8intheside
Well-known member
I can appreciate onepocket, but I wouldn’t call it entertaining at all.
Justin Bergman vs Tom Cousins
- Thread starter easy-e
- Start date
I think of one pocket more like soccer. Except for the very few goals and a few good scoring chances, the rest (at least 90 percent of the match) is just a bunch of guys running around the pitch.
I understand for people who know the game, there is all kinds of interesting stuff happening in that 90%. But without the knowledge I don’t get it.
To me that’s 1p. When the players are in the balls and running, it’s a beautiful game. The half an hour of bunting balls waiting for an opening is just bunting balls. Again, if you know the game all that chess is fascinating I’m sure. But if you don’t, it’s not interesting to watch, IMO.
most sports have lots of dead periods.
and yes, if you are a complete layman one pocket is boring or too confusing to watch.
that is where 9 ball comes in. and to an extent 8 ball as most have played it in a bar.
and soccer is loke that but the running around is a build up to the big excitement.
9 ball shooting the 9 in is not exciting its just the same as all the previous easy shots. the early shots are or can be exciting as you have decisions to make. by the time you get to the money ball its mostly all over and just popping in a hanger.
my case to make is that 9 ball with be the death of pool on tv. where there is a place for one pocket.
perhaps someone will come up with a game more exciting than both can provide and save pool.
and yes, if you are a complete layman one pocket is boring or too confusing to watch.
that is where 9 ball comes in. and to an extent 8 ball as most have played it in a bar.
and soccer is loke that but the running around is a build up to the big excitement.
9 ball shooting the 9 in is not exciting its just the same as all the previous easy shots. the early shots are or can be exciting as you have decisions to make. by the time you get to the money ball its mostly all over and just popping in a hanger.
my case to make is that 9 ball with be the death of pool on tv. where there is a place for one pocket.
perhaps someone will come up with a game more exciting than both can provide and save pool.
I don't think it's that embarrassing to lose by 5 games in a race to 30 for $100,000.
Most players wouldn't even be able to rack the balls for that amount of money.
Bergman still has ice in his veins. If anything, it makes me feel even more confident in Team USA if he makes the team, I know for a fact he won't be rattled like Ty Ty.
Definitely not embarrassing at all! The embarrassing thing, IMO, was all of the statements about how Justin was stealing in this match. I hope everyone knows now just how good Tom is.
Tom, Joe, and Shane, while people from here might not have heard of them, you better respect their game. All 3 are BB monsters.
InsertCleverNameHere
Well-known member
The Soccer metaphor is quite clever actually. This is coming from a 1pkt player btw
This is the deal with general one pocket:
Don't lose.
They do this whole ritual around how "smart" they play. All they do is rope a dope and hope they score points with the judges.
It's not a chess game either. A player can take any piece and put it where he wants. It's more like guerilla tic tac toe.
And on that note, what do they do with their 100% wild moves?
Nothing. Duck as craftily as possible maybe.
Problem with that (and snooker) is they leave out most of the pool.
They do bet high though. More legit - like it's some kind of international spy game. Wooppee.
I actually like one pocket but I'll always skip around for the good shots and runs.
One last thing. It's a prized gambling endeavor because it's so easy to stall.
Just a general comment about the 1pocket comments: I feel many of you are describing old school 1pocket -- the same 1pocket I learned back in the late 90's.
A lot of defense and what ya'll call bunting.
However, the game has evolved thanks to players like Frost and Chohan and slew of others and if you play that old school style today you are a dead duck. Players are much more aggressive on their offensive shots, banks, and take-outs. And the old; "You only kick if you're mad at your backer’s money" is out the window. Players nowadays are *creating* opportunities through aggressive play and when they get them they are running a ton of balls and matches tend to move along far more quickly than the old days.
It's not your grandma's 1pocket anymore.
Lou Figueroa
A lot of defense and what ya'll call bunting.
However, the game has evolved thanks to players like Frost and Chohan and slew of others and if you play that old school style today you are a dead duck. Players are much more aggressive on their offensive shots, banks, and take-outs. And the old; "You only kick if you're mad at your backer’s money" is out the window. Players nowadays are *creating* opportunities through aggressive play and when they get them they are running a ton of balls and matches tend to move along far more quickly than the old days.
It's not your grandma's 1pocket anymore.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
Sometime between 2015 and 2019 I was at Derby and Joyner and JJ played a one pocket match where one GAME took 3 hours. Held up the entire 1p field because they couldn’t draw a round.
But I do hear you about the newer school. In 2015 Alex played two matches in the later stages of the 1p that were maybe 30 minutes each - including this gem against Efren. If all one pocket was like this it would be a great spectator sport.
in the penultimate edition filler beat lunda in 13 minutes..
lou is totally right. there are some shots that were bog standard replies that you almost never see now. the non-breaker is always aggressive in his first inning now, kicking or banking a ball to the stack. then again the joyner / efren era is what hooked me on one pocket and in many ways it is still my favorite era. joyner had an incredible touch
Any YouTube recommendations for a good Joyner match? He was past his prime by the time I saw him (even before the stroke).
yea after the stroke it's like night and day. check on youtube for joyner v parica derby 2002, joyner v sambajon 2000, and all the galveston matches
It happens and I would never argue that some matches don't take... forever (check out any Varner match at the Seniors in TX, lol).
However, I would argue that on the average matches are significantly shorter nowadays. My personal experience is that, sure, some games take 45 minutes, but a lot (probably most) are over in around 20 minutes. Guys are firing at their hole, particularly because they know that if they don't, their opponent certainly will and they'll spend the entire game just digging balls out from their opponent's side.
It's different now.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited: