Which kind of 14.1 do you prefer?

StraightPoolIU

StraightPoolIU

Brent
Silver Member
The question of style has been asked before. Do you prefer to play a more control game or do you prefer to play a more wide open style? However, I'm asking a different question of all you 14.1 enthusiasts. Do you prefer to watch a match between two great players where the balls are opening up easily and the pockets are large which can result in high runs and a lopsided match, or do you prefer to watch a match where the balls are sticking together and pockets are tighter but where the players might have more back and forth?

In my opinion I love to watch high runs, but I would just as soon watch someone run 80 on a table where the balls are fighting the player the whole way and both players have a legitimate chance at the table.
 
As long as the players don't play haphazardly, I like it either way. I want to see smart play.
 
As a spectator I like the high runs, usually somewhere in the run the player has to come with a shot or two to keep the run going.
 
You have to appreciate the skill and discipline it takes for those top players out there to run those massive runs but for me purely from a spectator's view I think i would rather watch a back and forth match, some decent runs a safety battle or two things like that where you kind of find yourself saying damn who is going to win?
 
ForumGhost516 said:
You have to appreciate the skill and discipline it takes for those top players out there to run those massive runs but for me purely from a spectator's view I think i would rather watch a back and forth match, some decent runs a safety battle or two things like that where you kind of find yourself saying damn who is going to win?
Click to expand...


Yeah, me too. I like to watch the 150 and out match just to see a great run like that but, in most cases, I prefer small runs between 30-50 so I can see where these great players lose their run. Watching 150 and out really doesn't teach all that much because they're playing flawlessly. Nah, I prefer a good tight match.
MULLY
 
I have talked to many players about this, and it depends. For me, I like to watch runs that are technically "perfect". It doesn't matter to me if they run 40 or if they run 100, if there are some good technical aspects and learning points in their play, then I enjoy it thoroughly.

Jon Schmidt and I have talked about sometimes you will run 60-70 balls, and it feels better than a 120 or 130 (where you made a few blunders) because technically - the 70 was a better display of your true skill.

I can play either way. I think I do better by not crushing the rack apart (like Thorsten does). I was taught to hit the rack at medium speed, control the cue ball and develop a secondary break shot where your cue ball will stay out of danger. Whenever I try "crashing" or "smashing" the balls apart - I usually end up scratching, or splattering the balls all over the table, which leaves me very few options to manufacture a workable break ball.

Here is a diagram that illustrates my philosophy of going into the balls at medium speed. By doing that, I will manage to nudge a few balls off to the side and behind the stack. Usually, these balls will be pretty good secondary break balls and I don't run the risk of scratching because my cue ball never gets anywhere near the pockets. In the shot illustrated, I don't blast away at it, I just contact the 7 hard enough to split the balls apart so that they open up (or are no longer touching each other). Other players may play more aggressively, but this works best for me.

ControllingTheQball.gif
 
Blackjack said:
I can play either way. I think I do better by not crushing the rack apart (like Thorsten does). I was taught to hit the rack at medium speed, control the cue ball and develop a secondary break shot where your cue ball will stay out of danger. Whenever I try "crashing" or "smashing" the balls apart - I usually end up scratching, or splattering the balls all over the table, which leaves me very few options to manufacture a workable break ball.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense to me. It's something I've been thinking about lately. It seems that so many of the players today smash the stack to smithereens. There are probably good arguments to support both avenues.

The one advantage to exploding the rack is that few balls will be touching one another.

But I see a few more advantages to knocking out just 5 or 6 balls on the break shot. In addition to controlling the cueball and manufacturing break balls, you also have easy opportunities for safety play, because the stack is still there.
Also, since the stack is largely together, most of the balls stay contained and out of the way for you to maneuver the cueball and pocket the loose ones.
And of course you also have less of a chance of missing your break ball, since you're pocketing it at a slower speed.
 
bluepepper said:
That makes a lot of sense to me. It's something I've been thinking about lately. It seems that so many of the players today smash the stack to smithereens. There are probably good arguments to support both avenues.

The one advantage to exploding the rack is that few balls will be touching one another.

But I see a few more advantages to knocking out just 5 or 6 balls on the break shot. In addition to controlling the cueball and manufacturing break balls, you also have easy opportunities for safety play, because the stack is still there.
Also, since the stack is largely together, most of the balls stay contained and out of the way for you to maneuver the cueball and pocket the loose ones.
And of course you also have less of a chance of missing your break ball, since you're pocketing it at a slower speed.
Click to expand...


Another advantage is keeping the cue ball and object balls in a small contained area in the upper half of the table. While this may seem to keep things crowded, I believe that the less I have to move my cue ball, the better chance I have of maintaining control of it.

Just something for you to think about.

:D
 
this might sound crazy, but a break shot that is executed at a medium speed (depending on the angle and position of the OB) can yield suprisingly pleasing results, in my experience. the cue ball is easy to control and the rack can come apart nicely, leaving a small 3-5 cluster in the heart of what was once the pack.

as to the OP, i like the drama of two guys duking it out. I think I read a John Schmidt post about how 14.1 can be the greatest thing to watch. I can't agree more. It's absolutely amazing to watch two guys play a total offense game (or they keep beating each other to the shot and then going offensive).

Justin.
 
I appreciate all styles of play, so long as they don't take a month to take their shot :) lol

IMO, there are many ways to shoot good straight pool and it all depends on how the table is playing :), I find that if a table is playing a bit slower, then I'll go into the rack a little heaverier, if the table is playing fast, I'll "Massage the stack", which means that I'll happily play in the fashion to break a few balls out as I go along, in the same fashion as guys like Mosconi, etc, would do :)

It's the same for watching top players shooting straight pool, it's always good to watch how they manage the table, both in a high run or a safety situation :)

Willie
 
My philosophy has always been to go into the balls about as hard as they'll let me. In most cases, this is soft-to-medium speed. In some nice cases, I can go into them much harder because I know generally where my cueball's going. I really don't care much if a few balls go uptable - with an open rack of 14 balls, if I can't find a way to safely get uptable and back, I'm not going to win many games anyway.

I will always prefer going into balls harder than softer, but like I said above, I'll only do this on the breakshots which will let me.

As to what kind of a game I'd prefer to watch, for me, the real drama in the game is that someone can run out at any time. If you are playing a game to 150 where neither player would be a favorite to run 30 balls because of the conditions, there's not much drama until the end.

I find safety play in straight pool to be extremely tedious and quite uninteresting, to be honest. A 14.1 safety battle usually doesn't end with someone selling out, it usually ends with someone leaving a very difficult shot to his opponent. He either makes it or he doesn't, but there's little "closure" to the player who played the safe. That closure in 9-ball (i.e., I safe you and you either make the hit or you don't) is far more interesting to me than its 14.1 counterpart.

- Steve
 
Steve Lipsky said:
My philosophy has always been to go into the balls about as hard as they'll let me. In most cases, this is soft-to-medium speed. In some nice cases, I can go into them much harder because I know generally where my cueball's going. I really don't care much if a few balls go uptable - with an open rack of 14 balls, if I can't find a way to safely get uptable and back, I'm not going to win many games anyway.

I will always prefer going into balls harder than softer, but like I said above, I'll only do this on the breakshots which will let me.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense too. Going into the rack softly can help with cueball control, but it certainly doesn't guarantee you're going to have a shot.

You had said that you prefer the below-the-rack break shots when they set up nicely. I'm realizing now that they really seem to offer a lot, because you're breaking the balls uptable while pretty much guaranteeing to get the cueball amongst those balls. It's usually an easy break shot to pocket as well. A secondary break shot on the side of the rack is likely afterwards, pushing the remaining balls away from the ones that are already open.

As for the break shots that allow you to go hard into the stack, are you mainly referring to steeply angled/follow shots?

BTW, nice avatar.
 
I played in very sticky conditions yesterday, and there was absolutely no way to break open the balls without going in hard.
Under any conditions, I would assume that if you're going for big runs, that you can't tickle the balls on the break shot. The chances of not getting a ball to shoot are too high.
 
There was an article in Billiards Digest that I remember about {I think} the World Straight Pool tournament or maybe the US Open. It mentioned two players, one of which was Ray Martin, can't remember the other. Anyway, the article commented on the different styles of the two, how Martin blasted apart a break shot and the other player on the next table seemed to just chip away at the rack, but both players accomplished the same thing.
I think a lot depends on how the break ball lies and how the table is playing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top