amen brother! Worst thing that ever happen to pool!alstl said:
Why is everyone freaking out about 9ball?
- Thread starter cleary
- Start date
av84fun said:
Your quoting high runs in 14.1 on slow cloth. Completely different game, also, these runs were made with clay balls, also completely different. Fast cloth would not have improved these high runs. Rotation is played easier on fast cloth because you have to move the cueball from one end of the table to the other more often. 14.1 is mostly played on one end. In a game like 9ball the break is the most important shot. Therefore, perfect rack conditions, allowing for better breaks, greatly improves your chance of playing high level 9ball.
bigdaddygerald said:
Yep. Just like those fat face drivers Tiger and others use to drill 'em 340 and make the crowds go wild.
But hey...we don't want to get the crowd too excited about the game 'cause then we couldn't get tix at the door a half hour before the Reyes/Bustamente matches!
And I just love it when the camera cuts between Souquet's stone faced expression standing over a shot to Thorsten's stone faced expression sitting in his chair. I actully RATE those expressions based on which one excites me the most.
But SOME people like to watch Albert Haynesworth pacing back and forth behind the defensive line looking like he wants to rip someone's head of and EAT it. Go figure!!
And besides, if pool got more popular on TV then ESPN might bump the Arkansas Remedial vs. Nashville School of Law football game! (and BTW...ALWAYS take the under on that game!)
(-:
JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's abandon short-rack rotation and put all the damn balls out there. That should fix things. 
Bottom line on 10 vs 9 ball, the more innings the average game takes, the more likely either player can win regardless of who breaks. Ten ball most certainly has a higher average innings/game, I doubt anyone can dispute the math. With this point in mind, the dry break/power breaker issue is a good bit less relevant, as there will be much fewer runouts anyway.
Frankly, I'd rather see 14.1 or 1P, but we all know they are unmarketable to the masses.
-s
Bottom line on 10 vs 9 ball, the more innings the average game takes, the more likely either player can win regardless of who breaks. Ten ball most certainly has a higher average innings/game, I doubt anyone can dispute the math. With this point in mind, the dry break/power breaker issue is a good bit less relevant, as there will be much fewer runouts anyway.
Frankly, I'd rather see 14.1 or 1P, but we all know they are unmarketable to the masses.
-s
ginsu said:
First, regarding clay balls, I am quite sure that neither of the runs I mentioed were shot will clay balls.
Not long after the turn of the 20th Century, Brunkswick introduced the Ivorylene line made of celluloid which as an early (if not the earliest plastic) famously invented by John Wesley Hyatt.
Those balls remained dominant until 1950 or so when cast phenolic came into being and which took over as the premium type of balls.
Clay, to the best of my knowledge was always a "cheap" type of ball and I don't KNOW but doubt were commonly used in major pro tournaments...at least after the 1920s when the celluloid formula had been improved upon.
As for slow cloth being harder or easier than fast, you suggest that for long shape shots, fast is easier. Possibly so but think of it this way.
Say...just for sake of argument, that at a given application of force, a ball will roll 2 times the distance on fast vs. slow cloth.
So, you can see that ANY given error in applying force will cause a 100% greater error on fast cloth vs. slow. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL RATIO IS between "fast" and "slow" and there are all kinds of versions of both types.
All I am saying is that sending a ball from the head rail to the foot rail on cloth typical of the middle 20th century took to great amount of strength so it was no big deal. But clearly a given force application error on slow cloth might produce a shape error of say 3 inches which might still leave you in your shape zone while the same force error on fast cloth might cause a shape error of 5-7 inches and leave you way out of line.
My PERSONAL OPINION is that the IPT elected to use slow cloth because Sigel played most of his career on it and wanted every advantage he could get..and obviously needed...to compete with players who were mostly much younger and had far more recent tournament play.
He was just trying to get the current top guns off their familiar "turf" and onto Sigel's familiar turf which was a smart move on this part.
You and others may well disagree but that's my take.
Regards,
Jim