Some brand of cream will always rise to the top in big events, but with no-slop rules it might be a different brand of cream.
I said this (yet again) just about a month ago. Here is the full post:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3610350&postcount=25
AtLarge:
That was a GREAT post, and I'm sorry I missed it (I must've been up to me neck in alligators at the time).
For those that missed it, here it is (this way, it keeps the flow going in the thread, without being redirected and having to come back here to continue):
And as I have often countered, some brand of cream will always rise to the top in big events, but with no-slop rules it might be a different brand of cream.
In other words: luck/slop can enable a lesser player to prevail against anyone in a short race. But luck will never enable a significantly lesser player to survive a gauntlet of top players near the end of a large event. Luck/slop, however, can be a key determinant of which top player beats another top player and which top player wins the event.
I prefer no-slop rules of some sort for all professional events.
Just two nights ago, I watched the Accu-Stats match of Bustamante versus Burford. Let's ignore the push-out requirement of the Arena Rules, and just observe that making the 10-ball on the break counted as a win and slopping in a ball (provided you hit the lowest-numbered ball first) continued the inning.
In game 11, Burford missed a 1-10 combination but slopped in the 5-ball on that shot and ran out. In game 12, Burford made the 10-ball on the break. In game 14, Burford slopped in a missed bank on the 9-ball and ran out. In game 15, Burford made the 10-ball on the break. So in a five-game stretch, slop shots essentially allowed Burford to win four of those games.
Did luck have a key role in determining who won that hill/hill match, or did the luck even out? Bustamante's only slopped-in shot was a missed bank on the 2-ball in game 6 that went in another pocket; he was confused enough to immediately give up the table on a time foul, and Burford ran out. Were Burford's two 10's-on-the-break justifiable wins because he broke so skillfully? No, he broke just as he did on all his other breaks, but fate sent the 10-ball into a foot-rail corner pocket twice. That's not supposed to happen much in 10-ball with the Magic Rack, because the 10-ball usually just stays in the area of the rack -- but it did happen in this match, twice. Was that exciting for the fans? Those in attendance did applaud (after being prompted by the ref once), but, at least for this fan watching at home, it was more disgust than excitement.
Don't mistake -- I'm not saying Burford won solely because of luck. He did a lot of good playing and Bustamante made a lot of mistakes. And I don't have a count on who benefited more from lucky roles on misses. But since this match was so recent, and probably lots of AzB members watched it, I just mention it as an example of how slop significantly intrudes on lots of professional matches if they are played with anything like Texas Express rules.
I also feel it's unlikely that no-slop rules are disenfranchising fans to the extent of preventing pro pool from becoming a much bigger deal. I really don't see pro pool in the U.S. in the 21st century attracting big crowds. I think pool spectating is for pool enthusiasts; pool isn't for the casual entertainment of large crowds. And coming from that viewpoint, I definitely favor rules that serve best to identify who is playing most skillfully in pro events.
Additionally, for another example, let's step it down a notch. How would you like if you were, say, a tier below that cream, but still worthy of getting in the money, yet you were knocked out by a player a tier below you, because you did everything right -- ran out when you were supposed to, and played safe when you were supposed to -- but still lost (and missed the money rounds) to that lesser-tiered person because of the type of slop shots described above? That's not to say Phil Burford is such an inferior player to Bustamante, but Django made significantly less mistakes in the match, and
still lost.
The Texas Express advocates will have you believe the following:
-
"That slop 'adds excitement' to the game." Most pool enthusiasts I know
(I'm talking the general "I like to play pool occasionally" types, not the serious folks that read AZB) point to that kind of crap and go, "wait a minute -- he was shooting at the 1-ball, missed it, but knocked-in the 5-ball, and he keeps shooting?!? That would never fly where I play 8-ball!" Now, let's analyze that one. Most on here would point at that demographic and say, "bar-bangers! You don't know what you're talking about!" But that is precisely the crowd that is closest to wooing to watching pool on TV -- they are the "low hanging fruit" if there ever was any. We need to entice those folks to watch pool and spectate matches. You sure as h*ll ain't going to entice that kind of demographic with the kind of slop described above.
-
"That there are six pockets on the table, not just one -- so if the ball goes into any pocket, that's legal and that's skillz." Oh man, don't get me started on that one!
-
"That pool's downfall is attributed to, and strengthened by, the introduction of 'less exciting' call-shot games, like 10-ball. See, you *ssholes? See what you're doing to our sport?" <...face-palm...> Does this even need a reply?
AtLarge, I also like how, before that thread and before your post, the general attitude was, "
any call-shot rules are absolute evil to our sport." Then, after your post so demonstratively shown how flawed that thinking was, the general attitude suddenly became, "
well, we can 'live with' call-shot 10-ball, but gosh, not that WPA+/Tony-Robles-missed-shot-gives-option-to-incoming-player garbage. That there is evil."
The
whizzzzzzzzzzzzz! sound of that bicycle chain from back-pedaling can be heard all the way over here.
-Sean
