Name any other sport or game...

[blah blah]

Again, it took a non poolplayer to point this out to me.

It's one reason why pool can be a very tough game: sometimes you really just don't get a shot.

I love to see long strings of running racks, but even if it's my opponent who does them, it's not going to affect whether I eat or whether I can afford to make it to the next tournament or not... It's particularly rough on (and a demanding goal for) players who depend on tournaments for subsistence.

So it sounds like croquet, Uno, and Bunco might be contenders for this particular flavor of cold hearted toughness- with croquet being the only one of those that relied on a player's skill rather than on chance.

 

[Black-Balled]

Swordfighting is worse. Not only can one lose w/ out ever 'shooting', you might never 'shoot' again.

OK, I got nothing.

 

[blah blah]

omg I just thought of another ad line:

"Pool- it's not social if you do it right."

 

[pwd72s]

Baseball.... At least from a pitchers stand point... If the pitcher is right he controls pretty much the whole game... You can dominate the entire opposing team for the entire game... Sure they at least get to take a shot at getting the bat on the ball. But if the pitcher is right their shot is slim to none.....

Pool is the only game I have ever found that gave me that feeling... If I am breaking and running out on someone it's exactly how I felt the nights when I stood on the mound and knew no one was getting anything out of the infield.... Granted an injury kept me from experiencing the dominance of the mound past high school level but I found pool shortly after my rotator was shot and it was love at first sight

On the other hand, there have been only 21 "perfect games" pitched in the entire history of Major League baseball...but still, it happens..

 

[Cornerman]

Is pool the only game/sport where you have the possibility of controlling the entire game/ set, and there's nothing the opponent can do?

Disclaimer: I am not arguing sport or game status of pool, not arguing for or against racking strategies, nor am I arguing for or against alternate breaks. (In fact, in the last instance I argued that in pool you could have amazing feats of record- breaking runs, and said friend argued that at least the opponent ought to then be given a chance to match or beat that amazing run.)

Trivial Pursuit - someone ran out the whole game on all of us on his first turn.

Quarters - I had an unfinished run of 102. I suppose if I had been the first up, nobody else would have had a turn other than to drink. The way the game and table played, I may have gone a thousand. I've since met at least one other person who did a hundred. We are both edge shooters.

Freddie <~~~ it's all about edge aiming

 

[blah blah]

On the other hand, there have been only 21 "perfect games" pitched in the entire history of Major League baseball...but still, it happens..

Even then- the batters had even theoretical opportunities to hit the ball, AND there were innings where Mr Perfect Pitcher's team was batting rather than pitching. It's not the same level of absolute total control in baseball, where there is flat out no opportunity to score, like it is when one player is stringing racks in pool.

 

[pwd72s]

Even then- the batters had even theoretical opportunities to hit the ball, AND there were innings where Mr Perfect Pitcher's team was batting rather than pitching. It's not the same level of absolute total control in baseball, where there is flat out no opportunity to score, like it is when one player is stringing racks in pool.

Truth...so, I'll never watch a Red Sox game again. They've been too agonizing lately.

 

[mia]

If what you're describing really was a race to 1, then a number of sports/games could be similar.

Its like baseball. One team take the field and the batting team has the only opportunity to score points. Suppose they score 3 or 4 during their at-bat. At the close of that half of the inning, the game would be over. Now technically that's not a full baseball game. But... you'd be hard-pressed to find a tournament out there that runs a race to one format.

Same for football. Receiving team takes the kickoff, runs the length of the field on the return, and then... game over.

The problem here is that there are a lot of 'turn-based games' (you go, then I go). Most of them last longer than a 2 minute race to one though.

 

[michael4]

On the other hand, there have been only 21 "perfect games" pitched in the entire history of Major League baseball...but still, it happens..

sorry for off topic commment, but took my Mom to a dodgers game years back and the other pitcher threw a perfect game, she was bored to tears.
:boring2:


I tried to tell her it was kinda a big deal.....

 

[duckie]

Well, for one thing, the pool world is made of different games. To apply this concept to all the pool games does not make sense.

I have a feeling this is more related to 9 ball than any other pool game.

So, maybe the real problem is the pool game being played and not the whole world of pool games.

Short races and lack of multiple sets is another problem.

 

[blah blah]

sorry for off topic commment, but took my Mom to a dodgers game years back and the other pitcher threw a perfect game, she was bored to tears.
:boring2:


I tried to tell her it was kinda a big deal.....

Yeah- and there's the old pool joke about a member of the audience complaining, after an incredible, long pool run, "I don't know what every one is clapping about- he never had a hard shot!"

 

[incognito]

You're almost right. What we like to tell customers or management is this: "it's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature."

Although now that I think of it, a computer guy once told me, "It's not a bug- it's a feature!"
: )

 

[Aaron_S]

Even then- the batters had even theoretical opportunities to hit the ball, AND there were innings where Mr Perfect Pitcher's team was batting rather than pitching. It's not the same level of absolute total control in baseball, where there is flat out no opportunity to score, like it is when one player is stringing racks in pool.

Right. Even in a perfect game, a minimum of 24 batters had 1 chance apiece to hit a pitch. Tennis is not comparable at all since the ball spends equal time in each player's court, ie: equal opportunity. Same for golf - everyone gets in their 72 holes regardless of what anyone else does.

To be comparable to pool, one participant in a match would potentially not participate, meaning that they would have zero impact on the final outcome of the match. They would never get out of their chair to approach the playing field/surface, and they would not find a single opportunity to use the equipment of the game. I'm not aware of any other "sport" like that, which may be why pool is still considered just a parlor game by many.

Edit: Or I guess 27 batters in the case of baseball, since the trailing team would always get 9 offensive sides.

Aaron

 

[Icon of Sin]

I saw people mention a couple other things (baseball, swordfighting LOL) however these aren't true. You may have a fantastic pitcher up there, but the opposing team is at least getting a turn to be offensive... well at least 27 turns actually.

Same with sword fighting/fencing. In a 1 point sword fight, both of you have swords, the loser still had a chance to do something, anything...

Pool you don't even get a turn.

 

[Cornerman]

Right. Even in a perfect game, a minimum of 24 batters had 1 chance apiece to hit a pitch.

I keep reading this sentence and don't get it.

Freddie <~~~ first of all, there has to be a minimum of 27 outs for the loser

 

[Aaron_S]

I keep reading this sentence and don't get it.

Freddie <~~~ first of all, there has to be a minimum of 27 outs for the loser

The winning team may only get 8 offensive innings. That being said, my post was inaccurate since the trailing team would get their full 27.

 

[pmata814]

Somebody mentioned "pistol duel"...good job. I think that one works

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk

 

[Cornerman]

Somebody mentioned "pistol duel"...good job. I think that one works

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk

Ummm.... no.

Freddie <~~~ was the original question really that confusing???

 

[incognito]

If you have alternating breaks and a race to more than 1, the problem you refer to is eliminated.

I was telling a non pool playing (but sports enthusiast) friend that I lost because the other person broke and ran out on me. He was astounded that there would be a sport/ game in which excellent play meant that the other player did not have an opportunity to play or to surpass the first player's performance.

He even invented some convoluted football scenario in which one team controlled the ball for an entire game- but admitted that the likelihood would be similar to winning a lottery, AND that even in his scenario, there were opportunities for the other team to take over the ball.

In pool, if one player breaks and runs out, there's absolutely nothing you can do (short of unsportsmanlike conduct).

So, here I'm just asking people who know other sports and games (I don't):

Is pool the only game/sport where you have the possibility of controlling the entire game/ set, and there's nothing the opponent can do?

Disclaimer: I am not arguing sport or game status of pool, not arguing for or against racking strategies, nor am I arguing for or against alternate breaks. (In fact, in the last instance I argued that in pool you could have amazing feats of record- breaking runs, and said friend argued that at least the opponent ought to then be given a chance to match or beat that amazing run.)

 

[jimmyg]

How about being dealt a Blackjack? (plus you get odds on your money)

J