Small pockets ruining the game

I attribute a lot of that comedy to what I call "the fix". It's the sum total of all the powers the wielders can wield over an event. That in the wind, the individual player needs to be particularly wary of incompetence and take prudent steps to eliminate it.
 
sjm said:
Make the hoop much smaller in basketball and the outside shooters become far less important. The game would evolve into a game in which most of the shots would be from ten feet and in. Bigger challenge? Maybe, but at the cost of making the game almost unwatchable.

It is the same with pool. As the stats from the UK Open showed, the break did not matter at all and the break and run rate was just 19%. Countless racks came down to safety play, as players, far too often, shunned the toughest shots and position paths in favor of either passive position play or safety play. In short, the tight pockets at the UK Open made the game more boring to watch in the eyes of most AZBers who posted on the subject.
Click to expand...
Analogies work both ways man ) There are many sports where level rise year to year, and winning conditions change accordingly. You don't win figure skating at the Olympics without a couple quadruple jumps. Or in gymnastics without new elements. The level is growing, the demands are growing - what's so strange about that? The essence of sport doesn't change.
 
Hey folks, I have another thought about the pocket sizes and the overall difficulty of pool. It seems there's a consensus forming that we need to reach a "sufficient" level of difficulty, to achieve a balance. Here's my point about that balance: the game is unbalanced when the World Championship is won by someone who hasn't dedicated themselves fully to the game—a sort of hobbyist-professional.
Victory should come at a price that requires full-time dedication. It should provide such a boost that it encourages a lifetime commitment to the sport.
I recalled some of the most boring World Championships in Nine-Ball: one won by Wu Chia-Ching and another by Daryl Peach. Both left big-time billiards. While Wu's departure can be explained by the immense competition in Taiwan, Daryl Peach simply dropped out. For him, that victory was just something to boast about to his grandkids. The game shouldn't be so easy that players like Daryl Peach can win. What do you all think?
 
peachgabba said:
Hey folks, I have another thought about the pocket sizes and the overall difficulty of pool. It seems there's a consensus forming that we need to reach a "sufficient" level of difficulty, to achieve a balance. Here's my point about that balance: the game is unbalanced when the World Championship is won by someone who hasn't dedicated themselves fully to the game—a sort of hobbyist-professional.
Victory should come at a price that requires full-time dedication. It should provide such a boost that it encourages a lifetime commitment to the sport.
I recalled some of the most boring World Championships in Nine-Ball: one won by Wu Chia-Ching and another by Daryl Peach. Both left big-time billiards. While Wu's departure can be explained by the immense competition in Taiwan, Daryl Peach simply dropped out. For him, that victory was just something to boast about to his grandkids. The game shouldn't be so easy that players like Daryl Peach can win. What do you all think?
Click to expand...

couple of things to factor in there. the financial crash that came a year after brought most of the pro pool opportunities with it. prize money in the WC went from 100k to 40k. darryl was already old when he won, and on top of that he invested in a manager that was basically a fraud. as for his win, yes they were buckets back then, but to win in hostile environments like darryl (and earl) did is always impressive to me.

wu had a lot of setbacks following his win, aside from the mentioned downturn in pool. among them was a battle against leukemia.
 
peachgabba said:
Hey folks, I have another thought about the pocket sizes and the overall difficulty of pool. It seems there's a consensus forming that we need to reach a "sufficient" level of difficulty, to achieve a balance. Here's my point about that balance: the game is unbalanced when the World Championship is won by someone who hasn't dedicated themselves fully to the game—a sort of hobbyist-professional.
Victory should come at a price that requires full-time dedication. It should provide such a boost that it encourages a lifetime commitment to the sport.
I recalled some of the most boring World Championships in Nine-Ball: one won by Wu Chia-Ching and another by Daryl Peach. Both left big-time billiards. While Wu's departure can be explained by the immense competition in Taiwan, Daryl Peach simply dropped out. For him, that victory was just something to boast about to his grandkids. The game shouldn't be so easy that players like Daryl Peach can win. What do you all think?
Click to expand...
Daryl was a full time player up until that win but he was a surprise winner. I dont think you can totally eliminate surprise winners since we see examples of that in every sport. But I do agree that the format should be such that it tends to suss out the best player as much as possible. I think the major issue has been our lack of repeat winners.

In 34ish years, Earl has won 4 times, Archer 3 titles and then Hohmann and Ouschan have two titles. That’s 11 titles between them in 34 years. Meanwhile in snooker, in just 24 years Ronnie O’Sullivan, Mark Selby, John Higgins and Mark Williams have won cumulatively 17 titles. Repeat winners is just good for storytelling in a sport.
 
ShootingArts said:
I think sneaking up on things is silly! Go ahead and tighten the pockets to three inches, maybe three and a quarter. Then read up on American snooker rules. No sense even pretending you are playing pool anymore.

Hu
Click to expand...
Tightening pockets reduces the likelihood of making bank shots. I said this even before they went to 4 inch pockets. Why try a bank shot when the odds are slim(er), then play a safety? AND, that is just what the PROS are doing. Leaving balls within a diamond of the rail and no chance on banks unless it is dead. I, (for one), truly enjoy watching atop PRO get out of a sticky situation by making that off-angle ball.
 
Tight pockets just reduce the slop factor. The dynamics of pool don't change from shot to shot. The slop windows get smaller. That's a competence issue.
 
Cameron Smith said:
Daryl was a full time player up until that win but he was a surprise winner. I dont think you can totally eliminate surprise winners since we see examples of that in every sport. But I do agree that the format should be such that it tends to suss out the best player as much as possible. I think the major issue has been our lack of repeat winners.

In 34ish years, Earl has won 4 times, Archer 3 titles and then Hohmann and Ouschan have two titles. That’s 11 titles between them in 34 years. Meanwhile in snooker, in just 24 years Ronnie O’Sullivan, Mark Selby, John Higgins and Mark Williams have won cumulatively 17 titles. Repeat winners is just good for storytelling in a sport.
Click to expand...

I will never understand the desire to minimize surprise winners in a fan/participant sport like pool. Golf, tennis, pickleball, poker, all have an element of appeal that is along the lines of, "maybe if I didn't have a day job, I could do that." Having someone other than a top pro make a run deep in a tournament is great fun for spectators, and it justifies larger, richer fields. When you have the same two guys in the final every week, why bother watching earlier rounds? They aren't going to matter.

I think what Ultimate Pool USA started with the LA Open is a great direction for pool. It is a fun format that lots of people can play. It scales well. And, if a 680 fargo gets hot, they might pull off a few wins in a row. It also makes for great social media content. Fast run out at the end of games, wild kick shots that happen to go, stuff that bar players get a kick out of.
 
shooter_Hans said:
Tight pockets eliminates a lot of shots that one would otherwise shoot and pocket.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. It just tips the difference engine during shot selection for the weaker players. "Weaker" in terms of pros vs top pros.

It seems like we're roughly saying the same, but we're not. Smaller pockets don't remove choices. Just makes some ill advised for the less proficient.
 
peachgabba said:
Analogies work both ways man ) There are many sports where level rise year to year, and winning conditions change accordingly. You don't win figure skating at the Olympics without a couple quadruple jumps. Or in gymnastics without new elements. The level is growing, the demands are growing - what's so strange about that? The essence of sport doesn't change.
Click to expand...
Good post. As you note, I should not have tried to paint across all the sports with a single brush. What all the sports have in common, however, is that those who promote it try to maximize its marketability by making it as entertaining as possible, which may or may not coincide with adding difficulty.
 
Last edited:
Cameron Smith said:
.... But I do agree that the format should be such that it tends to suss out the best player as much as possible. ...
Click to expand...
One way to do that is with longer races. I believe the WNT has announced the finals this year will be to 15. I would like to see 21 or even more in two sessions, with the matches increased from the final eight.
 
shooter_Hans said:
Tight pockets eliminates a lot of shots that one would otherwise shoot and pocket.
Click to expand...
Tight jaws (and incompetent posers) do that. Simply sharpen the facing angle and shorten the tunnel as the aperture closes. It's pretty simple to make a 3.5" pocket that is a ball wide down the rail.
 
Bob Jewett said:
One way to do that is with longer races. I believe the WNT has announced the finals this year will be to 15. I would like to see 21 or even more in two sessions, with the matches increased from the final eight.
Click to expand...
Marathon matches are the reason that the World Snooker Championship takes 17 days. I'd hate to see pool evolve into something like that.
 
Ghost of OBC said:
I will never understand the desire to minimize surprise winners in a fan/participant sport like pool. Golf, tennis, pickleball, poker, all have an element of appeal that is along the lines of, "maybe if I didn't have a day job, I could do that." Having someone other than a top pro make a run deep in a tournament is great fun for spectators, and it justifies larger, richer fields. When you have the same two guys in the final every week, why bother watching earlier rounds? They aren't going to matter.
Click to expand...
Very right. But personally, I want at least one familiar guy - to pull for the dark horse guy against him, the usual winner ) In poker, you have 6 to 9 guys at the table, and there is always this pro vs newcomers balance. It comes naturally, maybe that the game is better balanced itself. In pool, this needs to be addressed from time to time as the level is rising. Remember, 10 years rarely anyone thought about consistently potting with a jumper landing on the next ball.
 
Can someone humor me and tell me what the "standard tight" pocket is? I always thought most pool halls have 4.5in as the standard and tight pockets were 4 1/8in. Might be my ignorance but then what is the size when people say shimmed or double shimmed?
 
LHP5 said:
Can someone humor me and tell me what the "standard tight" pocket is? I always thought most pool halls have 4.5in as the standard and tight pockets were 4 1/8in. Might be my ignorance but then what is the size when people say shimmed or double shimmed?
Click to expand...
Pool Halls for years had 5" or 4.75" pockets. Now days 4.5" is probably the norm on newer equipment. My opinion on tight pockets starts at 4.25" and smaller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top