Pat Fleming vs Grady Mathews player review

L I F D 1

L S S T 10
Silver Member
It was good to see Grady and it wasn't, think about him once awhile.
I left at the ened of the first rack with good memories.
As far as the parting shot, I thought for sure the 10 ball was the shot, guy took the 6 in the corner.
 

Attachments

  • 2020-10-14.jpg
    2020-10-14.jpg
    49.4 KB · Views: 127
  • 2020-10-14 (2).jpg
    2020-10-14 (2).jpg
    42.9 KB · Views: 128

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
Lots to learn from both players. Of course I'm a Grady fan so...I absolutely agree with him on his philosophy of not breaking up small clusters from underneath unless he has to. I hadn't really heard him say that before, but it's something I learned myself from trial and error through the years. Even posted it up here once, though I received some resistance to this idea. Haven't watched it all yet, but I will. Good upload.

Watched some more, and it appears Pat was a victim of a scratch-funnel. I call the situations where balls are lined up to guide the cueball into a pocket scratch-funnels. It's one of the big things to look out for in straight pool. Pat is no fool, he saw it but thought he could defeat it with a high ball. My experience is that this cannot be done if the balls lined up are touching eachother or almost so. If you have to play into one of these kind of lined up balls, that are touching each other or close to-, I find draw works more reliably to defeat the scratch, but I go to great lenghts not to touch these myself.
 
Last edited:

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Interesting that the 14.1 matches in that event were cue-ball fouls only -- discussed in this match at 1:20:45.
 

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
https://youtu.be/wf8qZgPkiUs?t=5697

Interesting rule discussion at 1:34:57. Grady was unaware of the rule although it didn't apply in that instance because they weren't on two fouls. The safe to the same rail twice applied but not the two foul rule with a ball within the width of a ball from the rail.

Seems like an odd rule but there must be a valid reason. I wonder if Bob Jewett is familiar with that rule.
 

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It was good to see Grady and it wasn't, think about him once awhile.
I left at the ened of the first rack with good memories.
As far as the parting shot, I thought for sure the 10 ball was the shot, guy took the 6 in the corner.

That was a great shot. I don't think the 6 was outside the rack. The shot two balls prior was good too. Cut the ball in the side with low right and spun the cue ball off the long rail up table to get on the ball near the head rail. That was an interesting sequence.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
https://youtu.be/wf8qZgPkiUs?t=5697

Interesting rule discussion at 1:34:57. Grady was unaware of the rule although it didn't apply in that instance because they weren't on two fouls. The safe to the same rail twice applied but not the two foul rule with a ball within the width of a ball from the rail.

Seems like an odd rule but there must be a valid reason. I wonder if Bob Jewett is familiar with that rule.
I have never heard of such a rule. In 2008 the WPA got rid of the "nurse safety" rule at 14.1. It was, by that point, rather complicated and unneeded.

At one point the rule was something like if each player has played twice to the same ball near a cushion, then the ball is considered to be frozen to the cushion. The problem is that maybe some other kind of shots are taken in the safe battle and then you have to decide who is on the first "close to the cushion" shot in the series of two each. It was "fixed" to cover other cases and got complicated to officiate and complicated to understand. I'm glad it's gone.
 
Last edited:

evergruven

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
nice vid..
I found the part where pat talks about his short cue particularly interesting
grady also mentioned how the steel joint on his cue weighed less than usual
while maybe not 14.1 specific, does anybody what tech. he was referring to?
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
Great find here. Thanks for sharing. In Pat and Grady, you've got two master technicians of the straight pool discipline. Few recall that Pat was once a bronze medalist in the 1981 (or 1982, I'm not certain) World 14.1 Championships and Sigel had to rally from behind in the semifinals with 95 and out to deny Pat a spot in the final. I was ringside for that match.
 

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
nice vid..
I found the part where pat talks about his short cue particularly interesting
grady also mentioned how the steel joint on his cue weighed less than usual
while maybe not 14.1 specific, does anybody what tech. he was referring to?

From memory - which isn't perfect - I think he said it was a Black Boar. Whether it was made to his specifications I can't say.

The only thing I know about Black Boar cues is I can't afford one.
 

mikemosconi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks- really enjoyed this! Pat is very modest about his playing ability- he looks to me like he could get up and run 100 fairly often - looks to me like he is a 14.1 force if he put his mind to it.
 
Top