What do you think would happen if there were no handicaps, in any leagues or tournaments, and all tournaments were Open to all skill levels?

I played a lot in the late 80's and never heard of handicaps... I never played for more than 20 either. In my home town, you just played... Fast forward to about 5 years ago and I joined a league with handicaps and I one matches against players that were obviously better than me... I just don't like it. I have started telling the TD to set my handicap to the max. I often go 2 and out but when I win, I know that it was because I shot better that night.
So I don't care if there are handicaps or not.
Billy
 
MitchAlsup said:
How would you like to:
a) play against Jack Niklaus in his prime ?
b) drive against Michael Schumacher in his prime ?
c) Basket ball against Pistol Pete in his prime ?
d) Baseball against Pete Rose in his prime ?

Yeah, I though so.
Click to expand...

I'd love it if I liked our completed in any of those sports.

I used to play competitive foosball and for a couple of years Tony Spredeman (look him up) came to our weekly tourneys. He was only #3 in the world then, tho.
 
MitchAlsup said:
How would you like to:
a) play against Jack Niklaus in his prime ?
b) drive against Michael Schumacher in his prime ?
c) Basket ball against Pistol Pete in his prime ?
d) Baseball against Pete Rose in his prime ?

Yeah, I though so.
Click to expand...

Anyone who doesn't want to compete against the best has no interest in being the best they can be, they just want a cookie. I don't need a cookie, I make my own. I want the challenge. I want to see what they do to me so I can improve.
 
garczar said:
Would you go broke doing it? The vast majority of league/tournament players are working weekend-warriors that aren't going to spend money just to go get slaughtered by players they have no chance of beating.
Click to expand...
I am totally willing to play a great player with no chance of winning. I have done it and I am sure I will have occasion to do it again. I don’t mind donating to the cause and like to see what they can do up close. And one of the great things about pool is the players are accessible. As the post above asked about playing with greats, in sports like golf and pool, ams can play against pros without being physically hurt. So many golfers have paid big money to play in pro ams. In pool it is less organized.

That said, I have limits and suspect others do too. There is only so much losing you will do with zero chance. And I don’t think it is the ideal way to learn. You have to play better players. And I think there is value in playing a top player. But only so much because you will only learn so much if you are many levels below them. So as a small piece of your playing I am all for it. Playing in a bigger local or regional tournament is a good way to do it. But simply donating to a player you can’t beat doesn’t do much. Now if you can compete a little with a substantial spot and it doesn’t cost a ton the value goes up. So a sliding scale I guess. So yeah, I’ll spend some money, but…
 
SBC said:
You are describing pool from 30 years ago.
You got better or You got used to losing.
The pecking order was clear in every pool hall.

That's how pool should have stayed.
Click to expand...
There is a third group. Those who quit.

You don’t want to drive people from the game. Neither do you want to gear everything to those who would have quit. Ideally there is a range of events. If the players who can’t win are playing leagues and small tournaments it is good for the game overall. And some will enter some of the bigger local events. No need to run them off.
 
JPB2 said:
I am totally willing to play a great player with no chance of winning. I have done it and I am sure I will have occasion to do it again. I don’t mind donating to the cause and like to see what they can do up close. And one of the great things about pool is the players are accessible. As the post above asked about playing with greats, in sports like golf and pool, ams can play against pros without being physically hurt. So many golfers have paid big money to play in pro ams. In pool it is less organized.

That said, I have limits and suspect others do too. There is only so much losing you will do with zero chance. And I don’t think it is the ideal way to learn. You have to play better players. And I think there is value in playing a top player. But only so much because you will only learn so much if you are many levels below them. So as a small piece of your playing I am all for it. Playing in a bigger local or regional tournament is a good way to do it. But simply donating to a player you can’t beat doesn’t do much. Now if you can compete a little with a substantial spot and it doesn’t cost a ton the value goes up. So a sliding scale I guess. So yeah, I’ll spend some money, but…
Click to expand...

The problem is that 'winning' due to a handicap is still losing, you are just getting rewarded for losing.
 
vintagecollectibles831 said:
Curious, what do you think would happen if there were no handicaps, in any leagues or tournaments?

Do you think that the popularity of pool still be very good, and competitive?

Do you think that a lot of players would just stop competing?

Do you think that the leagues greatly suffer, and die?

Do you think that the players just stop playing in tournaments, and they too would die?

Thanks for any thoughts on what you think woukd happen, in this fictional world, where no leagues or tournaments ever did handicapping, and all tournaments were open to players of all skill levels.

Would this be good, or bad for competitive pool, in the long run?
Click to expand...
we would lose a number of casual players and sand baggers, but, develop more champions

the fastest way to improve is to have a competent coach/mentor, play players that are better than you and you must hate losing

last but not least you must pursue your goal by playing/practicing at least 40 hrs a week unless your a freak of nature

no dope, to include booze
 
DeeDeeCues said:
The problem is that 'winning' due to a handicap is still losing, you are just getting rewarded for losing.
Click to expand...
I think there’s more to it than that. Like in a tournament where you get games on the wire, maybe you get to hill- hill against the better player. You get the experience of playing that game in that situation. And maybe you learn something or find a way to deal with the pressure. Likewise, the better player has to compete harder and focus against the player with the handicap. Generally the handicap is such that the better player still has the best of it. Or like in one pocket. Maybe a player is good enough to compete with a given spot. He will still lose overall, but will get more out of it and have more situations come up against the better player that he has to work through. So the better player wins, but both have to work a little. I don’t view this as a bad thing or getting a participation trophy. And not all tournaments should be handicapped, a variety of events is better for the game overall.
 
JPB2 said:
I think there’s more to it than that. Like in a tournament where you get games on the wire, maybe you get to hill- hill against the better player. You get the experience of playing that game in that situation. And maybe you learn something or find a way to deal with the pressure. Likewise, the better player has to compete harder and focus against the player with the handicap. Generally the handicap is such that the better player still has the best of it. Or like in one pocket. Maybe a player is good enough to compete with a given spot. He will still lose overall, but will get more out of it and have more situations come up against the better player that he has to work through. So the better player wins, but both have to work a little. I don’t view this as a bad thing or getting a participation trophy. And not all tournaments should be handicapped, a variety of events is better for the game overall.
Click to expand...

I don't see where someone gets more out of it in your scenarios. It is still a cookie--it only means something emotionally. It is ego stroking without logic.
 
Social banger play would be the same.

Leagues would dwindle.

Local tournaments would dwindle.

Regional/pro open tournaments would be the same.

Gambling would get bigger, since that would be the only outlet to find a "fair" game.

IMO:)
 
Financial ruination for league franchisors and franchisees, pool room operators that leads to less revenue for cottage industries, pool cue and cue case makers and lots affiliated businesses involved with billiards at varying levels. Any growth in the pool playing public would become adversely affected and interest in the game would suffer as well. It sounds like a great idea if you only operated bowling alleys. Anything to help drive the business your way I suppose. Unfortunately, doing this would be deleterious to pool’s future, albeit as already bleak as it so frequently starts seeming like nowadays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top