Thes best 2010 US OPEN Interview...

[Paul Schofield]

.Alternating breaks is a great equalizer. .

This is not true. I have all the data that tells me otherwise.

You have to look and see how a weaker player actually wins against a superior player. A series of "cascading events' has to take place. This would be where the weaker player makes balls on the break and gets a shot on the 1 ball and is able to put two or three racks together and at the same time the superior player breaks dry. Winner breaks enables a superior player to bury an opponent but at the same time, it can compound trouble for for him when things are not going as expected. Combine that with lopsided short game opportunities in favor of the weaker player, and you have the makings of an upset. Winner breaks actually makes it more possible for a weaker player to win.

Alternating breaks creates a more "equal opportunity" to play. A series of cascading events is less likely to take place because the stronger player is always brought back to the table, no matter how badly things are going for him.

The net result of alternating breaks is that the matches are much closer, and at the same time, the better player actually wins more often. This is a win-win. The better players will like it because they win more often and the weaker players like it because they are guaranteed to play. In a world where everthing is give-and-take, IMO, the benefits mentioned here weigh much heavier than "running multiple racks" or "puting packages together" as you put it.

Alternating break equalizes playing opportunities. It does not equalize the W-L match results.

 

[dorabelle]

LOL.....Good luck to all the rack volunteers. Cant wait too watch it on accustats next year as you rack for Mika. Maybe Jcin would volunteer for that.

 

[buffalofloyd]

Really good interview, I agree with just about all of it...

My personal opinions here are. Diamonds are not better than Brunswicks, they are just different tables. 9-ball is lame at the pro level. All rotation pool should be 10-ball or 15-ball. Three balls past the head string in all rotation games, break from the box, and no 9, 10, or 15 ball on the break wins. I like call your shot. The concept of neutral rackers is nice but prolly not feasible. I think switching to the 10-ball or 15-ball will help in the rack argument and then racking your own or loser racks should not be of too much concern, until...

Jim

 

[Celtic]

If the money was right, the players would play Six Ball! Yes you heard me right. And guess what, the best players would still win! You heard that right too!

Yeah great, one of the best 200 players in the world would win any given event, joy.

Of course the guy who wins any tournament is still going to need to know how to shoot. But atm pool has no Tiger Woods not because we do not have the guy who is just that much better then everyone else, but because atm the game we play makes it impossible for that person to actually have the higher skills be the deciding factor over the single bad rub that can cause you to lose control and never see the table again in a match. You switch the game to 6-ball and you are simply adding yet another 100 players into the mix that can now catch a gear, get some luck, and snap off a pro event.

If we had the right game then in a world championships there were be pretty much 10 guys competing for the title and the winner would likely come from the top 4. In a major tennis tournament there are in truth 8 guys that have a chance and the winner is more then 75% likely to come from the 4 top seeds. In a 9-ball tournament there are about 40 guys that have a shot, and noone is "likely" to be there at the end because the game is simply not hard enough to make a top echelon pro's skills assure him victory over a really good amature.

Gone are the days of Mosconi where the game was sufficiently tough to allow a guy like Mosconi to become the clear top player in the world over people like Caras, Ponzi, Crane, and other really great players in their own right. If they had played 11 game races of 9-ball Mosconi could not have been as dominant or held the world title like he did. The game is simply too fickle to allow the true best to dominate. And that sucks in a sport.

If the money was right I would clean friggin toilets for a living. That arguement is moot, seriously give me a million bucks a year and I will go scrubbing. Does not mean cleaning toilets is a kick ass job. And the players playing 9-ball because that is where the money is does not mean it is a kick ass game.

 

[westcoast]

Yeah great, one of the best 200 players in the world would win any given event, joy.

Of course the guy who wins any tournament is still going to need to know how to shoot. But atm pool has no Tiger Woods not because we do not have the guy who is just that much better then everyone else, but because atm the game we play makes it impossible for that person to actually have the higher skills be the deciding factor over the single bad rub that can cause you to lose control and never see the table again in a match. You switch the game to 6-ball and you are simply adding yet another 100 players into the mix that can now catch a gear, get some luck, and snap off a pro event.

If we had the right game then in a world championships there were be pretty much 10 guys competing for the title and the winner would likely come from the top 4. In a major tennis tournament there are in truth 8 guys that have a chance and the winner is more then 75% likely to come from the 4 top seeds. In a 9-ball tournament there are about 40 guys that have a shot, and noone is "likely" to be there at the end because the game is simply not hard enough to make a top echelon pro's skills assure him victory over a really good amature.

Gone are the days of Mosconi where the game was sufficiently tough to allow a guy like Mosconi to become the clear top player in the world over people like Caras, Ponzi, Crane, and other really great players in their own right. If they had played 11 game races of 9-ball Mosconi could not have been as dominant or held the world title like he did. The game is simply too fickle to allow the true best to dominate. And that sucks in a sport.

If the money was right I would clean friggin toilets for a living. That arguement is moot, seriously give me a million bucks a year and I will go scrubbing. Does not mean cleaning toilets is a kick ass job. And the players playing 9-ball because that is where the money is does not mean it is a kick ass game.

very thought provoking commentary. I think the shift toward more and more 10 ball tournaments at the pro level shows this sentiment

 

[AtLarge]

Rotation may be the best and toughest game of them all. It encompasses everything that it takes to play good pool. A Race To Five is a good match.

I'd sure like to see a tournament like that.

Jay, do you like the way Rotation is scored (first one to 61 points wins)? Or is there a better way to score than having the first 10 balls worth 55 points and the last 5 balls worth 65 points? Have you ever seen any other scoring methods used?

 

[JarnoV]

If the money was right, the players would play Six Ball! Yes you heard me right. And guess what, the best players would still win! You heard that right too!

I'm with Jay on this. I think the spread in major tournaments' results is surprisingly small. There are upsets here and there and rarely does one single player dominate for years on, but the top few finishes in major pool tournaments are very rarely big surprises.

I don't think 9-ball, and US Open 9-ball in particular, is doomed. I did start a topic on "eliminating luck", but it was more about making the 9-ball on the break (rack your own and making the nine in bottom two corners). I do think that the best players come out on top in US Open 9-ball.