UK Too Slow

[JAM]

Payball is played with six balls on a snooker table….with money on every ball…double on last one….nine ball rules.
….the reason for money on every ball is that too many early balls are insignificant otherwise.
On traditional pool pockets, often the fight on the early balls is to see who wins the game because the victor runs out.
Tight pockets changes the game to a game that is NOT fast and furious and not as watchable.

Interestingly, Keith McCready said Cliff Thorburn came to California when Keith was in his prime. They played payball on a snooker table. I think it was "Big Bertha," the table name. Keith said he could never beat Cliff at snooker on that table, but He did beat him in payball for $1,600. And Cliff then quit. Interestingly how in this instance, it's not the size of the ball or the pockets that excelled Keith against Cliff, yet Keith said he'd have no chance against Cliff in snooker.

 

[FastManners]

Some pool players will play slowly however big the pockets are. The usual suspects have been boring the pants off of their opponents and viewers for years. They are able to play at a faster tempo as they do, when a shot clock is introduced, so you have to ask yourself why they feel the need to play so slowly earlier in a tournament.
In my opinion, purposeful slow play is far more of a shark move than a nervous kid tapping his chair during his opponents shot.

 

[Badpenguin]

Matchroom needs some second opinions on table specs, because whoever has their ear on them is causing them to shoot themselves in the foot. You obviously can't just adjust pocket sizes between different table manufacturers when the shelves, rails, rubber, and pocket facings are different.

The audience, me included, wants to see runouts and break and runs during 9 ball. They want to see a quicker game than the other games, it is what distinguishes 9 ball from them. What I am seeing is no longer 9 ball. I have no interest in watching 4 - 10 inning 9 ball games between the world's best players. I'll go watch practically ANY of the other disciplines for that. That is 9 ball pool that you won't see anywhere else, because no one else would want to play it. No pool halls or tournaments are going to alter their tables to make them unplayable and the play unwatchable like that.

Matchroom should screw with snooker so that it is next to impossible to achieve a maximum break or run a century and see how quickly they lose their audience.

I've loved what they have done so far, but they are losing me now.

 

[trob]

Interestingly, Keith McCready said Cliff Thorburn came to California when Keith was in his prime. They played payball on a snooker table. I think it was "Big Bertha," the table name. Keith said he could never beat Cliff at snooker on that table, but He did beat him in payball for $1,600. And Cliff then quit. Interestingly how in this instance, it's not the size of the ball or the pockets that excelled Keith against Cliff, yet Keith said he'd have no chance against Cliff in snooker.

Well there is a reason when pool players try to get on the snooker tour they can’t . If they could they would have with the money snooker paid out compared to American pool but snooker is a completely different animal.

 

[Swighey]

purposeful slow play

Said it before and I'll say it again. The main reason elite players "play slow" when there is no shot clock is that they actually need time to work out which is the optimal shot for them at that particular time for that particular non-routine shot.

Their opponents don't complain. Folk on the internet do though but most don't.

Nothing wrong with shot clocks for TV, it's the same rule for everyone. But the main reason that elite players take their time on big shots when they can is that we all should in a similar spot. They are not sharking each other, they are playing pool.

 

[skogstokig]

Matchroom needs some second opinions on table specs, because whoever has their ear on them is causing them to shoot themselves in the foot. You obviously can't just adjust pocket sizes between different table manufacturers when the shelves, rails, rubber, and pocket facings are different.

The audience, me included, wants to see runouts and break and runs during 9 ball. They want to see a quicker game than the other games, it is what distinguishes 9 ball from them. What I am seeing is no longer 9 ball. I have no interest in watching 4 - 10 inning 9 ball games between the world's best players. I'll go watch practically ANY of the other disciplines for that. That is 9 ball pool that you won't see anywhere else, because no one else would want to play it. No pool halls or tournaments are going to alter their tables to make them unplayable and the play unwatchable like that.

Matchroom should screw with snooker so that it is next to impossible to achieve a maximum break or run a century and see how quickly they lose their audience.

I've loved what they have done so far, but they are losing me now.

they did. or rather the table mechanics did, presumably without intent, this recent world championships. the results were much fewer centuries, no maximum and in general a lot of struggling to adapt. was like night and day from last year

 

[Badpenguin]

they did. or rather the table mechanics did, presumably without intent, this recent world championships. the results were much fewer centuries, no maximum and in general a lot of struggling to adapt. was like night and day from last year

Was not aware of that! I assumed that the specs for snooker equipment were well established and that it would take an act of Parliament to change them.

 

[pt109]

I guess it’s a fine line. You don’t want buckets that they never miss but you don’t want them to tight that they don’t take on the tougher shots that 9 ball is popular for.
I know I give golf analogies a lot butttttttt I don’t watch the us open. Why? They make the course so hard that even the best golfers in the world with the fastest swings can’t get out of the rough. All they can do is chop it back in the fairway but that takes away the amazing saving shots that they are capable of making. The greens are so fast even they can’t hold the greens and putting is insane that they can barely touch the ball and it rolls forever . It’s just not fun to watch. I don‘t want Them playing driver pitching wedge all day but I also don’t want to see them on a course so hard that even they can’t score and show off all the skills they perfected that makes it fun to watch. There’s a fine line between to easy and stupidly hard. Both are bad.

I like your golf analogies…..I didn’t pick up a cue till I was 17…I was a scratch golfer.

 

[skogstokig]

Was not aware of that! I assumed that the specs for snooker equipment were well established and that it would take an act of Parliament to change them.

there's a template, pt109 posted a picture of it earlier in the thread.. but the table is assembled on site and individual mechanics can influence it. it was a couple millimeter difference from last year (which in turn may have been a little loose).

that, and atlarge's stats for UK open, shows how fickle it is! in both examples it was just millimeters and it made a massive difference.

 

[Ghost of OBC]

there's a template, pt109 posted a picture of it earlier in the thread.. but the table is assembled on site and individual mechanics can influence it. it was a couple millimeter difference from last year (which in turn may have been a little loose).

that, and atlarge's stats for UK open, shows how fickle it is! in both examples it was just millimeters and it made a massive difference.

This obliquely raises a related point. Standardization would probably go a long way to encourage more sports books to take another look at pool. Betting on snooker in the UK is a big deal. But, if you have variable at the whim of organizers or mechanics, that is a source of exploitable advantage for betting against the bookies. It sounds like this instance was an accident, but with the endlessly variable nature of pooltables, it seems more exploitable.

 

[nataddrho]

I've never watched pool for entertainment, so I can't relate much to being bored waiting for "excitement". I only watch to study the game. However I don't watch sports, or TV for that matter. Barely even movies. Some people treat keeping track of brackets and player stats as part of the hobby, which is great! I have a friend that knows everything there is to know about baseball stats which is very impressive to me.

Playing itself is my entertainment and meditation... not watching it. Or doing something creative, not passive. I think if the target audience are consumers and not students, then the content needs to be entertaining, so a shot clock makes sense. Otherwise the schematic European play is more like watching chess to study the game than to eat wings and drink beers on a rainy Sunday.

 

[Badpenguin]

Well there is a reason when pool players try to get on the snooker tour they can’t . If they could they would have with the money snooker paid out compared to American pool but snooker is a completely different animal.

I live in a metropolitan area with a population of over 700,000. There _may be_ one snooker table in public pool rooms in this area. This probably has more to do with why pool players aren't tripping over themselves trying to get onto a snooker tour. Americans aren't interested in snooker, at all.

 

[skogstokig]

This obliquely raises a related point. Standardization would probably go a long way to encourage more sports books to take another look at pool. Betting on snooker in the UK is a big deal. But, if you have variable at the whim of organizers or mechanics, that is a source of exploitable advantage for betting against the bookies. It sounds like this instance was an accident, but with the endlessly variable nature of pooltables, it seems more exploitable.

yes, but tighter tables usually favors odds favorites so the end results were kind of weird. i guess one constant is always the old adage "they're both playing on the same table".. but it's unfair to the players as a collective, who have practiced on one kind of pocket size, which often is an investment..

 

[trob]

I live in a metropolitan area with a population of over 700,000. There _may be_ one snooker table in public pool rooms in this area. This probably has more to do with why pool players aren't tripping over themselves trying to get onto a snooker tour. Americans aren't interested in snooker, at all.

I won’t argue with that. 35 years of playing and I’ve seen one in person 1 time lol

 

[Badpenguin]

yes, but tighter tables usually favors odds favorites so the end results were kind of weird. i guess one constant is always the old adage "they're both playing on the same table".. but it's unfair to the players as a collective, who have practiced on one kind of pocket size, which often is an investment..

Matchroom broke the adage of the cream of the crop will rise to the top. In the case of the UK open, these ridiculous pockets had the opposite effect. Even with Filler being ill, there is just no way that Capito should have won against Filler and Gorst in back to back matches. In no other circumstances will that ever happen again.

 

[sjm]

yes, but tighter tables usually favors odds favorites so the end results were kind of weird. i guess one constant is always the old adage "they're both playing on the same table".. but it's unfair to the players as a collective, who have practiced on one kind of pocket size, which often is an investment..

I really don't agree with this. Crazy tight pockets alter the skills needed to win, and they ensure the weaker players many more trips to the table.

It is a myth that tight pockets necessarily favor the straightest shooters. Obviously, being a straight shooter is part of the winning formula, and it is occasionally enough, but it is not usually enough. Superior pattern play, defense and kicking are far more important on these super-tight tables than on looser tables, while the break, as At Large's statistics evidence, is less important.

The pockets at the UK Open made some very fine players look flawed, and, in my opinion, doesn't make professional pool an easier sell to the masses. Obviously, Matchroom feels otherwise, and I'll respect their judgment.

 

[Flakeandrun]

Well there is a reason when pool players try to get on the snooker tour they can’t . If they could they would have with the money snooker paid out compared to American pool but snooker is a completely different animal.

Show me a handful of pool players that can score a 50+ break on a snooker table... (I think I read here somewhere that Mizerak played a bit, but not seen him notch more than 40 on the tube of you). Show me fifty handfuls of snooker players who can run 9 balls on a 9footer.

The crossover tends to go one way, would happen more too if there was more money in pool...

Snooker is a much more time consuming, and technique driven beast. Totally different animals. Pool can be bent and shaped in various ways, just look at the sheer number of differing styles and how wildly successful something totally unorthodox can be. The same cannot be said about snooker. Where variance does exist, but there are certain essential fundamentals that cannot be done without.

I found coming from snooker to pool, at first easy, and with longer time playing the different iterations of pool, more and more difficult. Choosing what to keep, or what to drop from my cue action. Learning the different aspects of play etc.

Myself, never more than an average snooker player (played for the 4th time this year last week and popped in a 70 break in a losing cause against my friend 4-1 in a best of 7 - was over the moon with that to be honest, considering I don't play so much anymore - I've never passed a century, even when I was playing 2 hours a day), but I do have a father who is an effortless and gifted player, still notching up 100s while playing only twice a week in summer, and four times a week in winter.

 

[jbart65]

It’s hard to know for sure how the tight pockets hurt or helped players. Yes, lesser players might have gotten more trips to the table, but they weren’t missing much in the final 32, final 16 and quarters finals. It was like the tables were normal to them. Their flaws and inconsistencies didn’t really show until the semis.

Nor did the tighter pockets elevate players who were better at pattern play, kicking and defense. None of the final four were known to be exceptional in any of those areas relative to the likes of Filler, Gorst, the Ko brothers, Ouschan, etc.

At this point I am more likely to chalk it up to chance, much like when all the No. 1 seeds are knocked out of the NCAA tourney before the Elite 8 or final 4. So many good players now, it was bound to happen. Maybe the pocket change contributed, but the top players will adapt quickly.

 

[Flakeandrun]

I really don't agree with this. Crazy tight pockets alter the skills needed to win, and they ensure the weaker players many more trips to the table.

I read someone else in another thread, saying the a champion archer (marksman?) didn't care how big the bullseye was. Dead center is dead center on any board. I liked this analogy with reference to tighter pockets.

It is a myth that tight pockets necessarily favor the straightest shooters. Obviously, being a straight shooter is part of the winning formula, and it is occasionally enough, but it is not usually enough. Superior pattern play, defense and kicking are far more important on these super-tight tables than on looser tables, while the break, as At Large's statistics evidence, is less important.

The pockets at the UK Open made some very fine players look flawed, and, in my opinion, doesn't make professional pool an easier sell to the masses. Obviously, Matchroom feels otherwise, and I'll respect their judgment.

A lot of it is to level up the middling players and create some drama I feel.

 

[sjm]

At this point I am more likely to chalk it up to chance, much like when all the No. 1 seeds are knocked out of the NCAA tourney before the Elite 8 or final 4.

I don't think it's entirely chance when not one of the Fargo Top 50 reaches the last day of a Matchroom major. I predict this won't happen again in the next five years in a Matchroom major.

I'd compare this occurrence, in terms of probability, to none of the teams found in the final AP rankings (meaning Top 25) reaching the semis in the NCAA basketball tournament.