Pool has a "FATAL FLAW"

Paul Schofield said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe the exact opposite. I think this ability to keep an opponent (no matter how capable) helpless is a unuque and positive aspect of our game. I don't think it's a flaw in the slightest. I think you have to answer why say mike sigels 150 and out straigfht pool accu stat tapes are so popular if you are in fact correct. The truth is, fans, and would be fans, actually want to see this type of thing.

note: has anybody mentioned "equal offense" yet? i don't know exactly how it's played, but the jist is each player get a straight pool break shot and they see who run (or avergare) the most.
 
Last edited:
enzo said:
I believe the exact opposite. I think this ability to keep an opponent (no matter how capable) helpless is a unuque and positive aspect of our game. I don't think it's a flaw in the slightest. I think you have to answer why say mike sigels 150 and out straigfht pool accu stat tapes are so popular if you are in fact correct. The truth is, fans, and would be fans, actually want to see this type of thing.

note: has anybody mentioned "equal offense" yet? i don't know exactly how it's played, but the jist is each player get a straight pool break shot and they see who run (or avergare) the most.
Click to expand...

No disrespect intended but ... Straight-Pool is dead. The real truth is that there are very few fans or would be fans. Please go further and explain to me the popularity of the Sigel 150 and out tape. TV will not touch Straight-Pool and as a matter of fact, less and less pool in any form is being televised.

Equal Offense and other scored games have been discussed at length in this thread.
 
Paul Schofield said:
No disrespect intended but ... Straight-Pool is dead. The real truth is that there are very few fans or would be fans. Please go further and explain to me the popularity of the Sigel 150 and out tape. TV will not touch Straight-Pool and as a matter of fact, less and less pool in any form is being televised.

Equal Offense and other scored games have been discussed at length in this thread.
Click to expand...

I mentioned Rotation in another thread, but there is still only marginal interest in it. I do believe Rotation solves most of the issues plagueing the game. For anyone who is concerned about players running out the set, it won't happen in a race to 8 or better. For those who want multi-rack runs, you may still get a 2 or 3 pack. A game of rotation is not much longer than an 8 ball or even some 10 ball game. The one from accu-stats was only 70 min long, and if it had gone hill hill I suspect it would have been 2 hours in length (roughly the same as many race to 11, 9 ball match's). For the people who want stats, the points create plenty of opportunity to create all kinds of stats. For those who hate that you can win a game by just pocketing one ball in the rack, to win in rotation you have to at least run the last 5 balls of the rack. For those who feel rotation games are needed for tv, well that's the name of the game.

I've been wondering if the advent of internet streaming and increasing quality of the streaming has had something to do with the decrease of televised pool events. We've lost a number of the annual events that managed to get on tv and I'm not sure if the effort is being put forth to replace them. I could be wrong, but it feels that we've become very comfortable with our internet streaming, which is great, but it doesn't do much as far as promoting the game to the masses. Unless we're getting lots of people regularly searching through the ustream, as far as marketing is concerned, internet streams are very much preaching to the choir.
 
We just need a couple good movies that glamorize the sport

We just need a couple good movies that glamorize the sport. Maybe starring Brad Pit and Angelina Jolie playing one pocket . Really its all about the cash, or maybe to many ugly people playing pool. The only cool character in pool that i would pay to watch is earl because he is nuts and entertaining plus he invented the double glove and ass weights, maybe pool players are to boring and we should start wearing sunglasses like the poker players.

The only successful game played on the a table is Poker! now that i think about it they're ugly people that play this game too, and the reason its so successful is really anybody can play it doesn't take a lot of practice and you don't need poker table all you need is a $2 pack of cards you can play on a kitchen table, camping, anywhere so people can relate , most people play poker during a pool tournament anyways.


oh yeah ramble ramble and more ramble.
 
Paul Schofield said:
No disrespect intended but ... Straight-Pool is dead. The real truth is that there are very few fans or would be fans. Please go further and explain to me the popularity of the Sigel 150 and out tape. TV will not touch Straight-Pool and as a matter of fact, less and less pool in any form is being televised.

Equal Offense and other scored games have been discussed at length in this thread.
Click to expand...

Maybe we just see the problem differently. I think players and TD's should promote the games we feel the players want to play (i think they want to play one pocket and nine ball; maybe some straight pool) and show and games which show their differing skills... much in the same way the pga picks courses-- they are all different, and some courses suit some players better than others. i dont think the solution lies in changing pool, or changing the way we play. i think we the players like the games, and the format. i mean.... if we could get major promotion and tv coverage if the players wore elvis suits and sing karioke in between shots, would you want that?

i think most of us want pool's format to stay the way it is for the most part (because we all know it is a thing of beauty), and pools problems must be addressed from other angles.

note: truth is, maybe somebody knows? but i would think those 150 and out tapes are some of the most popular. maybe im wrong? anybody?
 
enzo said:
Maybe we just see the problem differently. I think players and TD's should promote the games we feel the players want to play (i think they want to play one pocket and nine ball; maybe some straight pool) and show and games which show their differing skills... much in the same way the pga picks courses-- they are all different, and some courses suit some players better than others. i dont think the solution lies in changing pool, or changing the way we play. i think we the players like the games, and the format. i mean.... if we could get major promotion and tv coverage if the players wore elvis suits and sing karioke in between shots, would you want that?

i think most of us want pool's format to stay the way it is for the most part (because we all know it is a thing of beauty), and pools problems must be addressed from other angles.

note: truth is, maybe somebody knows? but i would think those 150 and out tapes are some of the most popular. maybe im wrong? anybody?
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I think enjoying 14.1 is a matter of education in a lot of cases. My girlfriend isn't a player but she's learned to appreciate the game and finds it fairly gripping as a run can break down at any time or they can run right out. There is a lot of unpredicitability.
 
Cameron Smith said:
I mentioned Rotation in another thread, but there is still only marginal interest in it. I do believe Rotation solves most of the issues plagueing the game. For anyone who is concerned about players running out the set, it won't happen in a race to 8 or better. For those who want multi-rack runs, you may still get a 2 or 3 pack. A game of rotation is not much longer than an 8 ball or even some 10 ball game.
Click to expand...

Cameron

I view Rotation as the same as Nine-Ball or Ten-Ball, only harder. In my original post I stated : "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." I think that moving to Rotation would be moving right off the charts. The rotation games are too hard for the beginner or even average player to understand or play. For this reason, I give Rotation (the hardest of all rotation games) little chance in the grand scheme of things.
 
I think an important question is whether we should have pro games and amateur games or strive for games that appeal to both levels. 8-Ball is definitely the amateur game of choice, and is a lot easier to follow if you know little about pool. But it's also not that interesting to play above a certain level. 9-ball can be hard to follow if you don't know the colours by heart, and is quite hard for most amateur players who'll often feel (from personal experience) that it doesn't matter much how many balls they sink when they can't run more than 2 or 3 in a row anyway.

While snooker is not exactly friendly to beginners, it does make sense at an amateur level even if you can't sink more than 2-3 balls in a row. Make 2 balls in a row and you've made a break! Instant gratification and a big advantage over your opponent, if he keeps making only one red at a time.
 
JoeW said:
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.
Click to expand...

I like these ideas but a limited stay at the table is paramount. You can add some degree of difficulty, including a strategy risk reward system, while still limiting the stay at the table. Two, three and four rail banks, earning even more points etc.

The multiple rail banks adds some uncertainty of excitement to the game, allowing a player to come back from a deficit or to take a greater lead.

Also, on the last shot of the inning, the player must be forced to play an offensive shot and not a safety. The safety battles may be shrewd strategy in one pocket but more than one person will whine about how safeties contribute to boredom.
 
Solution:

  1. Both players always shoots alternately
  • Two Queballs, still alternately shooting


This is a solution, but it wont make the game better or bigger. Do you wanna know why? Because golf, football, tennis, soccer, basketball or whatever big sport dont need a big pool table in order to play. You can practise tennis against a simple wall. You can practise dribbling a basetball out on the streets. You only need an open field to practise some golfshooting. That is why pool is not as big as the other sports. It just has to many demands in order to play.
 
Norrbacka said:
Solution:

  1. Both players always shoots alternately
  • Two Queballs, still alternately shooting
Click to expand...

As ridiculous as this idea may sound, it is this kind of "outside the box" thinking that is needed. Good one. This solution shows that he understands the challenge at hand.
 
Norrbacka said:
Solution:

  1. Both players always shoots alternately
  • Two Queballs, still alternately shooting


This is a solution, but it wont make the game better or bigger. Do you wanna know why? Because golf, football, tennis, soccer, basketball or whatever big sport dont need a big pool table in order to play. You can practise tennis against a simple wall. You can practise dribbling a basetball out on the streets. You only need an open field to practise some golfshooting. That is why pool is not as big as the other sports. It just has to many demands in order to play.
Click to expand...

How About Something Like this? http://youtu.be/FlCVE0OG-tI
 
Norrbacka said:
Which page did you post that, would be fun to read.
Click to expand...

Sure. It was post #36. I will just copy and paste it here:

I once experimented with what would be on paper the perfect game. I would describe it as 1 and stop straight pool. Play with a full rack of 15 balls and the first player to make 8 wins. You can only make 1 ball and then you give the table up to an opponent. Just imagine the strategy. Here was the problem: Many skills typically used in most games were eliminated. Thinking 2, 3, and 4 balls ahead was renderred moot. Running balls is fun. Being limited to only 1 ball took a lot of the fun out of the game.
 
I can't stress how important interaction is for entertainment value in sports. I want to ask a question. I don't need an answer.

Given a choice, which would you rather watch?

A) Tiger Woods playing solo with no other players on the course, shooting a 62 on a really tough track. Imagine it with tens of thousands of people and multiple cameras and commentators following him all by his lonesome around the golf course.

B) Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson battling head to head in the match play format. Imagine it with tens of thousands of people and multiple cameras and commentators following the pair around the golf course.

Which of these two scenarios would more people watch? I am trying to get some of you to look at our game a little differently.
 
Paul Schofield said:
Given a choice, which would you rather watch?

A) Tiger Woods playing solo with no other players on the course, shooting a 62 on a really tough track. Imagine it with tens of thousands of people and multiple cameras and commentators following him all by his lonesome around the golf course.

B) Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson battling head to head in the match play format. Imagine it with tens of thousands of people and multiple cameras and commentators following the pair around the golf course.

Which of these two scenarios would more people watch? I am trying to get some of you to look at our game a little differently.
Click to expand...

To put it in pool terms: If you were strapped to a chair for 3 hours back in time and were forced to watch either one of the following , which would you choose?

A) Mosconi's 526 ball run playing straight-Pool on an oversize 4X8 in Springfield, OH in 1952

B) Bugs Rucker playing One Pocket against Ronnie Allen at the Rack in Detroit in the early 70's (I don't know that this happened. Let's just say that it did.)

My point is that human interaction is a needed component to get the best entertainment and to have the most fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top