Time limit instead of shot clock

here's an idea, how about for 9 and 10 ball they just have a 20 second clock shot? I mean, it's literally rotation and the way top players play, each rack is usually over in minutes. give them one extension in case any thought needs to be given for a safe play.
 
kujuj said:
it takes like 3 hours for a field of 8 to have a race to 4 and 3...a race to 4 should only take 10 minutes on average...not 30.
Click to expand...

10 minutes to play possibly 7 games of pool? Thats like 1 minute and 26 seconds per game. Even if you go 4-0 thats still only 2 minutes and 30 seconds per game. That sounds like you want to play speed pool. Im all for a 30-45 second shot clock but I like to walk around the table shot to shot so I know my position is going to be correct. I dont like to blast a ball in a hope the cue ball rolls perfectly into position by some dumb luck, that sounds like that may be your style though.
 
kujuj said:
Your analogy is flawed. If a player can run a rack in half the time you can...he is the better player. In a marathon, if one runner finishes in 2 hours and another in 3 hours...they both finished the race, but who is the better runner?
Click to expand...

Why make it so complicated? Its pretty easy to figure out who the better player is, its the one who wins the most games, it has nothing to do with time. Have you been losing a lot to people who do not run around the table? Being the best player in the shortest amount of time at your local bar is kinda holds as much relevance as being the best softball player in Greenland.
 
So basically forget about an epic safety battle, If it is too good, both players run out of time...

OP I think you are creating a problem that doesn't exist. Shot clock works and works well. Both players have the same amount of time to complete a shot.
 
kujuj said:
Your analogy is flawed. If a player can run a rack in half the time you can...he is the better player. In a marathon, if one runner finishes in 2 hours and another in 3 hours...they both finished the race, but who is the better runner?
Click to expand...

Speaking of flawed analogies. See, you have to understand how an analogy works, and you clearly do not. The dragster-formula 1 analogy is not perfect, in that it still implies that an element of speed is valued. In both situations, the drivers are attempting to perform their tasks associated with their given discipline as quickly as possible. This is not the case in pool The game itself does not place any value on the time it takes to complete the tasks. The analogy indicates that the skills required to achieve the fastest time are different in each discipline. Which gets *closer* to the idea that it is something other than speed that is valued in the task, but falls short in that it still highlights speed as the primary value. The marathon analogy is vastly less applicable, because in that analogy speed is the *only* value. Kujuj is assuming that that game of pool values speed.
This is at best an opinion, which many do not agree with. Simply ask 100 pool players of all levels: who is the better pool player, the guy that runs 8 racks often at a leisurely pace, or the guy that runs 2 racks often at a fast pace? Obviously the first guy is likely to win more matches, and the principle value in pool is *winning matches*, not speed. The person that wins the most matches against the highest level of competition is the best player. That is the value upon which pool and many games like it are built.
In my opinion, some of the best pool players are the most patient. Running around the table and taking 10 seconds per shot simply makes no comment whatsoever on the players ability to accomplish the goals of a pool match, except in so much as the player is able to stay within whatever time constraints are placed on the match.

KMRUNOUT
 
kujuj said:
speed should be a factor in pool....
Click to expand...

This is the statement that needs defending. So far, I have not heard any justification for this statement. *Why* should speed be valued? Placing a time limit per shot or per match is fine, for obvious practical reasons. However, the time limit is NOT there to enhance the game of pool, it is there to allow the games to be completed in a timely manner thus facilitating a tournament schedule. Should someone that takes 5 seconds per shot be considered "better" than someone that takes 6 seconds per shot? That makes little sense to me.

KMRUNOUT
 
For safety battles, the player would get a full 30 seconds. Anytime not used and banked/accumulated in the chess clock.

You can still have epic safety battles and grind out your opponent. Let's take a 3 inning battle. Player A averages 15 seconds, so he will have up to 45 seconds accumulated to use as an extension. Player B, averaging full 30 seconds will not.

They're both given the same allotted time, its how they want to use it.


DCS_SF said:
So basically forget about an epic safety battle, If it is too good, both players run out of time...

OP I think you are creating a problem that doesn't exist. Shot clock works and works well. Both players have the same amount of time to complete a shot.
Click to expand...
 
I like your idea. I HATE shot clocks. I would rather see a player make their best possible shot, not just the best shot they can come up with in 30 seconds. But if we have to have timed shots, I would much prefer the system you suggest.
 
What, Me Hurry?...

As a friend of mine said when the league was making rules to shorten NFL games, "Why are we in such a hurry to get our fun over with???"
 
fastone371 wrote........."holds as much relevance as being the best softball player in Greenland."

That's hysterical......just a great satirical quip ........ comedic ridicule often sums things up the best.


Matt B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top