Race to 7?
- Thread starter Grady
- Start date
Grady said:
You are absolutely right about this, Grady. There can be no denying that seven is too short a contest.
Unfortunately, ESPN, whose coverage of pool pro is to be applauded, has imposed a key parameter upon our sport --- we only get an hour of air time for any given match.
But our game presents a problem for TV producers, and that is that the match length is so highly variable. Just going by the World Summit, Earl Strickland's 11 - 4 win over Jose Garcia took 45 minutes, while Danny Basavich needed three and a quarter hours to beat Lee Chenman, 11 - 9.
This kind of varaibility in the length of a match is very different from all the major sports. As a rule:
Nearly all baseball games take 3 hours +/- 30 minutes
Nearly all football games take 3 hours +/- 20 minutes
Nearly all NBA games take 2 1/2 hours +/- 20 minutes
In these sports, the short contests run 10 - 15% shorter than the norm, while the long contests run 10 - 15% longer than the norm.
Based on thousands of pro matches I've seen, nearly all races to eleven take 1.8 hours +/- 1.25 hours.
In pool, therefore, the short contests run 70% shorter than the norm, while the long contests run 70% longer than the norm.
That brings us to the shot clock, which ESPN quite understandably insists upon for TV matches.
I've surely been in attendance at over one hundred televised races to seven with the shot clock in use, and I'll guess that nearly all of them take 1.2 hours +/- .5 hours.
Even in televised races to seven with the shot clock, the short contests run 40% shorter than the norm, while the long contests run 40% longer than the norm. It's a TV producer's nightmare.
So what we get is ESPN's approximation of how much pool can reasonably be fit into a one hour time slot. And, on average, we'll have to miss some of the action, as after commercials, there is only about 50 minutes of airtime in pool's timeslot. Unless a match is 7 - 1, we usually end up missing some of it.
Now, it has, at times been argued on the forum, that a race to thirteen could be played, with the highlights only being shown on the telecast. The problem with that approach is that it would greatly increase the production costs of ESPN in recording a pool match. I'd be OK if ESPN were to move in this direction, but don't really expect it to happen.
We in pool need to find a way to make our product more manageable for TV. Right now, the product we're delivering is one that's tough to handle.
PS On a final note, Grady, those pockets in NYC this weekend were a joke. I've attended pool tournaments for almost thirty years and I never seen pros compete on looser equipment than that.
Last edited:
sjm said:
Hi SJM,
Thanks for verifying the one constant complaint I have with pool. I practice at my home room on 4 & 3/4" pockets that are incorrectly shaped. They reject shots along the rail. Sometimes shot speed is irrelevant. I travel to tournaments across the country. I specifically love Reno and the DCC. The common thread is tight pockets! I love Diamond Pro Tables. I wish all events were held on them. I mentioned to you about the DCC surpassing the BCA "Open". The equipment they use(d) in Vegas was shameful. I would guess 5 & 1/4" pockets. I know they have to do something for the women out of the top ten but this is rediculous!
It's kind of like bowling. I was a high 190 average for over ten years. Never made it to 200+. One of the pro's I bowled with told me what has changed in their game. When the two of us bowled together in the early 80's, he was averaging about 204+. Today, his average is above 220. He's not even high average in his ABC league or team! The average bowler wants to score. They set the lanes up to give the players what they want.
My connection between the two sports is; the promoters want players to make balls. The spectators want players to make balls. No one wants to see players miss except your opponent! Someone posted that, the format of the DCC was too easy. Too many average players (like me) getting too far in the events. Perhaps tight tables give a certain group of players an advantage. Still, in the end, the cream always rises!
sjm said:
SJM,
As always, I agree with your position - with the exception of the production cost issue. I am only an AV amateur, but it looks like ESPN is trying to do these matches so as to minimize the amount of editing (recording intro's, promo's, interviews and such in real time along with the match). The point though, is that they are not showing these matches for a month or two anyway. They could just tape interviews and matches for later editing. I can recommend 2 non-union nerds at the local high school who would do a great job, and do it for free. How much could the editing really cost? I think they (ESPN) are really trying to do this "on the cheap." JMO
Williebetmore said:
Yeah, Willie, I meant the recording and editing costs together. We see this the same way, they are, understandably, trying to do it "on the cheap."
Sad to report that I woke up with a fever today and had to take a day off from work. It's only my second week on this new job, and it's painful to have to take a sick day this early in the going.
Nostroke said:
No, What I'm saying is the shot clock doesn't belong in pool and One Pocket is a perfect example of that.
They cut a lot out of most matches anyway. Even if it is a race to only 7, you only see 5 or 6 games out of a possible 13.
They can cut anything they want to so why the shot clock. Just cut 2 of the walks around the table between shots and put the race to back to the number is use to be.