Pool has a "FATAL FLAW"

[Paul Schofield]

That's an easy fix. When I gamble at 8 ball (rare) I always change the rule such that if a player fouls on the 8 or pockets the 8 early, it's a foul/cue ball in hand. 8 gets respotted. The only way to win is to pocket the 8 ball.

Very good. This is what I am talking about. We should compare our game to other successful sports. Do like they do. I cannot think of a sport where you lose the game because of a foul. I am inclined to think that the current rule revolves around the issue of getting the 8-ball out of a coin operated table.

I can think of a few areas where we could compare and take a lesson or two.

 

[mullyman]

Uh, golf has pretty broad based appeal, has major sponsorship, hugely successful tours, network TV plus it's own dedicated cable channel, and even the second tier & journeyman pros are millionaires.

In golf your competitor also doesn't play defense against you.

With all due respect, I don't think that's it.

Yeah, gold was my first thought too. Bowling springs to mind also.
MULLY

 

[Paul Schofield]

Yeah, gold was my first thought too. Bowling springs to mind also.
MULLY

This is redundant.

Golf and bowling are both good. A player cannot play without limit while his opponent sits, waits, and hopes to get a chance to participate. Golf and bowling have regular intervals of participation that make sense. All legitimate sports have that. We need the same.

 

[franko]

Uh, golf has pretty broad based appeal, has major sponsorship, hugely successful tours, network TV plus it's own dedicated cable channel, and even the second tier & journeyman pros are millionaires.

In golf your competitor also doesn't play defense against you.

With all due respect, I don't think that's it.

My thoughts exactly. The same is true for bowling. In fact at least in Pool you can play a safe against your opponent that is not even there in Golf and bowling.I believe Kevin Treadeau was on the right track when he wanted to increase the prize funds to create interest in Pool.His mistake was that he jumped Pool from 10k $ to 500k . He could not keep up with those high prize funds. IF he had gone to a total of 200k prize $ with lets say 50k for 1st. place he would still have had all the players clamoring around him and he would have been able to keep his tour going and give it time to create a fan base.

 

[ironman]

It’s not rocket science. All one has to do is pick out the common components of all successful sports and then identify what is missing in pool. Pool has a “FATAL FLAW”. Pool has its own glass ceiling.

Here is the “FATAL FLAW”: A player is entitled to play on offence and score without limit while an opponent sits idly without influence. The combination of these components is not a recipe for success. All sports know that this is unacceptable. No successful legitimate sport has this structure. This current structure of pool mirrors a video game, not a sport. Play Pac Man and make your opponent sit and watch you clear screens. Play pool and make your opponent sit and watch you run balls/racks.

Take note of the following: a 240,000 straight rail billiard run, a run of 622 balkline billiards, a run of 31 three cushion billiards, a run of 4137 points in English Billiards, a 526 ball run in straight pool, an 18 pack in bar-box nine-ball, an 11 pack in nine-ball on a big-table. Where are these games now? Are these examples of successful games with viable futures? All these games are evidence of failed attempts to come to terms with the “FATAL FLAW”. Players get good so let’s make the game harder. Is Ten Ball with tiny pockets the answer to improving interest in the game? I don’t think so.

Baseball, football, basketball, golf, bowling, and other successful sports have written into their rules, regular and predictable opportunities for players/teams to participate. This makes for viable competition and result in popular successful sports. Pool needs to look inward at its structure and look for ways to do the same. The fix would send pool’s evolution in an entirely different direction. Evolution takes a long time and pool is light years away from being ready for prime time. If the “FATAL FLAW” was fixed, I think it is very possible that over time, one new game would emerge that would have the broad based appeal needed so that pool could join all the other successful sports.

It may well be aa Fatal Flaw but only when the game is played at it's best. So may good players whine and cry about alternating break when it is a fix to what you propose.
A run of 526 is not even official. Running 18 racks on the bar box, is very rare, and on and on. i have seen few matches in my life where the losing player didn't blow some chance to get himself back into the match.
i understand your feeling here, but in the big picture great pool is not wins most of the time, but poor play or simple missing.
As sad as it may seem, that is what pool to me is all about, making and missing!

 

[mullyman]

This is redundant.

Golf and bowling are both good. A player cannot play without limit while his opponent sits, waits, and hopes to get a chance to participate. Golf and bowling have regular intervals of participation that make sense. All legitimate sports have that. We need the same.

So what about alternate breaks? That seems to even the playing field right there? Even it up even more, alternate breaks with cue ball in hand after the break?
MULLY

 

[Paul Schofield]

So what about alternate breaks? That seems to even the playing field right there? Even it up even more, alternate breaks with cue ball in hand after the break?
MULLY

Alternate breaks is good but it does not go far enough. Pool's tradition is when a player pockets a ball, he gets to shoot again. The reward is that he gets another chance to shoot and score. This is ingrained in every player's head. Awful tough to change player's instincts and tradition. Pocketing the winning ball and then turning the table over to an opponent so that he can have his turn to shoot and participate, is a hard sell. A method would have to be employed that would disincentivise the break. In other words, breaking the balls would have to become a disadvantage whereby players prefer their opponent break.

On ball in hand after the break: Break-and-Run-Out is pool's pinnacle and definition of perfection. It is what a pool player lives to do. Ball in hand after the break negates the special skills needed to execute a good break(control the cue ball, control the 1-ball, and get a good spread). I cannot express enough, just how important Break-and-Run-Out is to our sport. We should be very careful what we do to it.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

So Paul, have you held a Bowlliard tournament yet?

 

[pocketspeed]

then you didnt think too hard. what about the golfer last season (cant remember his name) who lost the tourney cuz he grounded his club in a bunker that he didnt ever recognize as a bunker? or the tennis player who loses the match on a double fault-both fouls right?

so this thread did intrigue me, but not enough to read all 18 pages. did paul ever say in there exactly what he would do to fix the alleged "fatal flaw"?

i really cant see that this "fatal flaw" is pools problem. i'm not a great player, but i am a great spectator and havent seen too many matches where each player didnt have his chances.

brian

Very good. This is what I am talking about. We should compare our game to other successful sports. Do like they do. I cannot think of a sport where you lose the game because of a foul. I am inclined to think that the current rule revolves around the issue of getting the 8-ball out of a coin operated table.

I can think of a few areas where we could compare and take a lesson or two.

 

[Paul Schofield]

then you didnt think too hard. what about the golfer last season (cant remember his name) who lost the tourney cuz he grounded his club in a bunker that he didnt ever recognize as a bunker? or the tennis player who loses the match on a double fault-both fouls right?

so this thread did intrigue me, but not enough to read all 18 pages. did paul ever say in there exactly what he would do to fix the alleged "fatal flaw"?

i really cant see that this "fatal flaw" is pools problem. i'm not a great player, but i am a great spectator and havent seen too many matches where each player didnt have his chances.

brian

Grounding a club in a bunker is a one stroke penalty in golf. Double faulting a serve in tennis means an opponent wins the point. I think you are speaking of how these infractions cost the players in their overall performance. Sometimes, one mistake can cost a player a tournament.

You like it so you watch. I don't think there are enough of you. As a matter of fact, spectators in pool are almost extinct. I have not offered a solution. I do want to know what people think. Thanks for the comments.

 

[pocketspeed]

Grounding a club in a bunker is a one stroke penalty in golf. Double faulting a serve in tennis means an opponent wins the point. I think you are speaking of how these infractions cost the players in their overall performance. Sometimes, one mistake can cost a player a tournament.

You like it so you watch. I don't think there are enough of you. As a matter of fact, spectators in pool are almost extinct. I have not offered a solution. I do want to know what people think. Thanks for the comments.

so what is your solution besides pointing out what you think is the fatal flaw? i'm sorry but if you can only bring the problem to the table you've brought nothing.

brian

 

[Paul Schofield]

Very good. This is what I am talking about. We should compare our game to other successful sports. Do like they do. I cannot think of a sport where you lose the game because of a foul. I am inclined to think that the current rule revolves around the issue of getting the 8-ball out of a coin operated table.

I can think of a few areas where we could compare and take a lesson or two.

More along this line of thinking: No sport that I can think of makes a player a winner before the designated end of the game. Short racks in Nine and Ten-Ball make pool look more like a casino game than a legitimate sport. Get rid of the short racks. If the 9 or 10-ball falls early, leave it down and continue to shoot. It should not be a win. A win should go to whoever legally pockets the last ball on the table. I only say this because all legitimate sports do not have a short cut to victory.

Play the games out.

And yes: dump the three foul rule.

 

[Paul Schofield]

More along this line of thinking: No sport that I can think of makes a player a winner before the designated end of the game. Short racks in Nine and Ten-Ball make pool look more like a casino game than a legitimate sport. Get rid of the short racks. If the 9 or 10-ball falls early, leave it down and continue to shoot. It should not be a win. A win should go to whoever legally pockets the last ball on the table. I only say this because all legitimate sports do not have a short cut to victory.

Play the games out.

And yes: dump the three foul rule.

...or spot the 8, 9, or 10-ball. Just play the games out. No short games. 14.1, Banks, One-Pocket, Billiards, and Snooker don't have a quick way to win and neither does Bowling, Golf, Tennis, Football, Baseball, or Basketball.

 

[mullyman]

Alternate breaks is good but it does not go far enough. Pool's tradition is when a player pockets a ball, he gets to shoot again. The reward is that he gets another chance to shoot and score. This is ingrained in every player's head. Awful tough to change player's instincts and tradition. Pocketing the winning ball and then turning the table over to an opponent so that he can have his turn to shoot and participate, is a hard sell. A method would have to be employed that would disincentivise the break. In other words, breaking the balls would have to become a disadvantage whereby players prefer their opponent break.

On ball in hand after the break: Break-and-Run-Out is pool's pinnacle and definition of perfection. It is what a pool player lives to do. Ball in hand after the break negates the special skills needed to execute a good break(control the cue ball, control the 1-ball, and get a good spread). I cannot express enough, just how important Break-and-Run-Out is to our sport. We should be very careful what we do to it.

How about having to bank the odd number balls? I'm just tossing stuff out there, man. Personally, I think 9-ball, or even 10 ball for that matter, as a tournament game is a waste of time, unless time is what you are worried about. In my mind tournaments should be straight pool. Remove 99.9% of the luck and bring it down to pure skill. If a player walks up and runs 150 and out then he deserves to have that win under his belt.
MULLY

 

[Paul Schofield]

solitaire

It’s time for another analogy.

Last night I watched Poker on television for an hour. I studied it carefully. There was no physical skill involved. The competition was a show. It was a show of growing suspense, human character, intense pressure, and human interaction. The participants and the audience were all drawn into the spectacle. It was the back-and-forth human interaction with everything at stake that was so fascinating. Pool could take some lessons here. Poker is highly interactive. If straight-pool was a card game, it would be solitaire. Put solitaire on TV and see how that sells. The other popular pool games are not far behind.

 

[Catwalk]

I'd like to compare 8-ball and 9-ball with snooker. Snooker is essentially the same in most core aspects (except for a bunch of really silly and confusing rules), but you start out with a defensive break and you're rewarded much more directly for an "incomplete" run. A snooker match sees much more interaction between players, something I think has a large say in its appeal to spectators. Runouts (getting enough points to win a frame in a single break) are still there, but they don't happen very often. And when they do happen, there's usually been a lot of maneuvering leading up to that point.

In comparison, a single game of 8-ball or 9-ball at the highest level is just not that interesting to watch. If a ball falls in the break and there's sufficiently good position, you're watching a game of solitaire. I guess what I'm saying is that a pool game is too short and too easy to win without letting your opponent get to the table to really be worth watching. Alternate breaks do not address this issue at all. I do think making each individual game harder helps address the issue, but that runs the risk of making the game a lot less appealing for lower level players to play and hence create more of a gap between top, medium and low level play.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I'd like to compare 8-ball and 9-ball with snooker. Snooker is essentially the same in most core aspects (except for a bunch of really silly and confusing rules), but you start out with a defensive break and you're rewarded much more directly for an "incomplete" run. A snooker match sees much more interaction between players, something I think has a large say in its appeal to spectators. Runouts (getting enough points to win a frame in a single break) are still there, but they don't happen very often. And when they do happen, there's usually been a lot of maneuvering leading up to that point.

In comparison, a single game of 8-ball or 9-ball at the highest level is just not that interesting to watch. If a ball falls in the break and there's sufficiently good position, you're watching a game of solitaire. I guess what I'm saying is that a pool game is too short and too easy to win without letting your opponent get to the table to really be worth watching. Alternate breaks do not address this issue at all. I do think making each individual game harder helps address the issue, but that runs the risk of making the game a lot less appealing for lower level players to play and hence create more of a gap between top, medium and low level play.

Great post. I find this quote particularly interesting: "A snooker match sees much more interaction between players, something I think has a large say in its appeal to spectators."

I also agree with this quote: "Alternate breaks do not address this issue at all." . I think it is only a good start. More would have to be done.

 

[Catwalk]

I actually think alternate breaks make matters worse. All it does is let players alternate playing Solitaire, making it more difficult to catch up if you're behind IMO. It also doesn't address the lack of interaction. And as someone else posted, I feel it takes a little bit of the spirit of pool away. When I'm playing, one of my big motivations for running out is having the other guy rack for my next break

 

[JoeW]

The problem, as I see it, is to improve the amount of competition within the game. The idea is to make it more like football where anyone can play (sand lot game etc) and still admire the pros for their level of skill. Here is an idea that attempts to address the issue raised. It has some flaws and needs revising but it may address Paul’s identified problem.

A player earns one point for each ball pocketed up to three points (there are only 15 balls in a rack). If the third point is converted to a bank or a kick the player earns two points. After the third (or fourth point) the player yields the table to his opponent. The player’s problem is to play for a two pointer or play defense or play for a two pointer with defense.

A match might be some specified number of racks.

In a sand lot (amateur) game the players make any ball on the table for the point but have to call the last shot.

Professional games are played in rotation format.

An addition that might be of interest is a two point shot that allows the player to remain at the table (a transition from the way pool is played today). If the player makes a two rail bank (or kick) on their third shot they earn two points and the right to continue shooting. The game becomes complicarted with the player having to think through their ability, their strategy and their willingness to take a chance. This type of play encourages skill, courage, strategy and pits two players against each other. In this form of play the term "heart" takes on real meaning.

 

[Paul Schofield]

alternate breaks make matters worse. All it does is let players alternate playing Solitaire

Good one. I have to agree.