Todays Pros....

[CJ Wiley]

It would be even more evident that who the best players are

Are you for real?
You don't know how good today's players are cause they play 1 foul

It would be even more evident that who the best players are playing "Roll Out"....weaker players have a chance playing one foul, they have absolutely no chance playing Roll Out.

There's a lot more strategy playing Roll Out and the "two way shot" comes up way more than in one foul. When we were all traveling on the road back in the 80s no one would gamble playing one foul, it was considered too lucky.

When balls are tied up playing one foul, you run down to them and play a "lock up" safe and put the guy in "jail". In Roll Out you are forced to try to break them out and run out, it creates a MUCH more offensive game.

 

[ironman]

It would be even more evident that who the best players are playing "Roll Out"....weaker players have a chance playing one foul, they have absolutely no chance playing Roll Out.

There's a lot more strategy playing Roll Out and the "two way shot" comes up way more than in one foul. When we were all traveling on the road back in the 80s no one would gamble playing one foul, it was considered too lucky.

When balls are tied up playing one foul, you run down to them and play a "lock up" safe and put the guy in "jail". In Roll Out you are forced to try to break them out and run out, it creates a MUCH more offensive game.

It was a different game than today altogether. It also brought the bank shot back in the game. If you could not bank or couldn't catch onto the table, you would look at them all night.
Many, many sets were won/lost with a spot shot too
The 8 or last two were bigger spots then with roll out. Have the 8 and 9 on opposite end rails and pushing to the long bank pput pressure on the one giving up the weight. he was often looking at two long banks.

 

[JAM]

This is actually an interesting rules debate: two-shot/push-out versus one-foul/ball-in-hand.

Keith said that when they changed the rules, he thinks it make 9-ball more a luck game than one of skill. I think Keith has a tendency to lean on his shot-making skills than strategy sometimes. I've seen him go for shots that Nick Varner or Ralf Souquet would most definitely play a safety. When he makes those offensive shots, the crowd erupts in to a loud roar, but when he misses, he looks foolish for going for a difficult shot when he could have played that safety.

This topic has come up a lot on AzBilliards. Interestingly, I seem to recall that Billy Incardona believes that today's rules of one-foul/ball-in-hand is tougher than yesteryear's rules of two-shot/push-out. Keith would disagree with this school of thought.

Gene Hooker, et al., put on a 10-ball tournament in Atlantic City in 2003 at the Trump Marina Casino, and they utililzed the two-shot/push-out rules. Mother Nature was cruel to this tournament. I remember we were the only car on the road driving into Atlantic City as there was a brutal snow blizzard. In fact, they closed all roads going in and out the day before the tournament was to begin.

It definitely hurt attendance. They delayed the tournament a day, hoping some players might be able to arrive. The casino adminstration wanted Gene Hooker, et al., to charge everybody admission, including the players' spouses. I always thought this practice was not fair, mainly because the spouse is funding the event as well as the player if they're a couple. I always support tournaments when I go by purchasing hats, T-shirts, jackets, whatever, but I don't feel I should have to pay a fee to walk each match, costing me an extra $200 to $300 by the end of the event. :frown:

Anyway, I digress. That 10-Ball Challenge at Trump Marina was an interesting one. A bunch of pool players snowed in at a casino. Can you imagine? Dee Adkins and Keith ended up at the off-track-betting, and Dee hit big. He also gave Keith a few tips. We made money, thanks to Dee.

There was an all-star cast there at that event. Danny Hewitt from Canada won, with King James Rempe, making a cameo appearance, coming in second place.

 

[JAM]

I want to get Dr. Billy's quote right. This is what he said ---> HERE

When Was It Decided That There Is More Luck In One Foul Opposed To Push Out??i Personally Feel That There Isn't....

...I played 2 shot roll out for years,and I differ in others opinion on less luck in 2 shot.Texas express adds more excitement to the game plus there are more decisions to make while at the table.Two shot roll out clearly favors the better shooter,and banker,while Tex ex. favors the better technician and safety player.Plus in Tex ex. the games play faster,and faster is better.

 

[BeiberLvr]

It would be even more evident that who the best players are playing "Roll Out"....weaker players have a chance playing one foul, they have absolutely no chance playing Roll Out.

There's a lot more strategy playing Roll Out and the "two way shot" comes up way more than in one foul. When we were all traveling on the road back in the 80s no one would gamble playing one foul, it was considered too lucky.

When balls are tied up playing one foul, you run down to them and play a "lock up" safe and put the guy in "jail". In Roll Out you are forced to try to break them out and run out, it creates a MUCH more offensive game.

Not sure how you get that playing a "lock up" safe is considered luck. A game that utilizes every skill in a player's arsenal is the more complete game.

What if everyone playing one pocket just broke the rack wide open and always went for their hole. Not much skill involved.

You want more offense? Try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZCVdVROj-s

 

[peteypooldude]

[QUOTE

It definitely hurt attendance. They delayed the tournament a day, hoping some players might be able to arrive. The casino adminstration wanted Gene Hooker, et al., to charge everybody admission, including the players' spouses. I always thought this practice was not fair, mainly because the spouse is funding the event as well as the player if they're a couple. I always support tournaments when I go by purchasing hats, T-shirts, jackets, whatever, but I don't feel I should have to pay a fee to walk each match, costing me an extra $200 to $300 by the end of the event. :frown:

Anyway, I digress. That 10-Ball Challenge at Trump Marina was an interesting one. A bunch of pool players snowed in at a casino. Can you imagine? Dee Adkins and Keith ended up at the off-track-betting, and Dee hit big. He also gave Keith a few tips. We made money, thanks to Dee.

There was an all-star cast there at that event. Danny Hewitt from Canada won, with King James Rempe, making a cameo appearance, coming in second place. [/QUOTE]


I bet you've collected some cool pool apparel over the years

 

[Jerry Forsyth]

I am older than Keith McCready. I was in my twenties when I first started hearing about this kid in California who walked around with a a shirt that said: "The world gets the 8 Ball".

When he was about 15 he busted a Payball game that had the best players in it you could find including Richie Florence and Ronnie Allen if my memory serves me. They would not even call their backers to try and get more money. They all had had enough.

I saw Keith (I think in Oklahoma City or Tulsa, not sure) at an event where the top guys were all playing one another for cash in the practice room. Keith walked in a laid a bankroll on a table and said: "Who wants to play for it?" Not a single hand went up.

The thing about Keith was he was absolutely fearless. His ego would allow him to play anybody and feel very confident about the outcome. And Keith would destroy his opponents not only with his stick but with his mouth. While he was eating your bankroll he would tell you how good it tasted. He could drive you nuts.

He was the total package. Shot aggressively as hell. He could pull out a safety that would lock you up but in Payball that does not really pay off that much so if he could see a ball he generally would put it in a pocket somewhere even if he had to invent a new pocket.

And folks who played him always thought they had a little edge because Keith had that simply awful side stroke that looked like it would be impossible to shoot with. I will never figure out how he made that work. Like playing the piano with your elbows.

McCready in his prime V Shane in his prime? Nobody knows. From what I have seen of both it would come down to some detail. If the match went on for 48 hours straight I would bet with Keith. "Normal' playing conditions and I would probably bet on SVB. I don't know. Even if SVB played better I do not know if he could fade all the pressure and anger that Keith could generate with his remarks. And about the time that Keith would down that 15th Budweiser and still keep shooting straight, well, I can tell you that that does unseat a lot of guys from their sanity.

Both are simply great players. Certainly among the best ever. But I will say this: Keith and all the players of his generation were a lot more fun to watch play. If pool is at all about entertainment those boys had it in spades. And a lot more folks came to watch them play.

 

[JAM]

I bet you've collected some cool pool apparel over the years

I really have.

My favorite, believe it or not, is the T-shirts from Q-Masters, Barry Behrman's pool room Norfolk, Virginia. Man, those shirts are very colorful and really cool.

I also really like the Glass City Open baseball cap.

Of course, I have a bunch of IPT paraphernalia, really unique stuff.

I also think we have a baseball cap from every horse racetrack on the East Coast.

Hmm, I wonder if I should have a virtual yard sale. :grin:

This is the logo on the back of the Q-Master's T-shirts. They're very nice!

 

[JAM]

I am older than Keith McCready. I was in my twenties when I first started hearing about this kid in California who walked around with a a shirt that said: "The world gets the 8 Ball".

When he was about 15 he busted a Payball game that had the best players in it you could find including Richie Florence and Ronnie Allen if my memory serves me. They would not even call their backers to try and get more money. They all had had enough.

I saw Keith (I think in Oklahoma City or Tulsa, not sure) at an event where the top guys were all playing one another for cash in the practice room. Keith walked in a laid a bankroll on a table and said: "Who wants to play for it?" Not a single hand went up.

The thing about Keith was he was absolutely fearless. His ego would allow him to play anybody and feel very confident about the outcome. And Keith would destroy his opponents not only with his stick but with his mouth. While he was eating your bankroll he would tell you how good it tasted. He could drive you nuts.

He was the total package. Shot aggressively as hell. He could pull out a safety that would lock you up but in Payball that does not really pay off that much so if he could see a ball he generally would put it in a pocket somewhere even if he had to invent a new pocket.

And folks who played him always thought they had a little edge because Keith had that simply awful side stroke that looked like it would be impossible to shoot with. I will never figure out how he made that work. Like playing the piano with your elbows.

McCready in his prime V Shane in his prime? Nobody knows. From what I have seen of both it would come down to some detail. If the match went on for 48 hours straight I would bet with Keith. "Normal' playing conditions and I would probably bet on SVB. I don't know. Even if SVB played better I do not know if he could fade all the pressure and anger that Keith could generate with his remarks. And about the time that Keith would down that 15th Budweiser and still keep shooting straight, well, I can tell you that that does unseat a lot of guys from their sanity.

Both are simply great players. Certainly among the best ever. But I will say this: Keith and all the players of his generation were a lot more fun to watch play. If pool is at all about entertainment those boys had it in spades. And a lot more folks came to watch them play.

I love this post! :love2:

 

[BeiberLvr]

If pool is at all about entertainment those boys had it in spades. And a lot more folks came to watch them play.

Not saying I disagree. However, any chance that more people came out to watch them play because there was no internet back then?

I think a lot of people that watch matches (today and back then) all have/had some interest in the game. The difference today is that most people just watch from the comfort of their homes.

 

[decent dennis]

It wasn't just the playing, it was the stories that the players told. Tom Ferry said it best " Listening to Louie Roberts and Roger Reel [could be wrong on spelling] talk about being busted and down, it sounded so much like fun, that you wish you were there.

 

[krupa]

Not saying I disagree. However, any chance that more people came out to watch them play because there was no internet back then?

I think a lot of people that watch matches (today and back then) all have/had some interest in the game. The difference today is that most people just watch from the comfort of their homes.

I doubt it.

 

[Taco]

I am older than Keith McCready. I was in my twenties when I first started hearing about this kid in California who walked around with a a shirt that said: "The world gets the 8 Ball".

When he was about 15 he busted a Payball game that had the best players in it you could find including Richie Florence and Ronnie Allen if my memory serves me. They would not even call their backers to try and get more money. They all had had enough.

I saw Keith (I think in Oklahoma City or Tulsa, not sure) at an event where the top guys were all playing one another for cash in the practice room. Keith walked in a laid a bankroll on a table and said: "Who wants to play for it?" Not a single hand went up.

The thing about Keith was he was absolutely fearless. His ego would allow him to play anybody and feel very confident about the outcome. And Keith would destroy his opponents not only with his stick but with his mouth. While he was eating your bankroll he would tell you how good it tasted. He could drive you nuts.

He was the total package. Shot aggressively as hell. He could pull out a safety that would lock you up but in Payball that does not really pay off that much so if he could see a ball he generally would put it in a pocket somewhere even if he had to invent a new pocket.

And folks who played him always thought they had a little edge because Keith had that simply awful side stroke that looked like it would be impossible to shoot with. I will never figure out how he made that work. Like playing the piano with your elbows.

McCready in his prime V Shane in his prime? Nobody knows. From what I have seen of both it would come down to some detail. If the match went on for 48 hours straight I would bet with Keith. "Normal' playing conditions and I would probably bet on SVB. I don't know. Even if SVB played better I do not know if he could fade all the pressure and anger that Keith could generate with his remarks. And about the time that Keith would down that 15th Budweiser and still keep shooting straight, well, I can tell you that that does unseat a lot of guys from their sanity.

Both are simply great players. Certainly among the best ever. But I will say this: Keith and all the players of his generation were a lot more fun to watch play. If pool is at all about entertainment those boys had it in spades. And a lot more folks came to watch them play.

That was a great post. Like any good pool player, it combined heart and execution. Thank you.

 

[CJ Wiley]

Think how silly Straight Pool would be if you had to "kick" at balls

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Wiley

It would be even more evident that who the best players are playing "Roll Out"....weaker players have a chance playing one foul, they have absolutely no chance playing Roll Out.

There's a lot more strategy playing Roll Out and the "two way shot" comes up way more than in one foul. When we were all traveling on the road back in the 80s no one would gamble playing one foul, it was considered too lucky.

When balls are tied up playing one foul, you run down to them and play a "lock up" safe and put the guy in "jail". In Roll Out you are forced to try to break them out and run out, it creates a MUCH more offensive game.

Not sure how you get that playing a "lock up" safe is considered luck. A game that utilizes every skill in a player's arsenal is the more complete game.

What if everyone playing one pocket just broke the rack wide open and always went for their hole. Not much skill involved.

You want more offense? Try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZCVdVROj-s

I didn't say playing a "lock up" safety was considered luck.....read the post again for clarity. The luck comes AFTER the "lock up" safety because you're "kicking at your money". The kicking part of 9 Ball has skill, but it's a different type of skill, not directly related to pocket billiards, more closely related to billiards.

Think how silly Straight Pool would be if you had to "kick" at balls or the incoming player got "ball in hand". It would ruin straight pool, and it sure didn't help 9 Ball any, just sped it up so tournaments could be run quicker. Not a very good reason imho.

Push Out makes you run the table to win, not depend on running a few balls and playing safe. One foul makes the games shorter, and some people thinks this is better, I'm not one of them. 9 Ball today, between the rules, the rack and the short races is nothing short of a carnival game, and before long the tournaments will be offering stuffed animals for first place. :groucho:

 

[raise1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Wiley

I didn't say playing a "lock up" safety was considered luck.....read the post again for clarity. The luck comes AFTER the "lock up" safety because you're "kicking at your money". The kicking part of 9 Ball has skill, but it's a different type of skill, not directly related to pocket billiards, more closely related to billiards.

Think how silly Straight Pool would be if you had to "kick" at balls or the incoming player got "ball in hand". It would ruin straight pool, and it sure didn't help 9 Ball any, just sped it up so tournaments could be run quicker. Not a very good reason imho.

Push Out makes you run the table to win, not depend on running a few balls and playing safe. One foul makes the games shorter, and some people thinks this is better, I'm not one of them. 9 Ball today, between the rules, the rack and the short races is nothing short of a carnival game, and before long the tournaments will be offering stuffed animals for first place. :groucho:

That's very harsh, and in a sense disrespectful to your pool playing peers, coming from a former great player like yourself.

The fact is great players will still be great players, no matter what. Perfect example is Johnny Archer. He was considered the best player for many years, and even though he is getting older now and have to deal with many of the ridiculous rules (as implied by you), he is still a dangerous force to be reckon with.

So rules might be different now than when you were playing, but if you think today's top young players would falter because of these different rules, well I would completely disagree.

 

[ShootingArts]

I was with you until the last sentence

You had me behind you until the last sentence. They will never give stuffed animals for first place, that would cost more than they are paying now!

Hu

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ Wiley






I didn't say playing a "lock up" safety was considered luck.....read the post again for clarity. The luck comes AFTER the "lock up" safety because you're "kicking at your money". The kicking part of 9 Ball has skill, but it's a different type of skill, not directly related to pocket billiards, more closely related to billiards.

Think how silly Straight Pool would be if you had to "kick" at balls or the incoming player got "ball in hand". It would ruin straight pool, and it sure didn't help 9 Ball any, just sped it up so tournaments could be run quicker. Not a very good reason imho.

Push Out makes you run the table to win, not depend on running a few balls and playing safe. One foul makes the games shorter, and some people thinks this is better, I'm not one of them. 9 Ball today, between the rules, the rack and the short races is nothing short of a carnival game, and before long the tournaments will be offering stuffed animals for first place. :groucho:

 

[CJ Wiley]

ask Johnny Archer I believe he will agree with me

That's very harsh, and in a sense disrespectful to your pool playing peers, coming from a former great player like yourself.

The fact is great players will still be great players, no matter what. Perfect example is Johnny Archer. He was considered the best player for many years, and even though he is getting older now and have to deal with many of the ridiculous rules (as implied by you), he is still a dangerous force to be reckon with.

So rules might be different now than when you were playing, but if you think today's top young players would falter because of these different rules, well I would completely disagree.

I don't think they would falter at all, on the contrary, I believe they would have the chance to truly dominate. If you ask Johnny Archer I believe he will agree with me, we need the game to more difficult, not easier. It's far easier now with the slick equipment, soft break, magic rack, rules, and shorter races than it was when Johnny was in his prime in the early to mid 90s.

We need a player to dominate this game like Tiger Woods dominated golf. Playing one foul races to 7 or 9 breaking soft, with a rack that allows a dead ball every time will never allow that to happen. It's pool's projection of socialism where the main objective is to keep everyone "equal" with a level playing field. The cream must be allowed to rise to the top, just like it is in every other major sport/game. This would still favor Shane, Johnny, Dennis, and the other top players, just in a way that would be clearly visible.

 

[Lock N Load]

You had me behind you until the last sentence. They will never give stuffed animals for first place, that would cost more than they are paying now!

Hu

Hello Hu,
Happy Easter to you and your family. How are you making out?
Many Regards,
Lock N Load.

 

[raise1]

I totally agree that it would be best for the game in the long term to have a dominant player, like Tiger with golf. 100% agreement there.

However, there's a major difference: Golf prize pool is mainly funded by corporate money vs. pocket billiards prize pool is mainly funded by players' entries. So if all "luck" is taken away, and only 1 or 2 or 3 certain pool players will always come out on top in a pool tournament, other players will not show up. Then there's no money for ANY players.

As easy as the game is nowadays (per you) - in any given pro tournament - if I can pick 5-10 players and give you the rest of the field, chances are you probably will have the worst end of it. So, it's really not that easy.

For the record, I think the game is way too difficult. But I am speaking from a recreational player's point of view. I think we should add a lot more "luck" to the game. Nothing wrong with recreational players like myself seeing Johnny Archer or Earl Strickland break-n-run 13 racks in a row. That's very exciting and fun. I believe that no matter how much "luck" is added to the game, at the end of the day, the cream will always rise to the top. But "lucks" will bring excitements + fun, and excitements + fun will bring $$$$$. I think you saw this as well when you made that 1 Million Dollars Challenge.

And thank you for a great conversation/discussion. I enjoy it.

And sorry for getting this thread off track.

I don't think they would falter at all, on the contrary, I believe they would have the chance to truly dominate. If you ask Johnny Archer I believe he will agree with me, we need the game to more difficult, not easier. It's far easier now with the slick equipment, soft break, magic rack, rules, and shorter races than it was when Johnny was in his prime in the early to mid 90s.

We need a player to dominate this game like Tiger Woods dominated golf. Playing one foul races to 7 or 9 breaking soft, with a rack that allows a dead ball every time will never allow that to happen. It's pool's projection of socialism where the main objective is to keep everyone "equal" with a level playing field. The cream must be allowed to rise to the top, just like it is in every other major sport/game. This would still favor Shane, Johnny, Dennis, and the other top players, just in a way that would be clearly visible.

 

[CJ Wiley]

I tournament with over 250 players will produce a NET LOSS of over $300,000

You had me behind you until the last sentence. They will never give stuffed animals for first place, that would cost more than they are paying now!

Hu

Yes, I was being faucitious of course, however, from a purely business perspective it's' better for the players to not have a tournament than to have one like they are designed these days. For Example:

If there's a tournament with 64 players and $25,000 is added it is not a positive overall effect because the net loss is approximately $71,000.

With entree fees, travel expenses and accommodations the average cost per player (CPP) is $1500. multiply this {Hard Cost} times 64, that's $96,000 minus the added money of $25,000 that's a NET LOSS of $71,000.
I tournament with over 250 players will produce a NET LOSS of over $300,000 and this is if it's NOT at a casino, at a casino it's MUCH MORE.

This is enough money to put a Billiard Show on TV every week for a month, and broadcast out to hundreds of thousands of potential, future pocket billiard enthusiasts. Would this be a more productive thing to do? Of course it would be and multiply this times 50 events in the past 10 years and it's no wonder pool has dwindled so much with the absence of televised events.

Please understand this scenario is only an example of money allocation, not a literal example of any proposed solution. The main thing is the money has always been there to have pool on TV every week, it's just being used for entry fees, travel expenses and hotel accommodations instead of TV production.

So before the players really have to play for stuffed animals maybe a few of us should get together and "brain storm" the future and what really can be done. TV Production now is cheaper than it's ever been due to lower cost of equipment, production, airtime, and there's no time like the present to make a difference.

'The Game is the Teacher'