SVB vs Orcollo Free Roll brought to you by OB Cues

[grindz]

Alex shot the lights out on it and was beat by SVB due to his poor breaking. Busta beat SVB on the table. Archer shot phenomenal on the table against Busta until the "you are always joking" comment that knocked him off his game. Schmidt played pretty solid 10-ball on day 3 against Corey, not giving him a whole lot of chances.

That covers most of the people who are true elite level players that we have seen play on the table.

I think the top end pros have certainly shown that a claim that the table is "barely playable" is hyperbole in the extreme. The table is proving to be VERY playable by top end pros and the more they play it the more they are learning to dominate it over time.

You do know that the 'top pros' run out on snooker tables too!! Are you advocating that tables be tighter than those too? Mosconi ran out matches of 14.1 many times as well as many other players.... what would the history of that game look like if it were just safety battles and short runs? Don't you like to watch sheer offense? I know I do.

It seems like you want to see the interplay between players if I'm understanding your view correctly (sorry, if I'm not), and if so then
maybe one pocket is more suited to that kind of viewing, or full rack rotation. TAR gets paid more for what his (their) viewers want to see,
so vote with your dollars.

td

JCIN beat me to it............................. ditto what he said.....

 

[Celtic]

And what is wrong with this?

If anything it sets the elite players apart. Raj and Oscar were not running fours and fives and they are solid pro players.

Nothing is wrong with this. Before you guys at TAR had ever even heard of a "Fatboy" rail I was a strong proponent of tight pockets due to the exact reason that it would allow the cream to rise to the top.

Yes the TAR table is tough enough to cut out the second teir "pros" like Raj and Oscar and make it apparent they are not at the level of the elites, but it still does not distinguish the "best of the best". It tells us who the top 20 players in the world are when compared to the other guys, but it is not telling us which of those top 20 guys are in fact the best because the top 20 guys are still too good for the table and the swings of the break and the odd lucky roll are still the difference in a match.

I have heard a 147 in snooker compared to running an 8 or 9 in 9 ball and to me its a valid comparison.

OK, I will go along with that. The problem is that an 8 or 9 pack in 9-ball is normally over 50% of an entire professional match. A 147 is a single game and usually less then 10% of the entire match in a significant pro tournament. That is the problem in pool, 1 8 or 9-pack is a a death blow, 1 147 is a single game win and the opponent still has alot of chances to come back from it. That is why a 147 is not game breaking in snooker, and that is why a 8 or 9-pack IS game breaking in pool. In snooker that amazing feat does not win the whole match, in pool often times the big run equivalent to a 147 does in fact end the match.

It sounds like you want conditions so tough that a couple of outs in a row would only happen every once in awhile with the best players in the world playing.

No, in the very first event with the 10-foots Alex ran a 5 pack on Darren in 8-ball. Brand new table, first time ever on one and that was a level already reached by a pro. As players play on tables more often, as they become the standard and they practice alot on them they tend to improve. At the IPT the amount of B&R's skyrocketed between the first IPT event and the last, the players were getting used to the game and the equipment quickly and they would have eventually dominated it.

a 10-foot with 4 1/8th inch pockets will be tough at the start, but rest assured the top end pros WILL run 4 and 5 packs on occasion on a table like that once they get accostomed to playing on one. In a race to 15 that type of run is huge and if you end up with two top end pros playing a race to 15 on a table where they can make runs like that then you are still seeing a coin flip sport where the winner is likely determined as much by luck on the break or a single lucky roll or rub then by the player who shot better that day.

I loved the 8-ball match you guys showed, but lets be honest, the guy who shot the worst of the two players last night won the match. His break was THE deciding factor by far, the shooting ability after the break was completely overshadowed by that single shot and I am not sure that is right. I want the shooting AFTER the break to matter at least as much as the break shot and last night it did not.

 

[westcoast]

This is a great debate,

but unless I missed it, nobody has answered my simple question, who won last night?

 

[backplaying]

Yeah, and I have heard the terms "7-pack" and "8-pack" and seen a guy play an entire set and never miss a ball in 11 wins on the thing. Does that sound like a table that is "barely playable"?

Thats 8 ball for you.

 

[backplaying]

I think many would like to see tables so tight for the top players that they would look like them when they play. Sort of a stroke your ego kinda thing!

 

[VIProfessor]

I feel your pain, Celtic. I really do.

For some time now there has been quite a debate here on the forum about whether 8-ball is a suitable game for the pros and even as to whether 8-ball is easier to run out than 9-ball. The fact that Alex and Shane's performance has led some to advocate a substantial change from the playing conditions that have been standard for over half a century is highly indicative of at least three things:

1. The difference between top pros and other mortals seems to be significantly greater than previously realized, and among those top pros, the elite players are playing at the highest level the sport has ever seen, IMO.

2. Despite the fact that it is indeed a lovely game, 8-ball is just too easy to be a regular part of serious competitive play among professionals. I think 8-ball's purpose at the professional level should probably be confined to recorded and live exhibitions that enable the millions of casual players to see, through a game that they understand, just how marvelously talented and skilled our professional players are. As regular competition, 8-ball, sad to say, is a gaffe game for the best players in the world.

3. Lastly, I think it is clear that this weekend's demonstration, on VERY difficult equipment, has conclusively settled the debate about the ease of running out 8-ball racks compared to 9-ball.​

This is by no means a put-down of eight-ball. It is a great game that I learn to appreciate more with each passing day, but it's just too easy for the pros.

 

[Charlie Hustle]

I feel your pain, Celtic. I really do.

For some time now there has been quite a debate here on the forum about whether 8-ball is a suitable game for the pros and even as to whether 8-ball is easier to run out than 9-ball. The fact that Alex and Shane's performance has led some to advocate a substantial change from the playing conditions that have been standard for over half a century is highly indicative of at least three things:

1. The difference between top pros and other mortals seems to be significantly greater than previously realized, and among those top pros, the elite players are playing at the highest level the sport has ever seen, IMO.

2. Despite the fact that it is indeed a lovely game, 8-ball is just too easy to be a regular part of serious competitive play among professionals. I think 8-ball's purpose at the professional level should probably be confined to recorded and live exhibitions that enable the millions of casual players to see, through a game that they understand, just how marvelously talented and skilled our professional players are. As regular competition, 8-ball, sad to say, is a gaffe game for the best players in the world.

3. Lastly, I think it is clear that this weekend's demonstration, on VERY difficult equipment, has conclusively settled the debate about the ease of running out 8-ball racks compared to 9-ball.​

This is by no means a put-down of eight-ball. It is a great game that I learn to appreciate more with each passing day, but it's just too easy for the pros.

What this gentleman just said.

 

[Roadie]

I feel your pain, Celtic. I really do.

For some time now there has been quite a debate here on the forum about whether 8-ball is a suitable game for the pros and even as to whether 8-ball is easier to run out than 9-ball. The fact that Alex and Shane's performance has led some to advocate a substantial change from the playing conditions that have been standard for over half a century is highly indicative of at least three things:

1. The difference between top pros and other mortals seems to be significantly greater than previously realized, and among those top pros, the elite players are playing at the highest level the sport has ever seen, IMO.

2. Despite the fact that it is indeed a lovely game, 8-ball is just too easy to be a regular part of serious competitive play among professionals. I think 8-ball's purpose at the professional level should probably be confined to recorded and live exhibitions that enable the millions of casual players to see, through a game that they understand, just how marvelously talented and skilled our professional players are. As regular competition, 8-ball, sad to say, is a gaffe game for the best players in the world.

3. Lastly, I think it is clear that this weekend's demonstration, on VERY difficult equipment, has conclusively settled the debate about the ease of running out 8-ball racks compared to 9-ball.​

This is by no means a put-down of eight-ball. It is a great game that I learn to appreciate more with each passing day, but it's just too easy for the pros.

A gaffe game? Really? Just because they played phenomenal on a tight table doesn't make it a gaffe. Only a real player can appreciate the outs that Mr. Van Boeing and Mr. Orcullo were making.

Anyone on AZB can get action against the layouts that Van Boeing and Orcullo faced after the break on that table. We can reposition the balls for every single runout and it's highly likely that no one here will get to four outs. So you get their breaks and simply have to run the table. If it's so easy then it should be no problem......

Pardon me but this is pretty awful to denigrate the amazing performances of these two by saying that it's the game that is too easy. No, the game is not too easy, they simply showed what incredible skill and cue ball control can do.

8 Ball is easier to run out sometimes and harder at other times. The beauty of pool is that there are so many games that can be played and each has it's own difficulties and strategies. At the highest level the pros are looking to get out because in fact they must do so. To me I see it as who ever blinks first loses and not so much whoever gets the rolls wins. And it's really nice to see the occassional game come up where they have to play safes and to see what they do then.

Sorry but if you have never played pool for money on super tight pockets you can't possibly appreciate what these two did. It's not that the game is too easy, it's that these two players are simply incredible.

 

[AtLarge]

this is a great debate,

but unless i missed it, nobody has answered my simple question, who won last night?

svb 15 - do 11

Edit: why are my caps coming out lower case?

 

[JCIN]

Nothing is wrong with this. Before you guys at TAR had ever even heard of a "Fatboy" rail I was a strong proponent of tight pockets due to the exact reason that it would allow the cream to rise to the top.

Yes. You are right. In twenty four years around pool it has never occurred to me that tighter pockets make the game tougher until us TAR guys discovered "Fatboy" rails.

Good luck finding what you are looking for.

 

[JCIN]

A gaffe game? Really? Just because they played phenomenal on a tight table doesn't make it a gaffe. Only a real player can appreciate the outs that Mr. Van Boeing and Mr. Orcullo were making.

Anyone on AZB can get action against the layouts that Van Boeing and Orcullo faced after the break on that table. We can reposition the balls for every single runout and it's highly likely that no one here will get to four outs. So you get their breaks and simply have to run the table. If it's so easy then it should be no problem......

Pardon me but this is pretty awful to denigrate the amazing performances of these two by saying that it's the game that is too easy. No, the game is not too easy, they simply showed what incredible skill and cue ball control can do.

8 Ball is easier to run out sometimes and harder at other times. The beauty of pool is that there are so many games that can be played and each has it's own difficulties and strategies. At the highest level the pros are looking to get out because in fact they must do so. To me I see it as who ever blinks first loses and not so much whoever gets the rolls wins. And it's really nice to see the occassional game come up where they have to play safes and to see what they do then.

Sorry but if you have never played pool for money on super tight pockets you can't possibly appreciate what these two did. It's not that the game is too easy, it's that these two players are simply incredible.

Stop making sense. We dont allow that here.

 

[Otterman]

Not sure of the point here?

Yes the TAR table is tough enough to cut out the second teir "pros" like Raj and Oscar and make it apparent they are not at the level of the elites, but it still does not distinguish the "best of the best". It tells us who the top 20 players in the world are when compared to the other guys, but it is not telling us which of those top 20 guys are in fact the best because the top 20 guys are still too good for the table and the swings of the break and the odd lucky roll are still the difference in a match.

I don't like debating these things, but I don't get your point here. Games and sports are only interesting for spectators to watch because the outcome is always in question. If you have equipment tight enough that one of your "second tier "pros"" has no chance to beat an elite player, no one will show up to watch that match. Also, your "top 20" players in the world are separated in skill by incredibly small margins, and most can beat any of their peers on any given day on any type of equipment if they're playing really well.

I also think it's a bad idea to advocate for tight tables simply to accommodate the game of 8-ball because it's too easy for the pros with anything close to playable pockets. A table needs to accommodate ALL games that are regularly played, and particularly the rotation games of 9 ball and 10 ball. A really difficult table makes 10-ball a horrible game to watch and not much fun to play, either.

Like most people that play in America, I learned to play on bar table 8-ball, and I know there is a big following for the 8-ball leagues. However, 8-ball is just way too easy for a strong player, and I stopped playing it a long time ago because I simply find it boring. Not bashing it; it does require skill and definitely knowledge of patterns, breaking out clusters, etc., and I respect everyone's choice of their favorite games, but there's a reason you almost never see pros (or even strong local players) matching up at 8-ball. The only time you see it is as part of an all-around competition like this one.

9 ball has only become "too easy" for the pros since the fast Simonis cloth has become the standard over the old Stevens fuzz-ball cloth. Simonis IS way more consistent, but you just don't need a great stroke to move the cue ball around the table like you'd need with napped cloth. This penalizes those that have spent time and hard work developing their strokes and covers up the weaknesses of those that didn't. It also allows great players to get out way more often, since they can use their strokes to bail them out when they play poor position. I'd WAY more like to see a slower Simonis cloth rather than smaller, tighter pockets.

10 ft. tables ARE a fad. I actually thought it was a terrific idea for pro tournaments until I watched some of the Tunica matches on YouTube. Players obviously had a VERY hard time reaching a LOT of shots, and I don't think anyone wants to watch players get out the crutch for 1 out of 4 shots. I have pretty much zero interest in watching more play on the 10 footers.

All that being said, I'd probably watch Shane and Dennis if they were matching up on the lag, best of 1000......

 

[VIProfessor]

A gaffe game? Really? Just because they played phenomenal on a tight table doesn't make it a gaffe. Only a real player can appreciate the outs that Mr. Van Boeing and Mr. Orcullo were making.

Anyone on AZB can get action against the layouts that Van Boeing and Orcullo faced after the break on that table. We can reposition the balls for every single runout and it's highly likely that no one here will get to four outs. So you get their breaks and simply have to run the table. If it's so easy then it should be no problem......

Pardon me but this is pretty awful to denigrate the amazing performances of these two by saying that it's the game that is too easy. No, the game is not too easy, they simply showed what incredible skill and cue ball control can do.

8 Ball is easier to run out sometimes and harder at other times. The beauty of pool is that there are so many games that can be played and each has it's own difficulties and strategies. At the highest level the pros are looking to get out because in fact they must do so. To me I see it as who ever blinks first loses and not so much whoever gets the rolls wins. And it's really nice to see the occassional game come up where they have to play safes and to see what they do then.

Sorry but if you have never played pool for money on super tight pockets you can't possibly appreciate what these two did. It's not that the game is too easy, it's that these two players are simply incredible.

I think perhaps that I didn't make myself sufficiently clear. Of course, it is incredibly difficult to do what Dennis and Shane did, and the difficulty of the equipment only magnifies the exemplary nature of their achievement this weekend. By NO means do I mean to denigrate their performance in any way, and I suspect we will be talking about that session for decades to come!!

The point is that their achievement also demonstrates, as many people have noted here long before before the match, that 8-ball is too easy a game for the top pros (not for the rest of us!) to utilize in regular competition. This is magnified by the fact that the pros have become SO good at breaking that if they played more and further worked out the 8-ball break they way they have in 9 and 10-ball, they would find ways to have even fewer clusters off the breaks, and in this respect going to a 10-footer actually helps them!!!

Someone posted earlier that the B&R percentage in the 8-ball sets this weekend was upwards of 80%. That's a number that doesn't lie.

I thank you for calling me out on referring to 8-ball as a "gaffe game" for the pros, and will acknowledge that it was too strong a phrase, but I hold to my opinion that if the pros were to play 8-ball on a regular basis it would become much of more of a breaking contest than we see presently with 9-ball and 10-ball. I'm pretty sure it was Nick Varner who said in reference to 8-ball that (and I paraphrase), "Basically, I expect that if I make a ball on the break, I win. If I don't, I lose."


BTW, I have played for four-figure amounts on the tight table in Broadway Billiards as well as table (14?) in the old Chelsea Billiards. Does that count?

 

["CaliRed".]

A gaffe game? Really? Just because they played phenomenal on a tight table doesn't make it a gaffe. Only a real player can appreciate the outs that Mr. Van Boeing and Mr. Orcullo were making.

Anyone on AZB can get action against the layouts that Van Boeing and Orcullo faced after the break on that table. We can reposition the balls for every single runout and it's highly likely that no one here will get to four outs. So you get their breaks and simply have to run the table. If it's so easy then it should be no problem......

Pardon me but this is pretty awful to denigrate the amazing performances of these two by saying that it's the game that is too easy. No, the game is not too easy, they simply showed what incredible skill and cue ball control can do.

8 Ball is easier to run out sometimes and harder at other times. The beauty of pool is that there are so many games that can be played and each has it's own difficulties and strategies. At the highest level the pros are looking to get out because in fact they must do so. To me I see it as who ever blinks first loses and not so much whoever gets the rolls wins. And it's really nice to see the occassional game come up where they have to play safes and to see what they do then.

Sorry but if you have never played pool for money on super tight pockets you can't possibly appreciate what these two did. It's not that the game is too easy, it's that these two players are simply incredible.

I agree completely.

 

[AtLarge]

...
2. Despite the fact that it is indeed a lovely game, 8-ball is just too easy to be a regular part of serious competitive play among professionals. ... As regular competition, 8-ball, sad to say, is a gaffe game for the best players in the world.

3. Lastly, I think it is clear that this weekend's demonstration, on VERY difficult equipment, has conclusively settled the debate about the ease of running out 8-ball racks compared to 9-ball. ...

This week's match-up of SVB and DO does not convince me that 8-ball is a gaffe game for top pros.

The break is an enormous factor. When a top pro gets "dialed in" on the break on a particular table, runouts can flow like water in 8-ball, 9-ball, or 10-ball -- the game doesn't matter in that situation.

Last month we had Schmidt vs. Deuel on this same table. They are top pros, aren't they? Their 8-ball match also went 26 games (same as SVB/DO). Schmidt broke dry or fouled on the break 8 out of 11 times; he had one break-and-run in the other three games he broke. Deuel broke dry 7 out of 15 times; he had 5 B&R's in the other 8 games he broke. So 15 of the 26 games were dry breaks (incl. 1 foul). Neither player was dialed in on the break like SVB and DO, so their match was very different.

On the far extreme from what happened with SVB and DO -- one of the Schmidt/Deuel games went 16 innings (15 for Deuel). Schmidt's innings included 12 safeties and 3 misses; Deuel's included 11 safeties and 3 misses -- in ONE game!

So all sorts of things are possible with top pros on that equipment. I don't think the debates have ended.

 

[westcoast]

svb 15 - do 11

Edit: why are my caps coming out lower case?

Thanks for the reply

 

[CreeDo]

This week's match-up of SVB and DO does not convince me that 8-ball is a gaffe game for top pros.

The break is an enormous factor. When a top pro gets "dialed in" on the break on a particular table, runouts can flow like water in 8-ball, 9-ball, or 10-ball -- the game doesn't matter in that situation.

Last month we had Schmidt vs. Deuel on this same table. They are top pros, aren't they? Their 8-ball match also went 26 games (same as SVB/DO). Schmidt broke dry or fouled on the break 8 out of 11 times; he had one break-and-run in the other three games he broke. Deuel broke dry 7 out of 15 times; he had 5 B&R's in the other 8 games he broke. So 15 of the 26 games were dry breaks (incl. 1 foul). Neither player was dialed in on the break like SVB and DO, so their match was very different.

On the far extreme from what happened with SVB and DO -- one of the Schmidt/Deuel games went 16 innings (15 for Deuel). Schmidt's innings included 12 safeties and 3 misses; Deuel's included 11 safeties and 3 misses -- in ONE game!

So all sorts of things are possible with top pros on that equipment. I don't think the debates have ended.

A few people might argue orcullo and shane are on a different level than those guys, but that might be overdoing it. We know shane's break has been on a different level than the rest of the world.

I don't think it's a gaffy game, it's just a more forgiving game. In rotation games... you might only make one mistake every half dozen racks, but when you do, your inning is over. You play safe or take a flyer and probably miss.

In 8 ball, if you make that mistake, you are allowed to recover in most cases. So your inning isn't over. Which translates to fewer innings... A lot fewer. Like one inning per 8 racks, apparently.

 

[teedotaj]

how bout 15 ball rotation? the pinoys might have an advantage but im sure top pros could adjust easily.

either way, it was fun to watch shane and dennis play 8 ball. ive watched 8 ball matches on youtube before and they were pretty boring. these two made it really interesting.

 

[jalapus logan]

I loved the 8-ball match you guys showed, but lets be honest, the guy who shot the worst of the two players last night won the match. His break was THE deciding factor by far, the shooting ability after the break was completely overshadowed by that single shot and I am not sure that is right. I want the shooting AFTER the break to matter at least as much as the break shot and last night it did not.

What is wrong with the break being the deciding factor? It's kind of like saying that home runs in baseball should be disallowed because some players don't run around the bases as fast as others.

 

[Coroner2]

I think Justin said he was going to put the match on YouTube...I can't find it, but I'm terrible at that kind of thing. Does anyone know if it's out?

Thanks!