You may not like what he said ,but it is hard to argue with any validity against any of his points. A very straight up interview. Cudos. Like him or not Earl Strickland has been saying the same thing for a long time.
Thes best 2010 US OPEN Interview...
- Thread starter UGETTHE6
- Start date
Deal with it.
Raj cornered me at Barry Bermans Que Masters and said basically the same thing as was said in the interviev.:boring2: Nine ball has been a popular game in our country for many, many years, and there is a reason for that. Nine ball is a short rack game, with plenty of action and still carries a reasonably high degree of difficullity. Some may say...not as high of degree of difficulty as ten ball..Yes they are correct, but maybe we don't need that high of a degree of difficulty in our game to market it. Don't forget that our goal is to market our game to the public, not the players.
Lets talk a little about the rules in nine ball, in reference to the break. There has been a lot of criticism about the soft break, and how it seems unfair, and also that it attacks the dignity of the game. Personally I feel that if the soft break was outlawed the big breakers would have a huge advantage, and that to me is also unfair. Nine ball is a game that is usually decided by the number of opportunities one gets, and most opportunities stem from the break so why should it be that if you have more power then the next person you are entitled to more opportunities.:shrug: The break is the single most important shot in the game of nine ball, our goal shouldn't be in dictating how one breaks the balls, it should be in who breaks the balls.:idea: I feel that this highly contoversial area, in regard to how the balls should be broken can be resolved, not by how the balls are broken, but by whom breaks the balls.:lmao: I strongly believe that we should play rotate the break, then the playing field will be leveled and the matches would be more competitive. You can break the ball soft, or hard, and once the new rule has been accepted we can continue to play nine ball, instead of complaining about it. Sorry.
Diamond or Gold Crown?? Give me a break, both tables are the best in the industry, there is none better, why split hairs? Learn to play on both and there should never be a problem. You don't hear professional golfers saying that they shouldn't have to play on certain golf courses, do you? We should as professional players learn to adapt to all conditions, I believe that's a criteria in judging a champion. If your desire is to be a champion, then you should act like one.
My two cents, just thought you"d like to know.:wave2:
Billy I.
Raj cornered me at Barry Bermans Que Masters and said basically the same thing as was said in the interviev.:boring2: Nine ball has been a popular game in our country for many, many years, and there is a reason for that. Nine ball is a short rack game, with plenty of action and still carries a reasonably high degree of difficullity. Some may say...not as high of degree of difficulty as ten ball..Yes they are correct, but maybe we don't need that high of a degree of difficulty in our game to market it. Don't forget that our goal is to market our game to the public, not the players.
Lets talk a little about the rules in nine ball, in reference to the break. There has been a lot of criticism about the soft break, and how it seems unfair, and also that it attacks the dignity of the game. Personally I feel that if the soft break was outlawed the big breakers would have a huge advantage, and that to me is also unfair. Nine ball is a game that is usually decided by the number of opportunities one gets, and most opportunities stem from the break so why should it be that if you have more power then the next person you are entitled to more opportunities.:shrug: The break is the single most important shot in the game of nine ball, our goal shouldn't be in dictating how one breaks the balls, it should be in who breaks the balls.:idea: I feel that this highly contoversial area, in regard to how the balls should be broken can be resolved, not by how the balls are broken, but by whom breaks the balls.:lmao: I strongly believe that we should play rotate the break, then the playing field will be leveled and the matches would be more competitive. You can break the ball soft, or hard, and once the new rule has been accepted we can continue to play nine ball, instead of complaining about it. Sorry.
Diamond or Gold Crown?? Give me a break, both tables are the best in the industry, there is none better, why split hairs? Learn to play on both and there should never be a problem. You don't hear professional golfers saying that they shouldn't have to play on certain golf courses, do you? We should as professional players learn to adapt to all conditions, I believe that's a criteria in judging a champion. If your desire is to be a champion, then you should act like one.
My two cents, just thought you"d like to know.:wave2:
Billy I.
Last edited:
Neil:
Thank you. It's refreshing to engage in a discussion in a respectful way, and challenge ideas, not people. All to often on these boards we see personal attacks, and I lament when a good thread goes sour because of it.
As for moving the diamond-shaped 9-ball rack up or down to remove the wing balls' "window to the corner pocket," that was already tried. In my original list, you'll see this item:
[...]
- Rack is placed with 9-ball (instead of the 1-ball) located on the foot spot
This happened after Corey's invention of the soft-break. When the rack was placed with the 1-ball on the foot spot, the wing balls were vulnerable to the corners with a soft break. Then they moved the rack upwards so the 9-ball is located on the foot-spot. Then someone (was it Corey again?) figured out a slightly harder cut-break on the head ball made those same wing balls vulnerable to the corners, once again. (The only caveat to the cut-break, is if you don't manage it precisely, you'll cross-side scratch.)
Sure, we could experiment and move the 9-ball rack around until we find a spot on the table where those wing balls aren't going in to the corners, but in the process of doing so, what other vulnerability will we introduce into the 9-ball rack? If we move the rack further up the table, will we introduce an even more automatic 1-ball into the side? Will the wing balls then take two rails, and go into the sides as well? The problem is the three-ball combination angles introduced by the faces of the diamond itself; we might have to implement a CAD program (e.g. AutoCAD, Solid Edge) to figure out the optimum place to located a diamond-shaped rack where there's no automatic pocketing of balls on the break.
But why? We've had the triangular-shaped rack for years in other games, and they've withstood the test of time. 10-ball just seems like a natural progression -- it fixes the rack problems, but still keeps the number of balls down for a still-enjoyably short game (as compared to full 15-ball rotation, that is).
Neil, here's an interesting side note -- do you know the most vulnerable break, ball-pocketing-wise (at least when you look at the angle-to-a-pocket in the rack itself), is in the triangular-shaped rack in -- get this -- 14.1 straight pool? Check this out:
Now granted, this is a RIDICULOUS shot. If, while playing, say, Tony Robles, I attempted this shot, Tony would pick up his cue and throw it like a javelin right at my head. First, it shows disrespect to your opponent -- you should be playing safe on the opening break. Second, although the angle of the head ball around the table to that side pocket is perfect (or very nearly so, depending on whether the rails have been shimmed or not), it introduces the cushion rubber variables inherent in bank shots of this type, and it's not a "wired" or guaranteed pot. Third, if you do miss, you just busted the rack and sold out -- possibly the entire match, as your opponent soars off into a high run. Having said that, I've played this shot in "funsie" games where I was just horsing around. That shot goes in a surprising amount of time!
Fortunately, this is the only vulnerability in the triangular shaped rack, and it can't be leveraged in other games that require you to hit the lowest-numbered ball first, because this shot requires a kick from behind the rack.
Anything involving a head ball contact in a triangular-shaped rack re-introduces the multi-collision variables to pocket a ball -- there are no "wired" or "windowed" balls. At least noone's figured out one yet!
Anyway, I digress. This is a great discussion, and I'm hoping it stays that way.
-Sean
There are a lot of good points in this thread. To me, the most important thing to remember about any of the games we play is you still have to run out! I was there from Thursday through the finals and saw the wing ball going in with some regularity, wired as it were. By the same token, at least half the time, the breaker wouldn't have a makeable shot on the first ball. Hard break or soft break, what's the difference that you make a ball every time if you can't shoot anything but a push or a safe?
If the soft break is so perfect, why were so very few more-than-2-packs put together? I saw Mika lay down a 6 pack but no one else did anything close to that, that I saw. I think too big a deal is being made of this; the game is still exciting, still very fun to watch and the best players for that tournament seem to win! That seems viable to me!
I liked Raj's interview and willingness to be candid. I disagree that the evolution is going in reverse. You go where the money or success or fame or whatever leads you. Back in the late 1970's Rod Stewart, thought of as a rocker up to that point, released an album that was rooted in disco / dance music - Blondes Have More Fun. He was ridiculed by many of his peers until they saw it sell a jillion copies. Many released similar albums until, thankfully, disco died. You do what works and then you find the next thing that works. Just sayin'!
Brian in VA
If the soft break is so perfect, why were so very few more-than-2-packs put together? I saw Mika lay down a 6 pack but no one else did anything close to that, that I saw. I think too big a deal is being made of this; the game is still exciting, still very fun to watch and the best players for that tournament seem to win! That seems viable to me!
I liked Raj's interview and willingness to be candid. I disagree that the evolution is going in reverse. You go where the money or success or fame or whatever leads you. Back in the late 1970's Rod Stewart, thought of as a rocker up to that point, released an album that was rooted in disco / dance music - Blondes Have More Fun. He was ridiculed by many of his peers until they saw it sell a jillion copies. Many released similar albums until, thankfully, disco died. You do what works and then you find the next thing that works. Just sayin'!
Brian in VA
Thats what made this argument more legitimate for me though. When Earl complains about this he is losing. He uses the arguments as excuses of why he isn't or won't win. Not once during this interview did Raj try and defend the way he was playing or even mention his play for that matter. I'm sure if you asked him how he was playing he would have said not too great. Regardless, I feel like he would have conducted his answers in a similar manner. Separating himself from the arguments showed he was simply speaking as someone who wants the best for the game. I don't doubt that he feels like he would have a better chance to win too but I'm surprised in your reading between the lines that you think he is being whiney about his play.
Every time I see Raj interviewed, I like the man more and more and more and more and more and more. Calls it the way it is, states fact and doesn't sugar coat a thing.
If I ever made it to the pro tour - I'd copy his style completely.
If I ever made it to the pro tour - I'd copy his style completely.
Plus, he's cute. :grin-loving:
I agree about winner breaks and neutral racking. I don't agree with the break though. I don't see any reason to mandate a player to bust the balls as hard as he can. If the rack is fair (as in racked by a neutral racker) and not rigged, the player should be able to hit any break shot he wants. For some players, a "soft break" is their best weapon, and they know how to hit it and make balls consistently (once again, without a wired rack). You take that away, and you take away a part of the game. Might as well say no one can use draw.
Idea
Use the Magic Rack..
Have speed guns, must break over 20 MPH. Called 9 Ball. Must randomly place the balls.
Thats the way it should be, I think Alot of people would like to see that come to the game. Takes messing with the rack out of the game, and it can show off impressive breaks, and MANY diffrent patterns.
Use the Magic Rack..
Have speed guns, must break over 20 MPH. Called 9 Ball. Must randomly place the balls.
Thats the way it should be, I think Alot of people would like to see that come to the game. Takes messing with the rack out of the game, and it can show off impressive breaks, and MANY diffrent patterns.
if they're completely frozen then the balls are wired
One of the best posts on this topic---ever.
I think Raj is rather whiney all this while. That said, i do agree with some of his comments. Like when he was out from World cup of pool, he mention he wish he had a different partner or something to that effect. He always seems to have excuses when he loses. Think he will speak rather differently when he does wins.
Just my opinion anyway.
Just my opinion anyway.