Why is everyone freaking out about 9ball?
- Thread starter cleary
- Start date
av84fun said:
Oops! I actually didn't mean to present those ideas as ones that I believe in, except for the final one, which is 10-ball. That's the one that I wanted to associate the "ding ding ding" with. Well, perhaps the whack-a-mole system too, but only to be used once as a practical joke to the unsuspecting soft-breaker.
I don't think banning tapped racks is the answer. With untapped racks, IMO, it's just going to lead to arguments over the rack. Read or watch Joe Tucker's Racking Secrets book or DVD.
Racking Secrets diagrams the fact that there is a certain sub-set of balls within the rack that are important for the wing ball to be dead. If this subset is all frozen, the wing ball is a hanger. Thus if all the balls are frozen (ie, tapped rack) the wing ball is a hanger.
If the rack isn't tapped, then sometimes this sub-set will be frozen and sometimes it won't. It can still be a nice breakable rack without that sub-set frozen. However, it is a bit of a dis-advantage NOT to have that sub-set frozen on your break when your opponent had it frozen on his break. That's why a tapped rack is more fair.
If we ban a tapped rack, then IMO, the only way to go is rack-your-own, 9-ball on the break doesn't count. Otherwise, there is too much to fight over when the balls are being racked.
However, with rack-your-own, the wing-ball will again become a hanger for knowledgeable rackers. Then we are again back at square one.
Last edited:
I'll take your bet...but only if my friend here gets to play!iba7467 said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19839044/
Cuebacca said:
I understand where you are coming from but rack imperfections would equal out for both players unless the "official racker" was biased in favor of one player or the other. The SAME thing could happen in football, for example...where the ref spots the ball after a tackle and the coaches can't toss red flags whenever they think they got a bad spot (ifr that is even reviewable)
Essentially the same thing in every officiated sport.
So, since perfectly tight racks are clearly an issue, maybe there should be a "best you can do" rule imposed upon the racker and if the breaking player doesn't like the rack, he/she can surrender the break to the opponent.
But it seems to me that the best solution would be to move the rack spot...up or down...until experimentation shows that balls drop by random chance and that no ball goes in the same pocket most of the time.
There MUST be a spot on the centerline that you accomplish the above and then cool, tap all you want, lock up the balls and blast away.
But the soft little dinky breaks eliminate ONE OF THE FEW VISUALLY EXCITING ASPECTS TO THE GAME AND THEREFORE IS FUNDAMENTALLY BAD FOR THE SPORT!
On new cloth, properly cleaned (in the rack area) and with clean balls, there would be no reason for all the balls not to nest.
Obviously, the balls can be forced to nest and don't move away from each other spontaneously. Rather, they can only move due to some physical imperfection such as...a ball out of round and/or has an internal balance issue...chalk dust or a cloth glitch directly under a given ball...ball size differences etc.
In "pool hall" tournaments, of course, the dent on the spot becomes a huge and eventually insurmountable issue (without moving the 1)
But in major pro tournaments, I can't think of any racking problem that couldn't be solved.
Anyway, if the rack official can't be trusted as every other pro official has to be then move the rack or give the breaker the option of surrendering the break to the opponent.
Tapping is just unnecessary except as mentioned above and it's bad for the CLOTH!
TIP:
The main reason balls move is because the CB moves. That most often occurs because the racker has to reall guess as to where the exact center of the spot is..then nests the balls...then raises the rack, only to have the balls move.
SO...rack as normal but move the eight balls back off the 1 all and scoot the rack forward so the 1 Ball will "find its place." Then SLOWLY move the rack back until it JUST touches the 1 ball but does not MOVE it. That carefully push the eight balls back up to nest. Remove the rack and because the 1 ball is not going to move (since you confirmed where it wants to sit) than the other balls are not going to move either and if they do, it MUST be because of one or more imperfections).
Try it...Works for me.
I enjoy your comments.
Jim
All just my $0.02
Regards,
Jim
Thanks for your comments, Jim.
The problem, I think, is that neither player has time to think about the long run, because a race to 9, 13, 17, may not be a long enough. This is why, in my opinion, rack-your-own is the most fair solution.
I view racking as being more similar to the snap, or the guy holding the football for a field goal to be kicked, or to the toss in a tennis serve. They'd never let the opposing team do one of those things, nor even a neutral party. It should be someone on the same team who does it.
When I think of the opponent racking in pool, I assume it is done in competition for not because it is fair, but more from tradition. I'm just guessing, but I'd assume it's just a tradition that carried over from taverns where NOT racking is a privilege earned by winning the previous game. I could be totally wrong here though.
I'm not positive, but in general I believe that winner break is really "winner's choice". It's just extremely rare for anyone to pass the break because even if the rack isn't perfect, it is still an advantage to break. Whether or not the rack is perfect just makes the difference between a "big" advantage and a "monstrous" advantage.
I don't think that's a bad solution given all the other variables in this problem. I guess the problem with that is that many people will be bothered by the idea of not racking the 1-ball close to the spot. We could also rotate the diamond 90 degrees and see what happens on the break, but similarly it would just feel a little weird.
I can't really argue with that. I understand why many people feel that way. Personally, it hasn't made me lose interest though.
In theory yes, but in practice maybe these imperfections in the cloth are more common than we realize? This must be true, because otherwise, an untapped rack would work just as well as a tapped rack, wouldn't it? If you compare Table 1 and Table 2 in the WPC 2007, Table 1 was tapped and Table 2 wasn't. Table 1 was making the wing ball more probably more than 95% of the time, and hence the soft break. Table 2 wasn't nearly so predictable, and hence the hard break. If Table 2 could nest, as you say, and assuming the neutral racker was trying, then it should also be favorable to the soft break.
Another good thing about tapping the rack from the get-go is that the rack is going to become tapped anyway, I believe. This, of course, depends on how hard of a tap we are talking about, but to tap a rack doesn't take that hard of a tap. I don't know how hard they tap the rack at these tournaments, but I did my home table and it doesn't take a hammer to do it. Just a gentle touch is fine. The problem with not tapping is that the balls will eventually be racked "off" and when broken, an "off" divot is formed, eventually resulting in elongated divots. That, I think is one of the reasons why it's hard to rack in pool halls (in addition to the other imperfections you mentioned).
I don't think it's that bad, but I guess again, it depends on how hard of a tap we're talking about. I did an experiment at home where I slow-rolled balls through my rack area, more than 50 times. I used a speed where the ball stopped within or just outside of the rack area. I couldn't get the ball to change direction off a divot even one time.
Thanks, I enjoyed thinking about your ideas as well. Due to time constraints I may not be able to respond if you make some more counter-points, but it's not due to lack of interest. 
av84fun said:
The problem, I think, is that neither player has time to think about the long run, because a race to 9, 13, 17, may not be a long enough. This is why, in my opinion, rack-your-own is the most fair solution.
I view racking as being more similar to the snap, or the guy holding the football for a field goal to be kicked, or to the toss in a tennis serve. They'd never let the opposing team do one of those things, nor even a neutral party. It should be someone on the same team who does it.
When I think of the opponent racking in pool, I assume it is done in competition for not because it is fair, but more from tradition. I'm just guessing, but I'd assume it's just a tradition that carried over from taverns where NOT racking is a privilege earned by winning the previous game. I could be totally wrong here though.
I'm not positive, but in general I believe that winner break is really "winner's choice". It's just extremely rare for anyone to pass the break because even if the rack isn't perfect, it is still an advantage to break. Whether or not the rack is perfect just makes the difference between a "big" advantage and a "monstrous" advantage.
I don't think that's a bad solution given all the other variables in this problem. I guess the problem with that is that many people will be bothered by the idea of not racking the 1-ball close to the spot. We could also rotate the diamond 90 degrees and see what happens on the break, but similarly it would just feel a little weird.
I can't really argue with that. I understand why many people feel that way. Personally, it hasn't made me lose interest though.
In theory yes, but in practice maybe these imperfections in the cloth are more common than we realize? This must be true, because otherwise, an untapped rack would work just as well as a tapped rack, wouldn't it? If you compare Table 1 and Table 2 in the WPC 2007, Table 1 was tapped and Table 2 wasn't. Table 1 was making the wing ball more probably more than 95% of the time, and hence the soft break. Table 2 wasn't nearly so predictable, and hence the hard break. If Table 2 could nest, as you say, and assuming the neutral racker was trying, then it should also be favorable to the soft break.
Another good thing about tapping the rack from the get-go is that the rack is going to become tapped anyway, I believe. This, of course, depends on how hard of a tap we are talking about, but to tap a rack doesn't take that hard of a tap. I don't know how hard they tap the rack at these tournaments, but I did my home table and it doesn't take a hammer to do it. Just a gentle touch is fine. The problem with not tapping is that the balls will eventually be racked "off" and when broken, an "off" divot is formed, eventually resulting in elongated divots. That, I think is one of the reasons why it's hard to rack in pool halls (in addition to the other imperfections you mentioned).
I don't think it's that bad, but I guess again, it depends on how hard of a tap we're talking about. I did an experiment at home where I slow-rolled balls through my rack area, more than 50 times. I used a speed where the ball stopped within or just outside of the rack area. I couldn't get the ball to change direction off a divot even one time.
Thanks, I enjoyed thinking about your ideas as well. Due to time constraints I may not be able to respond if you make some more counter-points, but it's not due to lack of interest.
Sorry did not mean to demean the game of CHECKERS. I grew up playing it. Particularly a form of it called SPANISH. I played it at my Filipino Barber shop. But I outgrew it when I learned CHess. I think Chess is a little more complex than CHECKERs and requires a lot more thought on strategy and technique.iba7467 said:
I really dont think Checkers and 9 ball is easy but for ME it is boring and simple. I guess thats why I love one pocket and the variety of shots and difficulty of banks.
mosconiac said:
and we all know what happened there. they (Trudeau) took a lot more away.
still some that I know think the IPT is gonna pay them back on the qualifier $ they spent....lol. to make matters worse, some pool rooms in the USA and Europe are still bilking "qualifiers" out of $.
I didnt think it was sudden
I noticed several years ago that more pros were playing each other 10 ball down at Derby when gambling. 9 ball is fine for a certain level, but too long of a race is needed to really determine who is best. What good is it if a guy can break and run 7 racks in 9 ball when the race is to 7? Small local tournaments want short races to keep the (short attention span) crowd entertained. It shouldnt apply to pro level matches. If you have to have a short race to determine the better player you have to make the game harder. Today its 10 ball. Tomorrow its 4 inch pockets. In the future it might be something else. The game of 9 ball like many things in the pool world shot itself in the foot. It catered to the short run interests not the long run. Its okay. It served a great purpose. Just time for something new now. New challenges will maybe spark interest in the masses and help with the image and popularity of pool. Doesnt hurt to try!
I noticed several years ago that more pros were playing each other 10 ball down at Derby when gambling. 9 ball is fine for a certain level, but too long of a race is needed to really determine who is best. What good is it if a guy can break and run 7 racks in 9 ball when the race is to 7? Small local tournaments want short races to keep the (short attention span) crowd entertained. It shouldnt apply to pro level matches. If you have to have a short race to determine the better player you have to make the game harder. Today its 10 ball. Tomorrow its 4 inch pockets. In the future it might be something else. The game of 9 ball like many things in the pool world shot itself in the foot. It catered to the short run interests not the long run. Its okay. It served a great purpose. Just time for something new now.
New challenges will maybe spark interest in the masses and help with the image and popularity of pool. Doesnt hurt to try!
Can one of you people who is proposing all this stuff to keep 9 ball the 'pro game' explain to me why they are against 10 ball? really.
Someone mentioned the game length and TV. Well, if they're editing it for TV anyway that shouldn't matter. Alternatively, they could do it live like golf, switching between matches as tough shots/important situations come up, with replays of the 'wow' shots.
I know switching games ain't gonna be easy. I _believe_ it would do wonders for the pro level of the sport.
-s
Someone mentioned the game length and TV. Well, if they're editing it for TV anyway that shouldn't matter. Alternatively, they could do it live like golf, switching between matches as tough shots/important situations come up, with replays of the 'wow' shots.
I know switching games ain't gonna be easy. I _believe_ it would do wonders for the pro level of the sport.
-s
Cuebacca...
MOVE THE SPOT!! (-:
It's an issue of time. Tap the rack area and the balls nest immediately and an 8 year old can rack perfectly. Remember the Sardo and the furor that the wing ball went most of the time?
I own a Sardo (but with all due respect to that fine company) I don't use it any more. Remember that one of the mechanical aspects of their racks is that they exert downward force on all 9 balls at the same time. That is simply tapping or pressing which is one and the same thing.
To rack "by hand" takes more time (such as the procedure I posted). I think that is the heart of the issue.
Agreed. The rest of the cloth will probably wear out long before the rack area due to tapping.
Regards,
Jim
MOVE THE SPOT!! (-:
It's an issue of time. Tap the rack area and the balls nest immediately and an 8 year old can rack perfectly. Remember the Sardo and the furor that the wing ball went most of the time?
I own a Sardo (but with all due respect to that fine company) I don't use it any more. Remember that one of the mechanical aspects of their racks is that they exert downward force on all 9 balls at the same time. That is simply tapping or pressing which is one and the same thing.
To rack "by hand" takes more time (such as the procedure I posted). I think that is the heart of the issue.
Agreed. The rest of the cloth will probably wear out long before the rack area due to tapping.
Regards,
Jim
yobagua said:
Checkers gets a bad rap. One can become a master chess player in 2 to 4 years with proper training. In checkers one might become a master in 8 to 10 years with about 8 to 10 hours of study per day.
There are 2 styles of checkers: freestyle and 3 move. 3 move is an extreme challenge with 142 ways to open a game with 3 moves. Black,Red,Black. Openings are drawn for and the 142 openings must be committed to memory. The top players know the offenses and defenses for all 142 openings. Do a search on Marion Tinsley and Don Lafferty. Also, do a search on Robert L. Shuffett, my father, author of America's Best Checkers, World Class Checkers and Checkers,The Tinsley Way.
Checkers is every bit as tough as Chess.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
av84fun said:
Tapped or not, the wing ball is "dead" if the balls are racked perfectly. I agree that having the rack area tapped will save time if the goal is perfect, fair, consistent racks for both players.
IMO, the downward force of the Sardo, when used properly, is negligible. I think that it is meant to be pressed down gently. If you press down hard, the balls actually spread away from the nested position and may or may not roll back into place. My understanding is that the downward press is meant only to slightly agitate the balls so that they settle into place. The press is not meant to be a per game tap.
So that said, I don't think NOT tapping is the answer. It allows for perfect racks, with ease (quickly), and when the tap has been done carefully, it doesn't seem to alter the playing conditions of the table. The only downside of tapping is that it leads to a soft break, which many people don't like, but that is only because it gives "perfect" racks, which professional pool players are entitled to, IMO.
cueandcushion said:I noticed several years ago that more pros were playing each other 10 ball down at Derby when gambling. 9 ball is fine for a certain level, but too long of a race is needed to really determine who is best. What good is it if a guy can break and run 7 racks in 9 ball when the race is to 7? Small local tournaments want short races to keep the (short attention span) crowd entertained. It shouldnt apply to pro level matches. If you have to have a short race to determine the better player you have to make the game harder. Today its 10 ball. Tomorrow its 4 inch pockets. In the future it might be something else. The game of 9 ball like many things in the pool world shot itself in the foot. It catered to the short run interests not the long run. Its okay. It served a great purpose. Just time for something new now.
There are two factions whose interests and desires need to be addressed.
A. There are those like us who have such a love for and addiction to the game that we log onto forums such as this to share ideas. We are the "pureists" and to US it's all about the advancement of our own skills and the admiration of others.
B. Then there is the rest of the world.
There may be several hundred thousand of us (GENEROUS estimate) but there are 40 million of the others (in the U.S.)
Even ACTIVE pool players and among them the MOST active who end up qualifying for BCA/APA national tournaments are not, for the most part "us".
We have all attended such tournaments where the pro division matches were half full (of spectators) when Reyes was playing Bustamante...and that was at the RIV where several THOUSAND active pool players were staying...so they didn't even have to leave the building and the pro matches STILL couldn't sell out!!
NOTE: The above does NOT suggest that no league players are "us" but rather that the vast majority of them are not. Simply compare BCA/APA membership vs. the membership of all pool forums COMBINED!
At the end of the day, national popularity of any sport is driven by TV coverage. We all know that most pro golfers were starving before Arnie and Jack exploded TV coverage.
Even in its former glory days (during the TV age) pool never got THAT much coverage...some but not much...and it likley never will for the reason that the mass audience just doesn't GET how difficult the game is.
Hell, they can pocket those little two footers with a face full of brewskis down at the local sports bar!!
It's just NOT a visually compelling sport/game to watch...except for us pureists and a lot of the pureists want to get rid of what excitement there is like jump shots hard breaks. Remember when The Lion made SIX on the break in the middle of Grand Central Station a few years ago? The crowd WENT NUTS (and so did he...when he didn't run out!!) (-:
But in many countries outside the U.S. pool DOES get large tournament crowds and people ARE excited about a 3 rail lock up safety and why?
A. In some of those countries there isn't much in the way of pro sports going on. Few NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB games in Manila.
B. In many of those same countries the game gets LOTS of TV exposure. Like the match of the WEEK in some cases and the pros are national heroes. And because of TV the population begins to GET IT and comes to appreciate the intracacies of the sport.
I am not a "pool is dead" hysteric because it's not. Last I heard, pool is still the most partcipated in adult sport (well...with a couple of exceptions depending on what you think is sporty) in the U.S.
What is wounded is pro touring pool which the vast majority of players can't make a living at in spite of the fantastic efforts of Diamond Billiards in the DCC, Mike Janis and other regional tour promoters. Way to go guys!
Unless the male players come together under the banner of a SINGLE LEAGUE ( the women are doing it right on that score) that because of its size and funding could actually breathe new life into the major tour scene, then there never is going to be a large TV audience and therefore, no upside "break out" in the tour scene.
FINALLY to the thread's original point...personally, I don't think the problem is that 9 Ball is FUNDAMENTALLY too easy. It can be MADE too easy so what we end up with is the WPC's rather embarrassing (IMHO) little dink breaks and one man exhibitions on the foot half of the table.
But address the problems cited in this thread and it's a different deal. Rack em so the breaks are dry about half the time and you get the game of NINE BALL...in the sense that you have to pocket 9 balls to win...not 8 or 7 or 6. Just ONE more ball can block a route that would otherwise be a cosmo layout which is what the 10 Ball advocates have in mind.
But hell, with only an average of 8 balls left after the break, TV STILL edits out entire games and gives us 3 shot, short attention span bits of most other matches and it would be even WORSE with 10 Ball I fear.
I mean let's see NINE ball layouts with a cluster or two and see what happens to the run out percentage at the pro level. You've all seen it. Where there is a dry break THEN you see a broader spectrum of skill sets...more safety play and kicks and banks AND JUMPS and maybe a masse from time to time.
FINALLY...player personalities. Except for Earl (love him or hate him) and Alex and Vivian on the women's side...pool players DON'T HAVE personalities...at least not one's they exhibit during the matches. All they show is stone faces.
Watch Poker and a pool match side by side! End of story. There should be a RULE that each player has to utter a sentence of at least 5 words during each of their innings! (-:
All just IMHO and written because I care.
Regards,
Jim
Plain and simple, its all about the WING BALL and how it impacts the game. Maybe we should take a ten ball rack and aim the corner balls into the corner pockets, now that would be FUN eh? Until you've spent over 1/2 your life on the greens making a living its hard to understand.
Quebacca
On my "original" version, there is a sideways press exerted which prevents
the spread you mentioned. I've never used the new ones but I've seen them used numerous times (at the IPT Vegas for example) and the players gave it a pretty righteous HANK down from the top.
But no matter...tap or no tap is the question. Right that nest balls will behave the same no matter how they got nested...but humans will probably be less than perfect, on balance, relative to the machine or tapped methods and it is the REintroduction of less-than-perfect racks that is ONE of the possible solutions.
And your're right...if there WAS a surrender option, no pro would use it BUT THAT'S GOOD NOT BAD! That means that the game would be played with human variables and to me that's GREAT.
WHAT IF in football, the "holder" for the place kicker could get the snap and set the ball on a T??? To me, that's the same as tapping the rack.
BUT bottom line ANY means of ending the "always goes" aspect of breaking AND the "hustle move" and virtually unprecedented (in any other sport) winner breaks format would do WONDERS for getting back to MATCHES...sometimes close faught cliff hangers...some time come from behind thrillers but MATCHES and not essentially boring (to the masses) "half court" (like the WPA) exhibitions.
Dumb down baseballs so there could be no more home runs and let the team that scores a run in an inning have another consecutive inning.
Yeah...Let the Red Sox "put a nine pack" on the Yankees and then call the riot police...and sell all the ball parks because the game would die a painful death.
And that is exactly what matches like the WPC will do and is being done to pool in this country. (NOTE: I mean no disrespect to the WPC. It is their money and they can set the format any way they want...and BLESS them for sponsoring ANY tournament in this prize money starved envirement. I just don't like their format.)
Regards,
Jim
On my "original" version, there is a sideways press exerted which prevents
the spread you mentioned. I've never used the new ones but I've seen them used numerous times (at the IPT Vegas for example) and the players gave it a pretty righteous HANK down from the top.
But no matter...tap or no tap is the question. Right that nest balls will behave the same no matter how they got nested...but humans will probably be less than perfect, on balance, relative to the machine or tapped methods and it is the REintroduction of less-than-perfect racks that is ONE of the possible solutions.
And your're right...if there WAS a surrender option, no pro would use it BUT THAT'S GOOD NOT BAD! That means that the game would be played with human variables and to me that's GREAT.
WHAT IF in football, the "holder" for the place kicker could get the snap and set the ball on a T??? To me, that's the same as tapping the rack.
BUT bottom line ANY means of ending the "always goes" aspect of breaking AND the "hustle move" and virtually unprecedented (in any other sport) winner breaks format would do WONDERS for getting back to MATCHES...sometimes close faught cliff hangers...some time come from behind thrillers but MATCHES and not essentially boring (to the masses) "half court" (like the WPA) exhibitions.
Dumb down baseballs so there could be no more home runs and let the team that scores a run in an inning have another consecutive inning.
Yeah...Let the Red Sox "put a nine pack" on the Yankees and then call the riot police...and sell all the ball parks because the game would die a painful death.
And that is exactly what matches like the WPC will do and is being done to pool in this country. (NOTE: I mean no disrespect to the WPC. It is their money and they can set the format any way they want...and BLESS them for sponsoring ANY tournament in this prize money starved envirement. I just don't like their format.)
Regards,
Jim
I don't care if it's 9 ball, or 10 ball.
TAKE THE DAMN LUCK OUT OF IT AND BRING BACK THE STRATEGY, BRING BACK 2 FOUL BALL IN HAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was the ONLY way to play in my opinion.
It's been on the downhill ever since it changed.
It takes 95% of the luck out of the game, and puts someones smarts into play.
TAKE THE DAMN LUCK OUT OF IT AND BRING BACK THE STRATEGY, BRING BACK 2 FOUL BALL IN HAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was the ONLY way to play in my opinion.
It's been on the downhill ever since it changed.
It takes 95% of the luck out of the game, and puts someones smarts into play.
Hey...here's an idea. Break 10 balls and the player who does NOT have the next shot (the breaker if he breaks dry and the non-breaker if a ball goes on the break) must REMOVE 1 ball of his choice from the table if no ball was pocketed on the break.
Now, you've got a hard break to thrill the crowd and an initial layout that would for more often than not involve 9 balls making the game measurably more difficult and adding an element of strategy re: the selection of the ball to be removed.
SOMETHING...ANYTHING... Our game is boring the hell out of the mass TV audience without which the sport will NEVER get out of its own way.
But maybe that's the way it should be...back to the old days when Red and Wimpy and the boys would sometimes play SINGLE MATCHES for more money than the first place prize money in all the sanctioned tournaments for an entire season!
Back when Vern Elliot never would play in a sanctioned tournament (as far as I know) because the notariety would kill his action on the road!
Maybe that's what our sport is meant to be...regional tournaments as the "farm system" and ACTION matches for the big boys.
One thing's for sure though...it AIN'T workin' in America...(from the pro tour point of view) hasn't worked for years and ain't gonna work unless some MAJOR changes are made.
Regards,
Jim
(-:
Now, you've got a hard break to thrill the crowd and an initial layout that would for more often than not involve 9 balls making the game measurably more difficult and adding an element of strategy re: the selection of the ball to be removed.
SOMETHING...ANYTHING... Our game is boring the hell out of the mass TV audience without which the sport will NEVER get out of its own way.
But maybe that's the way it should be...back to the old days when Red and Wimpy and the boys would sometimes play SINGLE MATCHES for more money than the first place prize money in all the sanctioned tournaments for an entire season!
Back when Vern Elliot never would play in a sanctioned tournament (as far as I know) because the notariety would kill his action on the road!
Maybe that's what our sport is meant to be...regional tournaments as the "farm system" and ACTION matches for the big boys.
One thing's for sure though...it AIN'T workin' in America...(from the pro tour point of view) hasn't worked for years and ain't gonna work unless some MAJOR changes are made.
Regards,
Jim
(-:
So ten ball is the game of the future eh. I think ten ball is advantageous for the big breakers who can crush the break shot and have a better chance of fluking a ball randomly into a pocket (boy that takes skill).
If nine ball is considered a break contest at least it is a fair one, where if both players take the time to master the required skills they both have a chance to win. I don't know how many matches I have seen where one player is consistently pocketing a ball on the break ( eight nine or ten ball) and the other one comes up dry on their turns making for some very lopsided matches.
If someone like Efren who is considered to have a weak break runs up against someone like Hillbilly or Shane, your telling me that Efrens over all ability will over come the fact that these guys can run four or five racks on him and he can't fire back with more than one or two racks, Puuulease. Efren will get run over and might never win another tourny.
You can have all the skill in the world but if you can't fluke a ball on the power break you can't win. Wouldn't it be something to see Efren resort to safety breaking in ten ball to negate someone elses power break advantage and put more stratagy into the game, OH! how foul the power break purists would cry then, but if it was Efren it would be ok, heaven forbid Corey try this EEK!
Bern
If nine ball is considered a break contest at least it is a fair one, where if both players take the time to master the required skills they both have a chance to win. I don't know how many matches I have seen where one player is consistently pocketing a ball on the break ( eight nine or ten ball) and the other one comes up dry on their turns making for some very lopsided matches.
If someone like Efren who is considered to have a weak break runs up against someone like Hillbilly or Shane, your telling me that Efrens over all ability will over come the fact that these guys can run four or five racks on him and he can't fire back with more than one or two racks, Puuulease. Efren will get run over and might never win another tourny.
You can have all the skill in the world but if you can't fluke a ball on the power break you can't win. Wouldn't it be something to see Efren resort to safety breaking in ten ball to negate someone elses power break advantage and put more stratagy into the game, OH! how foul the power break purists would cry then, but if it was Efren it would be ok, heaven forbid Corey try this EEK!
Bern
Last edited: