Which pool game requires the best cue ball control?
- Thread starter cuetechasaurus
- Start date
I agree with sfleinen.
Almost every shot in 1-pocket contains critical cue ball control. Even though we are talking about pocket billiards and not 3C billiards, I disagree strongly that 3C requires more control than 1P. Speed is extremely important in 1P and not so much in 3C. Speed is one of the most difficult variables to control in pool.
I also agree with this statement from Fatboy, "what you do with the white ball is what separates the winners from the losers."
Hmm so does Snooker fall in there for a Pool game. There are the same number of pockets (6) on the table. Position is somewhat important
Snooker is not a pool game. And I think shot making is the first and foremost required skill for snooker, cue ball control being secondary. Not saying that the game doesn't require a high level of cue ball control, but it pales in comparison to certain pool games.
Wow! I cannot believe that statement! A perfect game is 15 reds and 15 blacks and then 2 -7 and you say cue ball conntrol is secondary??
A 12 ft table and 2 1/16" balls and pockets 3 1/4" corners and 3 3/4" sides (my Riley dimensions) that are much smaller than most 4 1/2 X 9's and you say cue ball control is secondary???
Wow! I cannot believe that statement! A perfect game is 15 reds and 15 blacks and then 2 -7 and you say cue ball conntrol is secondary??
A 12 ft table and 2 1/16" balls and pockets 3 1/4" corners and 3 3/4" sides (my Riley dimensions) that are much smaller than most 4 1/2 X 9's and you say cue ball control is secondary???
Constraints
Hi,
I think that the key element in this discussion is which game puts the greatest constraints on the ability to control the cue ball. For example, does the game and situation allow me to hit the object ball at any speed, and use that speed to help my position? Clearly this is often not the case in one-pocket where I might want to leave the object ball(s) as well as the cue ball at specific locations. Thus I will have to get the cue ball to a certain place on the table, subject to the constraint that I must hit it at a certain speed.
This is the reason why I mentioned balk line billiards, where how hard and with how much spin the cue ball is stroked is determined not just by where the cue ball is to land, but also where the other two balls will land.
Nick
Hi,
I think that the key element in this discussion is which game puts the greatest constraints on the ability to control the cue ball. For example, does the game and situation allow me to hit the object ball at any speed, and use that speed to help my position? Clearly this is often not the case in one-pocket where I might want to leave the object ball(s) as well as the cue ball at specific locations. Thus I will have to get the cue ball to a certain place on the table, subject to the constraint that I must hit it at a certain speed.
This is the reason why I mentioned balk line billiards, where how hard and with how much spin the cue ball is stroked is determined not just by where the cue ball is to land, but also where the other two balls will land.
Nick
I think 1P requires more cue ball precision than any other game.
doesn't matter
If a cue ball is involved and it is a longer contest I'll bet the farm on the player with substantially better cue ball control.
I was speaking to someone I respect a great deal and got on the subject of cue ball control and he told me that Keith and Buddy Hall had told him basically the same things. No surprise about Buddy Hall but obviously I underestimated Mr. McCready considering him more of a shot maker and wild man than a control player.
Hu
If a cue ball is involved and it is a longer contest I'll bet the farm on the player with substantially better cue ball control.
I was speaking to someone I respect a great deal and got on the subject of cue ball control and he told me that Keith and Buddy Hall had told him basically the same things. No surprise about Buddy Hall but obviously I underestimated Mr. McCready considering him more of a shot maker and wild man than a control player.
Hu
I totally disagree with you about 3c. Those guys do mind bending stuff with the cue ball. And they hit the ball with different speeds just as often as one does playing one pocket.
Snooker is not a pool game. And I think shot making is the first and foremost required skill for snooker, cue ball control being secondary. Not saying that the game doesn't require a high level of cue ball control, but it pales in comparison to certain pool games.
Wow! I cannot believe that statement! A perfect game is 15 reds and 15 blacks and then 2 -7 and you say cue ball conntrol is secondary??
A 12 ft table and 2 1/16" balls and pockets 3 1/4" corners and 3 3/4" sides (my Riley dimensions) that are much smaller than most 4 1/2 X 9's and you say cue ball control is secondary???
Secondary in terms to the level of potting ability required to play the game well, yes. When snooker players cross over to pool, if they have an advantage it's in shot making. Cue ball control is probably equal, but I'd give the edge to pool players.
It's 3 cushion
If you play 3 cushion the way it was meant to be played....contact (hit) then 3 rails contact (hit) instead of the Americanized version of contact then only 2 rails, contact and another rail....you'll universally agree that 3 cushions was the separating point between just a good shotmaker....that's prone to also miss....versus a pool sensei that can do virtually anything....any time with the cue ball....try hooking a great billiards player....you'll become the one that becomes frustrated.....they'll never miss on a kick shot....the diamond system is foolproof....it's geometry personified.....get Willie Hoppe's book "Billiards As It Should Be Played" published in 1941.....you see the complexity, and simpleness as well, of billiards.
Matt
If you play 3 cushion the way it was meant to be played....contact (hit) then 3 rails contact (hit) instead of the Americanized version of contact then only 2 rails, contact and another rail....you'll universally agree that 3 cushions was the separating point between just a good shotmaker....that's prone to also miss....versus a pool sensei that can do virtually anything....any time with the cue ball....try hooking a great billiards player....you'll become the one that becomes frustrated.....they'll never miss on a kick shot....the diamond system is foolproof....it's geometry personified.....get Willie Hoppe's book "Billiards As It Should Be Played" published in 1941.....you see the complexity, and simpleness as well, of billiards.
Matt
3 cushion requires a lot of cue ball control, but speed control isn't as BIG of a factor than some of the games mentioned here.
One pocket, by a country mile.
Three cushion may require a wider range of strokes that one must master, but minor inaccuracies in speed control usually go unpunished. Beating the kiss is a special skill required in three cushion, but, in my view, is more about precise shot design than exquisite cue ball control.
Defensively speaking, 14.1 cue ball control is nearly, but not quite, as challenging as one pocket. You have to make sure you don't leave a shot into any pocket, not just one, but the speed control typically required is easer to produce in 14.1. The need for effective use of billiard knowledge is only occasional in 14.1, but very frequent in one pocket. Finally, in one pocket you must odten play defense when there are many loose balls, which is rarely so in 14.1. Finally, one pocket racks have an endgame that require extraordinary cue ball control, while few straight pool racks have an endgame. On the offensive side, of course, there is no comparison. It requires exquisite cue ball control to keep running balls into a single pocket.
Bank pool probably deserves mention, too, as a game in which cue ball control is difficult if one considers all the permutations of beating the kiss, playing shape, and accounting for defense as one plays offense.
Still, the combination of stroke and speed control required to succeed in one pocket is simply mind bending, as anything short of great precision in either cue ball direction or cue ball speed tends to produce a poor result. The shot variety in one pocket greatly exceeds the other games, too.
No comparison here. One pocket gets the nod as the game requiring the best cue ball control.
Three cushion may require a wider range of strokes that one must master, but minor inaccuracies in speed control usually go unpunished. Beating the kiss is a special skill required in three cushion, but, in my view, is more about precise shot design than exquisite cue ball control.
Defensively speaking, 14.1 cue ball control is nearly, but not quite, as challenging as one pocket. You have to make sure you don't leave a shot into any pocket, not just one, but the speed control typically required is easer to produce in 14.1. The need for effective use of billiard knowledge is only occasional in 14.1, but very frequent in one pocket. Finally, in one pocket you must odten play defense when there are many loose balls, which is rarely so in 14.1. Finally, one pocket racks have an endgame that require extraordinary cue ball control, while few straight pool racks have an endgame. On the offensive side, of course, there is no comparison. It requires exquisite cue ball control to keep running balls into a single pocket.
Bank pool probably deserves mention, too, as a game in which cue ball control is difficult if one considers all the permutations of beating the kiss, playing shape, and accounting for defense as one plays offense.
Still, the combination of stroke and speed control required to succeed in one pocket is simply mind bending, as anything short of great precision in either cue ball direction or cue ball speed tends to produce a poor result. The shot variety in one pocket greatly exceeds the other games, too.
No comparison here. One pocket gets the nod as the game requiring the best cue ball control.
Last edited:
Oh man, wheres Pocket Point when you need him.
I agree with everyone who said One Pocket requires the best cue ball control.
But I wanted to take this opportunity to say which game, in my opinion, is the polar opposite in this regard: bank pool.
That being said, I, and most other amateurs, scratch way too often in bank pool.
But I wanted to take this opportunity to say which game, in my opinion, is the polar opposite in this regard: bank pool.
That being said, I, and most other amateurs, scratch way too often in bank pool.
i think u guys r overlooking
Wat about BANKS I played at the gsbt tour stop at Michaels ...... if ya leave em short railers ya lose
Wat about BANKS I played at the gsbt tour stop at Michaels ...... if ya leave em short railers ya lose
Stop leaving them short railers or else,just kidding pal,i agree qball control is very important playing banks,if you play posistion and miss your bank ,well u mite not shoot anymore that game!
to add a little different insight.... i see people actually WIN games of 9 ball and 8 ball after missing their CB mark by more than half a table length. i dont see that happen too often in one pocket-- the white has to more consistently be on a string to win in one hole.... i think at every level.
yup, 9 ball is a lot more forgiving because u can hook ur opponents pretty easily, but for one pocket. for one pocket, u can't hook your opponent so you must place the cue ball on a close to perfect position.