Yesterday i saw 7 ball on tv for the first time, we don't get much of it up here in canada. I could'nt help wondering why would they have a pro 7 ball tournament? Allen Hopkins explicitly stated that it was a game created so that Minnesota Fats had a chance to beat Mosconi. If the game is set up so that a weaker player can win why have a pro tournament? Shouldn't proffessional competition challenge the players? There just doesn't seem to be any merit to it. The addition of ball hand after a miss, doesn't do enough to ensure the better player wins. All im saying is that if they want to play a rotation game then play 9 ball, 10 ball or rotation. I know that ESPN probably feels it will get viewers because it is a fast paced game, but the problem is that alot of people don't know what 9 ball is, let alone 7 ball. Due to that they may lose interest quickly. Furthermore pro pool kinda loses it's awe factor when they are only running out 4-5 balls, an accomplishment that many people are capable of, even bangers.
My other problem is the two set format. Let me get this straight, if i win the first set i would have to win another set to win the match. But if my opponent loses the first set he/she would only have to win one set plus a one ract tie breaker. Sounds like my 9 year old cousin created the match format. Lets say I win 7-0 in the first set and lost 7-6 in the next, then lost the one rack tie breaker. That means I would lose 8 games to 13. Wait, that seems odd. Let me do the math again on that..... nope still comes back stupid. If people want to mess with the formats, and they really should, they should look to tennis. Multiple sets, must win each set by at least two games, or a tie breaker where each player has equal opportunity. Translated to pool, best of 3 sets, player has to win by two games. Or something like that. Hill-hill matches in pro tournaments have a tendency to be very anti-climatic.
Sorry about the rant, just had to get off my chest.
Regards
My other problem is the two set format. Let me get this straight, if i win the first set i would have to win another set to win the match. But if my opponent loses the first set he/she would only have to win one set plus a one ract tie breaker. Sounds like my 9 year old cousin created the match format. Lets say I win 7-0 in the first set and lost 7-6 in the next, then lost the one rack tie breaker. That means I would lose 8 games to 13. Wait, that seems odd. Let me do the math again on that..... nope still comes back stupid. If people want to mess with the formats, and they really should, they should look to tennis. Multiple sets, must win each set by at least two games, or a tie breaker where each player has equal opportunity. Translated to pool, best of 3 sets, player has to win by two games. Or something like that. Hill-hill matches in pro tournaments have a tendency to be very anti-climatic.
Sorry about the rant, just had to get off my chest.
Regards
Last edited: