understand the bandwagon of trying to carve a niche for the pro game when a built in base is there and ready to follow.

I think that if some promoter/sponsor put an open tournament like that together, 8-ball on bar box, added $20,000, races to 7, with a $200 entry, that most pros would play, along with alot of the good amateurs. Just think, 500 entries and you've got a $120,000 purse. Pay top 64. You may not like it, you may get beat by luck but at least there is a chance of making some great money.

I would even venture a guess that the odds are better for a pro to cash in that event than in a US open. It's just giving the lesser players something they can understand to and more important, an event they can participate in or at the very least, become a fan.

Good luck to you. Hit 'em good and I wish you well.

 

[Banks]

Defensive play is the pool equivilent of running out the clock in football. It is kinda boring to watch, but very effective in achieving the goal. As long as the rules are what they are, this will be the case. And we can't be having offensive bar games, where you must go for everything, because that can be taken advantage of too easily. Maybe people should start practicing their counter-play more?

 

[catpool9]

Searching for the Perfect Game

I like to see players make balls. When I started playing all I wanted was to make balls. Somewhere over the years that has been lost in the professional game. Don’t get me wrong, I like a good safety interchange as well as the next, but, bottom line, MAKE THE BALL STUPID.

9-ball on a 9-footer is a great game, or at least it was until all these “improvements” to take the luck out of it. Yet, Corey D. figures out how to make a ball on the break and get shape and the rules of the break need to get changed. Pros don’t want the lesser players to have a chance, so, at the detriment of the game (making balls) the pockets get smaller. They don’t want to get beat by a lucky shot and the races get longer.

People are applauding the Earl/Shane table. What? I don’t get it? How many break and runs were there? Were there any? What is there to applaud? Big deal that it was a 10 foot table with questionable pockets, I don’t understand.

Where does this stop? I guess you might as well build a 10’ X 20’ table with 3” pockets because that will tell you for sure who the best is. (dripping with sarcasm)

Since 1982 snooker has only had 77 maximum breaks (a perfect game for those who don’t know) in an organized event. Snooker players have reached the pinnacle of perfection. I don’t hear them saying how they want conditions to be tougher. I have NEVER heard of any player break and run out a race to 9 in a pro 9-ball event. Has that ever happened? So what is with all the wanting to change things when perfection hasn’t even been reached?

I can understand changing rules, equipment specs, etc. if perfection is reached by many players every tournament. Why make it harder when today’s players can’t even break and run out a set in a tournament? This just doesn’t make sense to me.

I miss doing a “jam” shot down the rail and know that it will go. I miss that when just over ¾ of a ball is inside the point that it should go. I miss when players went after a shot because they didn’t want to give up their turn at the table.

I love pool. I’ve played for 50 years. I’ve been teaching for 30 years. I used to enjoy watching the better players go at it. Now, today’s game, is just a yawner for me.

I have been searching for the perfect game all my life, I think I have seen it many times,

I watched Country Calvin playing Bobby Gene Leggs some 9-Ball,
Bobby ran 9 racks , broke dry and Calvin ran 11 back.

Watched Ted Copeland playing 9-Ball run 9 racks, Gary Seay ran 10 back.

Watched Billy Weir run 18 racks 9-ball playing Gary Seay 10 ahead, Gary was on 8 , broke dry and never shot again playing 10 ahead.

Watched Jimmy Sanders playing Country Calvin 9-Ball, Jimmy was on 13 going to race to 15 games, Jimmy just ran the last 10 racks, he broke dry , Calvin was on 2 games, Jimmy never shot again, Calvin ran 13 .

Mexican" Fat Ralph" Cortez , I've seen him run 10 racks against Country Calvin on three occasions.

James Walden playing Country Calvin 9-Ball, Calvin ran first 3 then James runs 10 back.


I've seen Eugene Browning run several many times in tournaments, and Steve Gumphrey run a 10 pack, & Brian Atchley run several 8's.
All these were straight rack runs, no combo's or on the break 9's.

I've watched Ermund Bullard run more short racks than anyone I've ever seen, 5 , 6, & 8 racks were the norm for him with the Big Cue Ball in the 80's , No One was Looking for him to play ! I gaurantee you!

I guess Buddy Hall has run many , I just never got to watch him alot, even tho him and Ermund Bullard are my idols!, and of course my brother Calvin!

These guy's and a few others were the 9-Ball specialist of the 80's and 90's!


David Harcrow

 

[crappoolguy]

I haven't read through the entire thread but I just thought that I would say this. Snooker players in general were agreeing that the pockets were getting too generous about a couple of years ago (watch some of the 2009 WC, some of the biggest pockets professional snooker has ever seen) and now the tables aren't rileys, they are star and are significantly tighter.

 

[Wags]

I have been searching for the perfect game all my life, I think I have seen it many times,

I watched Country Calvin playing Bobby Gene Leggs some 9-Ball,
Bobby ran 9 racks , broke dry and Calvin ran 11 back.

Watched Ted Copeland playing 9-Ball run 9 racks, Gary Seay ran 10 back.

Watched Billy Weir run 18 racks 9-ball playing Gary Seay 10 ahead, Gary was on 8 , broke dry and never shot again playing 10 ahead.

Watched Jimmy Sanders playing Country Calvin 9-Ball, Jimmy was on 13 going to race to 15 games, Jimmy just ran the last 10 racks, he broke dry , Calvin was on 2 games, Jimmy never shot again, Calvin ran 13 .

Mexican" Fat Ralph" Cortez , I've seen him run 10 racks against Country Calvin on three occasions.

James Walden playing Country Calvin 9-Ball, Calvin ran first 3 then James runs 10 back.


I've seen Eugene Browning run several many times in tournaments, and Steve Gumphrey run a 10 pack, & Brian Atchley run several 8's.
All these were straight rack runs, no combo's or on the break 9's.

I've watched Ermund Bullard run more short racks than anyone I've ever seen, 5 , 6, & 8 racks were the norm for him with the Big Cue Ball in the 80's , No One was Looking for him to play ! I gaurantee you!

I guess Buddy Hall has run many , I just never got to watch him alot, even tho him and Ermund Bullard are my idols!, and of course my brother Calvin!

These guy's and a few others were the 9-Ball specialist of the 80's and 90's!


David Harcrow

I'm jealous I didn't get to watch. How strong is that?!!!!!