i think people pay to see the players. i think u should keep the pockets the size they are now.they reward the better player take some of the luck out an the better players wins.i
Should the TAR table stay as is or go to standard pockets? You choose.
- Thread starter JCIN
- Start date
Guys,
Just noticed not one disparaging remark has been made about the intelligence of another poster. Not one word questioning someones integrity. Lets get real! This thread can not deviate from AZ's high standard of discussion
.
Lyn
Just noticed not one disparaging remark has been made about the intelligence of another poster. Not one word questioning someones integrity. Lets get real! This thread can not deviate from AZ's high standard of discussion
.Lyn
Guys,
Just noticed not one disparaging remark has been made about the intelligence of another poster. Not one word questioning someones integrity. Lets get real! This thread can not deviate from AZ's high standard of discussion
Lyn
Just the kind of thing a drunk baby would say... I bet your mom and dad weren't even related before they got married!
Baseball is actually the classic example of conditions not matching up as the park dimensions and in some cases, rules, vary between one park and another. There's a long tradition of arguing over something like homeruns and how they were impacted by the park they were hit in. One quick example that comes to mind is Ken Griffey Jr and those right field homeruns he hit so often in Seattle.
Baseball makes more of Sean's points than it refutes. Baseball survives on a lot of tradition, and the intricacies of each park is a big part of that tradition. If we were to standardize playing fields, you'd never have something like the green monster, and yet, that's something that immediately comes to mind when discussing any game at Fenway. More so, it has an impact on the game. There's a place for statistics and diversity, and baseball shows that.
Are the conditions at the Masters the same as other courses? No, that's some of what makes golf interesting. The Masters has a charm because to some degree you can compare players over time that have played that course. You can see how different players fared on holes that have better stood the test of time than other courses. It's a benchmark course in American golf.
Part of why there are good arguments for both sides of this poll is that the arguments feed into each other. One can debate the value of distance to right field for a hitter like Ken Griffey Jr, but that same argument can contain the idea that baseball in Seattle may not have become something relevant had it not been for those home runs he hit. One can debate whether they like an easier or harder golf course, but at the same time cite the value in a particular course being iconic and unique amongst other golf courses.
Get that passport and I'll treat you to P&BJ sandwich!!
Justin, despite decent arguments for either option, you should consider the symbolic nature of TAR matches. It is not a tournament, it's a one-off special event, and a tighter table adds to its status and luster.
You make the change to 4.5", and you are detracting from the perception that winning a long format TAR match is a truly special thing. It's an accomplishment either way, but the pool audience want the conditions to separate the men from the boys. Like Earl's fixation on 10' tables (and he has a point).
In any case, 4.25" would be my vote if that were an option, with the proper angles etc. Short of that, I voted to keep it the way it is.
-roger
You make the change to 4.5", and you are detracting from the perception that winning a long format TAR match is a truly special thing. It's an accomplishment either way, but the pool audience want the conditions to separate the men from the boys. Like Earl's fixation on 10' tables (and he has a point).
In any case, 4.25" would be my vote if that were an option, with the proper angles etc. Short of that, I voted to keep it the way it is.
-roger
As an aside, have you ever stopped to observe that both golf and pool are 4 letter words???????
Unfortunately yes :grin-square:!
Lyn
It's crazy for me to think that a diamond pro is considered "too easy" of a table. I mean really, how many of you saying this can beat the 10 ball ghost on an "easy" diamond with "bucket" pockets?
The B&R percentages are for "Pros" which we very loosely define. But then figure in that only 15-20 of the TOP pro's really play on TAR. I'm guessing SVB or JA's B&R is at a higher rate than say, Jesse Engle.
Shane put a huge package on Alex on this table, so it can be done. This table makes a player adjust, as it should. I like these pockets and I like to see the top dogs both struggle and succeed. I think you will see alot more success on 4.5" pockets for sure, but what's the point if they don't struggle some too.
Agreed. Like I mentioned in my previous post, part of the aura of watching (or winning, in a player's case) a TAR match is that TAR table -- known as "the TAR table." It has become a "control reference" of sorts, where people are known to say, "I'd like to see that same match played on the TAR table," or "that shot played on the TAR table."
The TAR table is a key component and factor of TAR match ups. Removing it, or attempting to "standardize" it will just commoditize the match itself. Then, supporting TAR aside, it's no different than a long race on any other 9-foot table. That would be a shame.
As it was said before, part of what makes a pro a pro is adaptation -- adapting to the conditions and conquering them.
-Sean
...make the balls bigger.
I watched the entire event and first want to thank Justin again for making this possible.
It really stinks that there is not a universal standard for all pool tables.
Mosconi's run is said to have occurred on a table with big pockets. Why not strive for a standard so that all future games, runs or records don't have to be clarified as to what the exact specifications of the table was.
It really stinks that there is not a universal standard for all pool tables.
Mosconi's run is said to have occurred on a table with big pockets. Why not strive for a standard so that all future games, runs or records don't have to be clarified as to what the exact specifications of the table was.
I personally cannot but never have tried it as I am not a rotation player but for the pro players it is too easy of a game on standard pockets.
Good points to be sure. This does concern personal preference, therefore there is no right or wrong answer. However, there could be an effect on expanding (or possibly reducing) viewership.
In any event, the absolute bottom line is that a player has to put up a higher score than their opponent. This determines the winner.
As to SVB's package - that's a real treat for sure! However, I wonder just how many packages that are 6 packs or larger that have taken place in any PRO event, TAR included in the past 2 years in either 9 or 10 ball???? I remember Bustamante had a helluva package (was it an 8 pack???) at the DCC 10 ball event last year or the year before. Then there was the epic Mika/Klatt match where they both ran the hell out of some racks. Other than those, I can't name really any others where a huge package was put up. That makes it a rare event and one that is quite remarkable. I mean, two years worth of events and I've not even exhausted fingers on just one hand on which to account for these achievements.
Granted, I don't watch all or even most pro events, but I do try to keep up with them when I can.
Cheers all,
JL
TAR is only "symbolic" and a "control reference" to only perhaps the few fans on AZB....that's about it. We need to expand viewership of TAR and all of pool!!!
I'm with you.
The lack of standardization makes every record and accomplishment have an *asterisk*.
There is no conversation in pool that doesn't include, "and" (or "but") that was on a blah blah table with blah blah pockets.
Every record and accomplishment is "apples and oranges".
Kevin
Guys,
Just noticed not one disparaging remark has been made about the intelligence of another poster. Not one word questioning someones integrity. Lets get real! This thread can not deviate from AZ's high standard of discussion
Lyn
Aw man, Lyn! You spoke too soon -- we just had our first banning in this thread. Now ChrisBanks gets to sleep under the table for an extended period.
-Sean