Unacceptable 14.1 Worlds

[Island Drive]

Here's a quote from the front page article of AZ.

''''''The matches went longer than expected, and lasted to 3:00am before finished. But a large number of die hard fans stayed till the very end including for the closing ceremonies.'''''

How many times have we heard that above quote. If this is true.


This above statement doesn't bode well for the public viewers and the sport, especially those that may have to work the following day and or paid for seats for the Finals already, then realizing THEY MIGHT PLAY WELL INTO THE NEXT DAY. I would be upset. What if I wanted to bring my kids to watch this great event?

And as always, only the die hards were left......duh, who didn't know that.

I'm in NO way knocking CW's efforts, but come on, get it right for the public.

 

[JAM]

Here's a quote from the front page article of AZ.

''''''The matches went longer than expected, and lasted to 3:00am before finished. But a large number of die hard fans stayed till the very end including for the closing ceremonies.'''''

How many times have we heard that above quote. If this is true.


This above statement doesn't bode well for the public viewers and the sport, especially those that may have to work the following day and or paid for seats for the Finals already, then realizing THEY MIGHT PLAY WELL INTO THE NEXT DAY. I would be upset. What if I wanted to bring my kids to watch this great event?

And as always, only the die hards were left......duh, who didn't know that.

I'm in NO way knocking CW's efforts, but come on, get it right for the public.

Very true. This ain't CW's first rodeo when it comes to this 14.1 tournament, either. You would think that an effort would be made to either shorten the player field or lengthen the days of the tournament. One or the other.

I will say that some players are slow which could hold up the charts. No offense to Charlie, but he does seem to stroke the ball numerous times, as well as getting up and down, before he pulls the trigger. That's okay if time isn't an issue.

They should do it like the IPT did it. After a certain period of time allotted for the match, the person who had the highest score wins. End of problem. :smile:

 

[BobTfromIL]

I gave up on watching the final match, too late for me. I think that the race to 200 for the final 16 was more than was necessary. A race to 150 with the finals being a race to 200 would be fine with me.

 

[Mickey Qualls]

....... They should do it like the IPT did it. After a certain period of time allotted for the match, the person who had the highest score wins. End of problem. :smile:

The event(s) are held at indoor venues. It's not like golf for instance, where they have to contend with weather conditions.

My only caveat with calling the match after a certain period is that if a slow player is doggin' you and manages to play a few jam-up safeties (that net him a game or two), then he will get rewarded for his slow play by moving on.
A teammate of mine was playing in a tournament against an extremely slow player on the left side of the chart. Eight ball in a race to three. After 3 hours the score was 2-1 in favor of his opponent. Ugh !!!
The TD (who was lax with the slow player because "that's the way he plays") came over and wanted to call the match, 2-1, IN FAVOR OF THE SLOW PLAYER !!!!
I beat my buddy to the TD (I felt I had a right to an opinion, as I bought my teammate in the calcutta), and argued quite convincingly that he, the TD, KNEW of the opponent's slow play earlier in the day (if not prior to the tournament). If time was indeed a factor, then the TD should have addressed that earlier.
Much to the dismay and chagrin of the remaining players in the tournament, the match commenced. After a few "WTF" discussions and other such colorful phrases uttered from a few of the players, they began to understand the reasoning behind my stance in the matter.
A) I bought him in the calcutta. He goes, and I lose money on a technicality that should have been addressed at the start of the tournament.
B) How would they like to be in my buddy's shoes, and get penalized for the opponent's slow play ?
Needless to say, that was the last time we played in any of that TD's tournaments.

I would suggest using a chess-type time clock. That way, the 'slow player' is the one paying the penalty for his/her slow play.

Just my $.02..............

 

[dmgwalsh]

World 14.1 Championship game

I was there and it did last until 3:00 a.m. One of the quarter finals had to start early Friday instead of late Thursday. They had to spend all night breaking down the tables and setting up the arena for the last day. Some players did take a little time on their shots, but a time clock was instituted. The time factor, however, impacted on how we were rooting. When one player went far ahead, some of us hoped he would finish off the other to make the match end earlier. I am a die-hard fan, but an early flight out the next morning and the prospect of no sleep affected my enjoyment of the game.

That being said, I think Charlie, Cindy, John Leyman and all involved did a great job with the tournament, especially considering Hurricane Irene and its aftermath. I lost a little sleep, but I was able to watch tons of world class straight pool and I am happy about that.

I was keeping score on my ipad and I attach some screenshots of the Finals for your viewing pleasure. I understand the videos of the live feed will be up on youtube in about a week, thanks to Inside Pool and J.R. Calvert and his crew.

 

[Nostroke]

I think the round robin format with a race to 100 is too easy. I mean going to 100 is a 1-3 inning race for most of these guys right. Kinda like a cointoss really, where one player just shuts the guy out with a couple good runs and a safety. My high run is 106 and I can regularly get 50-70 when it's flowing. Perhaps 200 the whole way through?

In the end though it seems it all worked out. Hohman is a 14.1 monster player and certainly in the top 3 expected to win it. Such a beautiful game when you see it played right, thanks Charlie for keeping it going.

If you look at the top finishers in each bracket, the results of the RR were pretty muchin line with the pedigree of the Players. It's not one game to 100-It's 7 and the luck factor evens out.

 

[CreeDo]

The way I see it, no matter what measures we might take to make 14.1 an enjoyable spectator sport, they're doomed. A good inning is 50 'easy' shots in a row with great position, followed by a toughie or a safe. You might see 0 kicks or banks or jumps over the course of 300+ balls being sunk.

There is simply no cure for the sport's inherent dullness even if you love it. It's ok to admit it... some things aren't as fun to watch as to play. If you made all of the suggested changes to the matches, you might increase the number of spectators from 20 to 25. It's never gonna be the super bowl.

Often what's good for the players is directly opposite what's good for the spectators. If you implement time clocks or cut the game off early, you're robbing the players for the benefit of the fans (and I do mean robbing... a tournament is a match for money).

Instead of trying to dress up 14.1 to make it something it will never be, how about we just let the players decide the format they think is fairest and let them play as long as they want, so that we can be sure the best player (not the guy with the fastest rhythm) wins?

 

[pt109]

B) How would they like to be in my buddy's shoes, and get penalized for the opponent's slow play ?


I would suggest using a chess-type time clock. That way, the 'slow player' is the one paying the penalty for his/her slow play.

Just my $.02..............

I think that's a great idea..a chess clock solves the problem.
This way, a slow player is only punching his OWN ticket

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The way I see it, no matter what measures we might take to make 14.1 an enjoyable spectator sport, they're doomed. A good inning is 50 'easy' shots in a row with great position, followed by a toughie or a safe. You might see 0 kicks or banks or jumps over the course of 300+ balls being sunk.

There is simply no cure for the sport's inherent dullness even if you love it. It's ok to admit it... some things aren't as fun to watch as to play. If you made all of the suggested changes to the matches, you might increase the number of spectators from 20 to 25. It's never gonna be the super bowl.

Often what's good for the players is directly opposite what's good for the spectators. If you implement time clocks or cut the game off early, you're robbing the players for the benefit of the fans (and I do mean robbing... a tournament is a match for money).

Instead of trying to dress up 14.1 to make it something it will never be, how about we just let the players decide the format they think is fairest and let them play as long as they want, so that we can be sure the best player (not the guy with the fastest rhythm) wins?

That's true with ANY pool game, not just 14.1. Ask anyone who doesn't play pool what they think when pool comes on TV.

Pool is boring as hell unless you're a die hard in general. Maybe if Blair succeeds with his PPP and throws poker and punches into the mix, the general population will give a hell on what happens with pool. Unless there's gambling, shit-talking and Scooter-like or Earl-like rants --- it's Zzzzzzz for the average Joe.

 

[Cameron Smith]

The tournament should have been run till Saturday at least. I don't understand not having the finals on the weekend considering many people work during the week. The other factor is they probably should have played the Charlie Williams, Mike Davis Semi-Final on another table off camera whilst Thorsten and Alex were playing their match. Especially considering the previous match went 5 hours.

I've suggested this in the past, but few people seemed interested. But i've tried playing a format a couple of times where instead of playing to a set number of points (200 point game, 100 point game), you play within an alloted time limit. So, set a 2 hour match and both players try to score as much as they can within the alloted 2 hours. This is a fairly common format in English Billiards tournaments. However those players play much quicker on average than many pool players.

 

[Scott Lee]

The fact that CW et al decided to change the format, in the middle of the tournament, does not bode well for a "professional" image, imo. There were several matches that spanned 5 hrs. That too is ridiculous.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

 

[dr9ball]

The way I see it, no matter what measures we might take to make 14.1 an enjoyable spectator sport, they're doomed. A good inning is 50 'easy' shots in a row with great position, followed by a toughie or a safe. You might see 0 kicks or banks or jumps over the course of 300+ balls being sunk.

There is simply no cure for the sport's inherent dullness even if you love it. It's ok to admit it... some things aren't as fun to watch as to play. If you made all of the suggested changes to the matches, you might increase the number of spectators from 20 to 25. It's never gonna be the super bowl.

Often what's good for the players is directly opposite what's good for the spectators. If you implement time clocks or cut the game off early, you're robbing the players for the benefit of the fans (and I do mean robbing... a tournament is a match for money).

Instead of trying to dress up 14.1 to make it something it will never be, how about we just let the players decide the format they think is fairest and let them play as long as they want, so that we can be sure the best player (not the guy with the fastest rhythm) wins?

People have surely changed over time. In the distant past, pool tournaments were packed with people watching pool matches. Of course back in the day most of the fans and players wore suits. We've come a long way since then.

 

[alstl]

The way I see it, no matter what measures we might take to make 14.1 an enjoyable spectator sport, they're doomed. A good inning is 50 'easy' shots in a row with great position, followed by a toughie or a safe. You might see 0 kicks or banks or jumps over the course of 300+ balls being sunk.

There is simply no cure for the sport's inherent dullness even if you love it. It's ok to admit it... some things aren't as fun to watch as to play. If you made all of the suggested changes to the matches, you might increase the number of spectators from 20 to 25. It's never gonna be the super bowl.

Often what's good for the players is directly opposite what's good for the spectators. If you implement time clocks or cut the game off early, you're robbing the players for the benefit of the fans (and I do mean robbing... a tournament is a match for money).

Instead of trying to dress up 14.1 to make it something it will never be, how about we just let the players decide the format they think is fairest and let them play as long as they want, so that we can be sure the best player (not the guy with the fastest rhythm) wins?

That depends on your attention span. The skill level required is greater than other games and therefore limits the number of players who play the game. A limited number of people playing the game leads to a limited number of fans.

I agree with a previous comment about race to 200 for the final 16. That is ridiculous. 150 is plenty, perhaps 200 for the finals. They also need a shot clock for guys like Charlie Williams, and I'm not trying to slam him because it is great that he has revived the world 14.1 championships but it is a simple fact.

I doubt if most people who paid for the live stream stayed up until 3 am to watch the finals.

 

[Mickey Qualls]

Instead of trying to dress up 14.1 to make it something it will never be, how about we just let the players decide the format they think is fairest and let them play as long as they want, so that we can be sure the best player (not the guy with the fastest rhythm) wins?

Not trying to bash here, CreeDo,

I agree with your post to an extent. If two guys are playing a money game (not a tournament game), then yeah, I feel they can take as much time as they want.

When it comes to an organized event, however, whether there's a time clock or you cut the match off early, there has to be some sort of organization somewhere. Especially in a tournament, things have to keep moving.
Of course there's no way to know beforehand how long a match may take. So if a tournament were to allow a match to be 'open-ended', with no type of formal ending point, you'd have to start the tournament on a Monday morning to allow for even the possibility of a long match.

In an perfect world, everyone could play at thier own pace, with no issues.

But in all honesty, if someone doesn't have the ability or confidence to drive thier car over 25 mph, then maybe they shouldn't be on the highway.

Just my $.02........

Mickey

 

[JarnoV]

That's true with ANY pool game, not just 14.1. Ask anyone who doesn't play pool what they think when pool comes on TV.

Pool is boring as hell unless you're a die hard in general. Maybe if Blair succeeds with his PPP and throws poker and punches into the mix, the general population will give a hell on what happens with pool. Unless there's gambling, shit-talking and Scooter-like or Earl-like rants --- it's Zzzzzzz for the average Joe.

I'm sure there's a huge difference between a 14.1 tournament compared to something like Mosconi Cup or World Cup of Pool. In fact, I've heard positive comments of the latter from my non pool playing friends. It's not that much about the inherent qualities of the sport but the tension and excitement built up by the format. I think 14.1, as a spectator sport, mostly lacks all of this, but 9-ball/10-ball can be developed into a production that could be sold to wider public.

 

[lfigueroa]

Here's a quote from the front page article of AZ.

''''''The matches went longer than expected, and lasted to 3:00am before finished. But a large number of die hard fans stayed till the very end including for the closing ceremonies.'''''

How many times have we heard that above quote. If this is true.


This above statement doesn't bode well for the public viewers and the sport, especially those that may have to work the following day and or paid for seats for the Finals already, then realizing THEY MIGHT PLAY WELL INTO THE NEXT DAY. I would be upset. What if I wanted to bring my kids to watch this great event?

And as always, only the die hards were left......duh, who didn't know that.

I'm in NO way knocking CW's efforts, but come on, get it right for the public.

Isn't it really just bad planning?

You start off the week with 64 guys, let them play round robin, THEN you still have 32 guys, start a double elimination tournament at *noon Thursday, matches to 200, expecting to end at a reasonable hour on Friday?!

That's nuts.

Anyone know how many tables they had available?

Lou Figueroa

 

[CreeDo]

So, set a 2 hour match and both players try to score as much as they can within the alloted 2 hours. This is a fairly common format in English Billiards tournaments. However those players play much quicker on average than many pool players.

How's this work though, can't someone build up a small lead then just sit on it and play safe for the rest of the time slot?

I'm visualizing this leading to even more cautious and boring play than the alternative >_<

 

[CreeDo]

Not trying to bash here, CreeDo,

I agree with your post to an extent. If two guys are playing a money game (not a tournament game), then yeah, I feel they can take as much time as they want.

When it comes to an organized event, however, whether there's a time clock or you cut the match off early, there has to be some sort of organization somewhere. Especially in a tournament, things have to keep moving.

I can respect that, especially when a bunch of players are waiting on the one slowpoke. I would think though that a round robin would allow you to keep matches flowing, as long as there's a table open. If someone is dragging their ass, that's ok cuz I got 10 other guys I'm supposed to play, so there's always forward progress.

Whereas a traditional bracketed tournament, you might have a guy waiting on a match that's two brackets back to finish, and 50% of the remaining matches can't be played until that one bottleneck is dealt with.

You'd also think pros who can run out the match in just 2 or 3 innings wouldn't have this problem.

Still, if any changes are made to speed things up, they need to be for the benefit of the other players, not the fans. Boring 50 spectators doesn't bother me half as much as forcing 6 tournament players to wait on me.

 

[Island Drive]

Still, if any changes are made to speed things up, they need to be for the benefit of the other players, not the fans. Boring 50 spectators doesn't bother me half as much as forcing 6 tournament players to wait on me.

I totally disagree with this part of your post. ALL sports rely totally on spectators to create value, gate, vendor sales, increase in youth play and success too be accepted by the public. By not adressing their needs, your actually hurting the game, the players and the potential increase in prize funds down the road. It's selfish to only think of the players. Our sport in the states needs all the help it can get to be accepted in our current social climate and future.

 

[dmgwalsh]

I think that's a great idea..a chess clock solves the problem.
This way, a slow player is only punching his OWN ticket

Some of the games, players would be put on the clock. Each player had x amount of time to shoot. I think it was 45 seconds. I wish the clock had been on from the beginning of the game.

Lou:

There were 11 tables until Friday when there was only one.