Masters Tournament In Progress
- Thread starter JAM
- Start date
Templar
Registered
JAM said:THANKS so much for the update, Templar. You must be the only AzB-er in attendance. I was curious as to who was in and who was out.
What does Robert Ray look like? I think I know who it is, but I can't be quite sure. It looks like the North Carolinian is having a good tournament.
Players racking their own balls. I now know why there was some squawking resulting in TD Scott Smith and Promoter Barry Behrman having to take action to calm the troops.
I remember talking to Charlie "Hillbilly" Bryant at the SBE this year in the smoking lounge between games in his match at the pro event. He knew the rack he was being provided by an unnamed opponent was intentionally done to prevent him from pocketing balls. There was verbal exchange each game, with Charlie stating he only wanted to get a "fair" rack.
Whether loser racks or winner racks, this will continue to be a controversy. I know the pros and cons of each, and I'm not sure what will get rid of this ugly monster which crops up at every single tournament. It is a 9-ball problem. Neutral rackers is the only way to overcome it. You would never see professional bowlers wanting to re-rack their pins because they don't like the mechanical rack.
JAM
Robert Ray looks like he is in his late 20's to early 30's. Slender, short light brown hair and maybe about 5' 11" tall. Nice looking guy and very pleasant. When he bends down over the shot, he just looks like he was designed and built to play pool. And God is he calm. In the midst of a hill-hill match, he gets up there and puts the balls down like it's just another day at work. He looked familiar to me and that's because I later learned that he has played in the US Open. That's probably where I have seen him before.
As far as the Corey issue is concerned...I was sitting right there and I watched his match against Josh Brothers. The players are racking their own balls in this tournament and this is the only reason that allows what Corey is doing to work. He takes quite a while to get the rack just right, and I mean perfect, then he slowly strokes and gently sends the cue ball into the one ball. The results are almost exactly the same every time. The one in the side, the wing ball in the corner and usually decent position on the two. Then, simply run out from there. Naturally, it doesn't work that way all the time but when it does work, it sure makes the game look simple.
The rack becomes even more important when you are losing. The "stink" is actually coming from the guy that is putting the rack on the breaker. Funny how when the same guy racks his own, he knows how to freeze them and not tilt the rack or use some other underhanded tactic to cause the breaker to not make a ball, huh? Now maybe Bustamante has said to Mika to rack your own...but he would most definitely not allow that if he were gambling for his money. Ever wonder why?yobagua said:
I applaud Hilbilly and anyone else for having the fortitude and tenacity to not let other players "shit" on him by cheating him on the rack.
dogginda9 said:Are you telling me that I can break them as hard as I can, and IF by some chance I don't get 3 balls past the side pocket, it is a foul? Is that what I'm being told? If so.........WOW
According to an article in BD about Charlie "Hillbilly" Bryant, he was told not to break the balls too hard. He evidently broke a cue ball so they told him to tone it down a little. I guess you have to break somewhere in between soft and hard.
Snapshot9 said:
That is the format that was Played at the Glass City Open in Toledo, OH. The other rule they put in effect on us was had to break from a break box. But you are right Snapshot if you did not pocket a ball, 3 balls had to at least go by the side pockets. Scott Smith was the tourny director and we played pro express rules. c-man
Ted Harris said:
Ted, I agree with you 100 percent. It is the truth.
One TD told me that, in a breaker-racks-their-own format, if a player doesn't recognize an opponent giving him/her a rigged rack, then it is his/her fault for not making the opponent re-rack it. When I see a player taking an excessive amount of time racking the balls, it gives me pause.
Sure, sometimes players are only trying to get the "perfect" rack, maybe because of a ding in the table. This does happen, faulty equipment making it impossible for the balls to lay perfectly in the rack, forcing you to rack a little ahead of the spot. However, it is well known in the pool community WHO the BEST rack-riggers are. Some players actually boast about their rack-rigging skills on the offs, and the players know who they are. Neutral rackers is the only remedy, though economically not feasible in most venues.
About Hillbilly, I have spoken to him on the subject, and his philosophy is that he ALWAYS tries to give an opponent a fair rack. Charlie Bryant has integrity. I believe him to be honest, but when an opponent tries to screw him on the rack, he sees red because he knows the difference between a "good" rack and a "rigged" rack.
BTW, I read that Francisco Bustamante won the 2005 Masters, $5,000 for first place. These were GREAT payouts for all of a 45-player field, and WOW, what a nice payday for Bustie's first stop in the States!
I think it is worth mentioning that the Masters tournament was advertised as a $10,000-added event BASED ON 128 players. However, it looks like to me that Barry Behrman still added the full $10,000 even though there were only 45 players in attendance and not 128. The payouts for the Masters total $18,600.
Thank you, Barry Behrman, for providing a golden opportunity for pool players to shine. We'll be seeing you at the U.S. Open. Get some rest because you're going to need it!
Picture of U.S. Open and Masters promoter Barry Behrman and his beloved Buddy!
JAM
Attachments
Last edited:
D
Danny Harriman
Guest
Re: Soft break
The rule in which 3 balls must pass the side pocket is a real problem for the game of nine ball. I was competing in a tournament where this rule was in effect and we were using the dreaded Sardo rack, I broke and sank a ball (wing ball) and the one ball caromed off the rack and hit the point of the side pocket closest to the head end of the table and returned back towards the rack end.
Only one ball resided passed the side so my opponent said it was a foul, but I asked about the one ball that hit the point of the side pocket and the argument was on. The referee called this a legal break as a result of where the one ball had ended up. This is a weak rule that shows more and more how the game should change to 10 ball and in my opinion the players should break from a designated spot that is placed at the head spot in the center of the table. This would dramatically change any effort to soft break and eliminate a very stupid rule of the three balls not passing the side pocket, I can assure you that it would be much more difficult to make the one in the side also.
It is not my place to belittle the Sardo as the inventor of this rack did not anticapate the players breaking soft and taking advantage of a new racking device. But there is a way to stop the confusion, maybe we should implement a radar gun that shows the speed in which the players are breaking. If they do not break fast enough then the incoming player get's ball in hand, one way or another this is a problem that must be addressed.
Love, 'little Danny'
The rule in which 3 balls must pass the side pocket is a real problem for the game of nine ball. I was competing in a tournament where this rule was in effect and we were using the dreaded Sardo rack, I broke and sank a ball (wing ball) and the one ball caromed off the rack and hit the point of the side pocket closest to the head end of the table and returned back towards the rack end.
Only one ball resided passed the side so my opponent said it was a foul, but I asked about the one ball that hit the point of the side pocket and the argument was on. The referee called this a legal break as a result of where the one ball had ended up. This is a weak rule that shows more and more how the game should change to 10 ball and in my opinion the players should break from a designated spot that is placed at the head spot in the center of the table. This would dramatically change any effort to soft break and eliminate a very stupid rule of the three balls not passing the side pocket, I can assure you that it would be much more difficult to make the one in the side also.
It is not my place to belittle the Sardo as the inventor of this rack did not anticapate the players breaking soft and taking advantage of a new racking device. But there is a way to stop the confusion, maybe we should implement a radar gun that shows the speed in which the players are breaking. If they do not break fast enough then the incoming player get's ball in hand, one way or another this is a problem that must be addressed.
Love, 'little Danny'
Danny Harriman said:
Why is it when you hit a good soft break in one-pocket it is applauded and thought of a break of skill and when you hit a good soft break in 9-ball is looked down upon? Maybe we should take the skill out of the break in one-pocket and turn in into a break of luck and chance by making everyone break them hard and get 3 or more balls past the side pocket.
If someone actually told Charlie to not break as hard as he can, that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in pool.
Sounds like Harriman has a good idea about ten ball. I've heard Corey and others have figured out how to soft break the Sardo for ten ball too so the designated break spot might also be necessary.
Corey is one crafty SOB. He has changed the way people think about breaking in nine ball and he had some success with his crazy one pocket break (beat S. Daulton. Think he gave up the hard break eventually, though).
If Danny made a ball on the break, why would he have to argue about the one ball coming back if the rules say making any ball makes it a legal break?
Sounds like Harriman has a good idea about ten ball. I've heard Corey and others have figured out how to soft break the Sardo for ten ball too so the designated break spot might also be necessary.
Corey is one crafty SOB. He has changed the way people think about breaking in nine ball and he had some success with his crazy one pocket break (beat S. Daulton. Think he gave up the hard break eventually, though).
If Danny made a ball on the break, why would he have to argue about the one ball coming back if the rules say making any ball makes it a legal break?
D
Danny Harriman
Guest
Re: 3 Balls past the side
Just because you make a ball on the break does not make the break legal, if you pocket two balls on the break you would still have to get one object ball past the side. All of these rules show the world that 9 ball is a little goofy. I respect the players and there are some champions out there but I notice at the DCC most of the top 9 ball players shy away from competing in the all-around events, bank pool and one pocket are truly a better test of a players skill level than the game of 9 ball. I understand that to some of the fans it's seems a little harder to watch, but I hope that through the years the fans begin to get more educated on what pool really is. It's not my place to demean the top players who will only play 9 ball but it is a shame that they do not try their hand at these other games.
Sincerely, 'little Danny'
Just because you make a ball on the break does not make the break legal, if you pocket two balls on the break you would still have to get one object ball past the side. All of these rules show the world that 9 ball is a little goofy. I respect the players and there are some champions out there but I notice at the DCC most of the top 9 ball players shy away from competing in the all-around events, bank pool and one pocket are truly a better test of a players skill level than the game of 9 ball. I understand that to some of the fans it's seems a little harder to watch, but I hope that through the years the fans begin to get more educated on what pool really is. It's not my place to demean the top players who will only play 9 ball but it is a shame that they do not try their hand at these other games.
Sincerely, 'little Danny'
D
Danny Harriman
Guest
Hello Amir
It sounds like you are a beginner so I will cut you some slack, in One Pocket if a player tries to make the corner ball their is no guarantee of making a ball on the break. Further more he or she takes a bigger risk of selling out, in 9 ball the break is nothing more than a trick shot where if the balls are racked properly the corner ball is a constant. The break in one pocket is similar to the opening break in 14-1, HELLO in these games we find that their is no dead ball without a huge risk involved.
In closing I would dare to make this comparison - we have two chefs the one who prefers nine ball and the other who prefers One Pocket, the chef who plays One Pocket creates his own recipes, and then you have the Chef who prefers nine ball and throws a TV dinner in the oven.
Sincerely, 'little Danny'
It sounds like you are a beginner so I will cut you some slack, in One Pocket if a player tries to make the corner ball their is no guarantee of making a ball on the break. Further more he or she takes a bigger risk of selling out, in 9 ball the break is nothing more than a trick shot where if the balls are racked properly the corner ball is a constant. The break in one pocket is similar to the opening break in 14-1, HELLO in these games we find that their is no dead ball without a huge risk involved.
In closing I would dare to make this comparison - we have two chefs the one who prefers nine ball and the other who prefers One Pocket, the chef who plays One Pocket creates his own recipes, and then you have the Chef who prefers nine ball and throws a TV dinner in the oven.
Sincerely, 'little Danny'
Danny Harriman said:
The worst problem in pro 9-ball before the perfect rack was invented was racking the balls. Crappy racks cause the 9 to fly towards the corner pocket constantly, resulting in 9's on the break and early combo's. Players spent half their matches trying to rack the balls (boring and tiring), and nobody ever got a good rack. At the first 9-ball tournament of the Billiard Channel Tour, where they used a racking template and APA volunteers racked the balls by hand, Buddy Hall was asked to explain that the corner ball was always dead when breaking straight into the rack from just off the side rail if the balls were perfectly frozen. He acted like he had no idea, and he might be the best 9-ball player ever. That's how many bad racks there were before.
Now it's ridiculous to argue over who should rack. You can get a perfect rack every time, in 2 or 3 seconds, even with an APA 3 racking the balls. Just quit playing 9-ball. Play 10 ball, 11-ball, 12-ball or whatever. Eleven ball I think is best cause there are fewer dead balls. If you can make the one in the side with a soft break you probably won't runout anyway. You have to slam them to run out, even with a perfect rack. But moving to at least 10-ball for pros is a necessity, imho. Leave 9-ball for amatures, and let players break however they want.
unknownpro