Tap or Template?

[derangedhermit]

I’ve done the same since 2013 or so, and will never stop. I don’t use the Perma-Rack, though - I just mark the centers with a pencil using a 15-ball Accu-Rack template, then place the clear donuts.

When racking, I use the wooden Diamond rack to quickly push the balls onto the donuts, and a couple little shifts is all it takes to feel them “lock”. Takes around 4-5 seconds once the balls are in the rack, much less tedious than easing them in place by hand.

I'm in the process of comparing the spacings of the different templates. The first surprising thing I found is that although my two Magic Ball Rack 8-ball templates are identical, as are my two 9/10-ball MBR templates, the head-to-foot spacing on the 9/10-ball rack is noticeably tighter, maybe 1/8". Also the holes in the 9/10-ball rack are larger. Whether either of these differences is intentional, or still found, I don't know.

I agree about using a triangle rack to load the balls onto a template. It's faster and easier than by hand.

 

[Black-Balled]

you can adjust the heat on snooker irons. If it burns to table then it is too hot

Yeah!

It is just like carbon fiber- tighten slowly and when you hear it start cracking, back it off a little. No need for a torque wrench!

 

[The_JV]

When racking, I use the wooden Diamond rack to quickly push the balls onto the donuts, and a couple little shifts is all it takes to feel them “lock”. Takes around 4-5 seconds once the balls are in the rack, much less tedious than easing them in place by hand.

I agree about using a triangle rack to load the balls onto a template. It's faster and easier than by hand.

I got into a couple of anti-template debates in the 14.1 forum a while back, and one of the supposed cons was the amount of time it took to rack with only a template. I could never wrap my head around that one. Some claimed that the extra 5-10secs it took to rack 14balls took them out of some type of rhythm. Made me wonder why people were in such a hurry. Keeping mind in the 14.1 world we don't care about randomizing the rack, but a tight rack is of paramount importance. Kept thinking to myself that they most likely spend as much time inspecting the hand racks then I do loading a template. If they aren't. They're definitely doing themselves a disservice.

I have definitely seen newbs to templates struggle to load them. If they were always such a fight to load, I'd be in the "takes too long" camp. As it is, once you have a grasp of the method, I personally would consider the triangle an unnecessary step to potentially save moments.

 

[DynoDan]

…Removing randomness from the game is NOT a good thing.…

I agree. Another ‘tradition’ falling by the wayside. Balls wear down unevenly, triangles become distorted, cloth condition changes, referees get careless, etc., etc. Getting a ‘bad rack’ is like getting a ‘bad roll’ (every match cannot be played on a freshly re-leveled & re-covered table, using brand new/polished balls). Decent equipment & an honest effort was usually enough for the historical greats.

 

[The_JV]

I agree. Another ‘tradition’ falling by the wayside. Balls wear down unevenly, triangles become distorted, cloth condition changes, referees get careless, etc., etc. Getting a ‘bad rack’ is like getting a ‘bad roll’ (every match cannot be played on a freshly re-leveled & re-covered table, using brand new/polished balls). Decent equipment & an honest effort was usually enough for the historical greats.

At least the AZB tradition of blinding romanticizing about the past is alive and well.

A player's success should never be hampered by something that's meant to consistent for both players. Both opponents will need to deal with battered cloth, lack luster balls, and frustration of rolls created by unleveled equipment. However that is not the same as the chances of getting a random gaff rack. The advent of the template and/or template like racking has nearly removed the possibility of a player getting screwed by something that should by all rights be identical for every player. Why there's push back on this clear and obvious improvement to the game baffles me.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Why there's push back on this clear and obvious improvement to the game baffles me.

The problem is it makes the break too predictable. That has mostly been solved by racking the nine on the spot and a break box. (And the "gotta hit'em hard" rule.) But I agree with you that there is a lot of rosy vision problem. Those people seem to forget the 10-minute rack wars we were having with triangle racking.

 

[straightline]

Put all balls in box.
Shake until consistency is uniform and lump free.
Pour onto table.

 

[The_JV]

The problem is it makes the break too predictable. That has mostly been solved by racking the nine on the spot and a break box. (And the "gotta hit'em hard" rule.) But I agree with you that there is a lot of rosy vision problem. Those people seem to forget the 10-minute rack wars we were having with triangle racking.

You're right of course. Predictability can seem like a problem. In this thread I'd been internally focusing my comments on 14.1 but I did not clarify that at any point.

MR's introduction of the 9 spot / small break box, has placed a little a more "random-ness" into the break in the form of a CB flier, but it's still falls victim to the player willing to put the effort in to practice their break.

 

[Dan White]

At least the AZB tradition of blinding romanticizing about the past is alive and well.

A player's success should never be hampered by something that's meant to consistent for both players. Both opponents will need to deal with battered cloth, lack luster balls, and frustration of rolls created by unleveled equipment. However that is not the same as the chances of getting a random gaff rack. The advent of the template and/or template like racking has nearly removed the possibility of a player getting screwed by something that should by all rights be identical for every player. Why there's push back on this clear and obvious improvement to the game baffles me.

I wonder if making every straight pool rack perfect so that it opens up when you breathe on it is good for the game. It takes more skill to maneuver around to open clusters two and three times. I'm not saying every rack will open up 100% with a template, but it seems like it will make things easier than they have been historically. New technology (balls, cloth) also do this to an extent but is having a perfect rack every time really good for an interesting game?

 

[Bob Jewett]

You're right of course. Predictability can seem like a problem. In this thread I'd been internally focusing my comments on 14.1 but I did not clarify that at any point. ...

As far as 14.1 goes, the randomness is mostly taken care of by the break ball being in a different place each time. Where a truly tight rack becomes a problem at 14.1 is when the players figure out which balls are dead out of a tight rack and routinely play them in competition. For that reason, the EPBF has banned the use of truly tight racks for 14.1. I have heard that at multi-discipline competitions, where the table has been tapped, 14.1 is racked with a triangle at the other end of the table. I think that was the wrong solution.

 

[The_JV]

I wonder if making every straight pool rack perfect so that it opens up when you breathe on it is good for the game. It takes more skill to maneuver around to open clusters two and three times. I'm not saying every rack will open up 100% with a template, but it seems like it will make things easier than they have been historically. New technology (balls, cloth) also do this to an extent but is having a perfect rack every time really good for an interesting game?

I will not argue the notion that it takes more skill to clear clustered balls due to a poor rack than what you'd typically experience with a completely tight rack. Whether or not template assembled racks is good for the game or not....?..., well I don't have a dog in that fight. I keep rolling back to the idea that players should be expecting equality in this regard AND a person racking should be producing the best rack possible.

 

[The_JV]

As far as 14.1 goes, the randomness is mostly taken care of by the break ball being in a different place each time. Where a truly tight rack becomes a problem at 14.1 is when the players figure out which balls are dead out of a tight rack and routinely play them in competition. For that reason, the EPBF has banned the use of truly tight racks for 14.1. I have heard that at multi-discipline competitions, where the table has been tapped, 14.1 is racked with a triangle at the other end of the table. I think that was the wrong solution.

This is a real problem, but I would have rather the rules been altered to exclude nominated balls out of an 'virgin' rack then prevent players from receiving the best rack possible to continue their efforts. That seems like a such an easy solution.

 

[Bob Jewett]

This is a real problem, but I would have rather the rules been altered to exclude nominated balls out of an 'virgin' rack then prevent players from receiving the best rack possible to continue their efforts. That seems like a such an easy solution.

That seems like a much better rule. (Ought to apply to the high run attempts as well.)

 

[soyale]

I've been using the Perma Rack system for over a year now, got the idea ever since Jason Shaw used something similar when he set his record. I use the clear Avery hole savers instead of the white ones because they are thinner. They are about HALF the thickness of any template (and I have them all). Anyone who has played on my table has remarked how they completely forget that they're there once they start playing, they are that unobtrusive. Stun shots, cut shots, extreme draw shots, no problem. I usually have to replace one or two on an average of every two months or so as they will start to lift. I have never had one completely separate from the cloth. I have a custom made wood rack that I never use.
View attachment 729653

 

[DynoDan]

…10-minute rack wars we were having with triangle racking…

??!! Should never happen. If a ref is racking, then it shouldn’t be challenged (or even inspected if the match is on TV). If your opponent is racking, and you suspect carelessness or skullduggery (from your vantage point at the head of the table), you always have the option to respond in kind (assuming your polite request to correct is ignored). Any obvious advantage gained in a self-racking situation should qualify as ‘unsportsmanlike conduct’.

 

[Bob Jewett]

??!! Should never happen. If a ref is racking, then it shouldn’t be challenged (or even inspected if the match is on TV). If your opponent is racking, and you suspect carelessness or skullduggery, you always have the option to respond in kind (assuming your polite request to correct is ignored). Any obvious advantage gained in a self-racking situation should qualify as ‘unsportsmanlike conduct’.

SVB and Shaw at Derby City. I think there is video of it. No ref.

 

[The_JV]

Any obvious advantage gained in a self-racking situation should qualify as ‘unsportsmanlike conduct’.

Hold on... So if it looks like I gained an advantage after I racked for myself I should suffer an "unsportsmanlike conduct" foul, but if I receive an obviously poor rack from my opponent, that just life and I should feel justified to return the favour.....?

 

[DynoDan]

Hold on... So if it looks like I gained an advantage after I racked for myself I should suffer an "unsportsmanlike conduct" foul, but if I receive an obviously poor rack from my opponent, that just life and I should feel justified to return the favour.....?

Only if you have no objection to continue playing an obviously dishonorable opponent (flush/high-roller fish maybe?), and no aversion to being the same.

 

[Island Drive]

Hold on... So if it looks like I gained an advantage after I racked for myself I should suffer an "unsportsmanlike conduct" foul, but if I receive an obviously poor rack from my opponent, that just life and I should feel justified to return the favour.....?

As a racker it's your job to stop the leaking, legally. If you opponent is too confrontational in this area, your doing business with the wrong animal.

 

[The_JV]

Only if you have no objection to continue playing an obviously dishonorable opponent (flush/high-roller fish maybe?), and no aversion to being the same.

It's easy to say that it's up to me not to play said opponent, but what if this is tourney or league and my only options are to play or forfeit.

My take on the slug rack is this. If you agree to hand/opponent rack, then you're fortunate if you don't experience a poor rack. You need to be prepared for the slug. If the opponent agrees to hand/breaker rack, then they need to accept the likelyhood of a "fortunous" spread for the breaker. Excluding shady practices, this boils down to the amount of effort. Both of these situations can be prevented with a template.

lol... I played in my weekly league last night. Our 8ball league adopted the use of templates nearly 2yrs ago. In the beginning the rule was: If you used a template then the opponents had the right to use of your template so they could break on a level field. Zero complaints... This year the rule was altered to the opponent not having the right of use of their opponent's template. The logic being that everyone had substantial amount of time to scrape up the pennies to purchase their own. The result... The template players enjoy substantially better breaks and the non-users get to enjoy what appears to be more of a 14.1 or 1pkt layout. The older gentlemen "purists" we played last night gave themselves some of the worst racks/breaks imaginable.

The tables are crap, and you could chase your tail all night trying to create a rack that's half-assed at best.