Nice post Professor. Being a player as well as a fan from days gone, when I used to watch the likes of Balsis, Lassiter, Mosconi, Caras, Cranfield, Murphy play at the then beautiful Commodore Hotel in New York City with its wood panelled walls, players decked out in their tuxedoes, everyone smoking cigars - TV hosted by Chris Schenkel - the atmosphere was electric. After the tournament, everyone would take out their wallets and really go to work. Scott Lee tells me that there are 40 million players in the US. If that is so, there is an enormous audience for our game. My partner has a production company out of Charleston, SC and would throw in with us if there was money and a good script. Does anyone know if there are any "hot" actors or actresses that love the game as we do? It would really add to the pie.
Why pool doesn't get it going
- Thread starter ajrack
- Start date
![/QUOTE]
Problem #1---(No seating)
Maybe. Large tournaments like the DCC, IPT, etc. usually have enough seating for spectators. Sometimes crowded--but that lends itself to the flavor. In smaller B and/or C player tournaments it may not be financially feasable for the room/bar owner to add seating. This may also be an opportunity for owners to see added revenue.
Problems #2 and #3---(Making it a TV event. We are stuck in paradigms.)
It is a TV event but the pool world has not taken advantage of the venue. First, the announcers (for the most part) give simplistic and inaccurate descriptons of what is going to happen on the next shot. Maybe the producers instruct them to pretent the audience is a group of first graders. Since most of the TV matches are not televised live---why not have the announcers dub in the presentation after the match is over so they can be technically correct about what is happening and why. Possibly add some color commentary.
The paradigms of tournament format.---The TV audience wants to see more bank shots, 3 rail position, combinations, ect. I like to play on tight pockets but believe the audience wants larger pockets to speed up the action and see more action shots. Another idea---instead of the normal time limit for each shot with an extention---(just an idea) why not have a 3 minute total time allocated to each player for each rack. If you go over 3 minutes--you lose.
Another idea for TV---Invitational tournaments and invite colorful, fast and loose players. Let the audience get involved---we cheer for most sports players except golf and tennis. Are we stuck in this paradigm? Not everyone could play in this format---but for the money, I think they would more than try.
I'm not trying to start a war here, but just giving some ideas so others may share some better ones. Your comments please.
Problem #1---(No seating)
Maybe. Large tournaments like the DCC, IPT, etc. usually have enough seating for spectators. Sometimes crowded--but that lends itself to the flavor. In smaller B and/or C player tournaments it may not be financially feasable for the room/bar owner to add seating. This may also be an opportunity for owners to see added revenue.
Problems #2 and #3---(Making it a TV event. We are stuck in paradigms.)
It is a TV event but the pool world has not taken advantage of the venue. First, the announcers (for the most part) give simplistic and inaccurate descriptons of what is going to happen on the next shot. Maybe the producers instruct them to pretent the audience is a group of first graders. Since most of the TV matches are not televised live---why not have the announcers dub in the presentation after the match is over so they can be technically correct about what is happening and why. Possibly add some color commentary.
The paradigms of tournament format.---The TV audience wants to see more bank shots, 3 rail position, combinations, ect. I like to play on tight pockets but believe the audience wants larger pockets to speed up the action and see more action shots. Another idea---instead of the normal time limit for each shot with an extention---(just an idea) why not have a 3 minute total time allocated to each player for each rack. If you go over 3 minutes--you lose.
Another idea for TV---Invitational tournaments and invite colorful, fast and loose players. Let the audience get involved---we cheer for most sports players except golf and tennis. Are we stuck in this paradigm? Not everyone could play in this format---but for the money, I think they would more than try.
I'm not trying to start a war here, but just giving some ideas so others may share some better ones. Your comments please.
Sorry Cornerman but I clipped the following from the Web. You've seen televised hole cards since "at least the 80's"
My point was yes, there's marketing that played a huge role after it got popular but the invention and subsequent use of the camera put poker on a whole different level.
But why is Mr. Orenstein so important to the sport of poker today, anyway? Ten years ago, nobody had gotten a chance to see the hole card camera in action. He had applied for his patent (Number 5,451,054 – you can even look it up at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website http://www.uspto.gov/) in 1994, and it was granted on September 19, 1995. Even though this was a momentous date in poker history, nothing really happened for a couple years. Nobody picked up on Orenstein’s innovation, until the British show Late Night Poker used it in 1997.
My point was yes, there's marketing that played a huge role after it got popular but the invention and subsequent use of the camera put poker on a whole different level.But why is Mr. Orenstein so important to the sport of poker today, anyway? Ten years ago, nobody had gotten a chance to see the hole card camera in action. He had applied for his patent (Number 5,451,054 – you can even look it up at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website http://www.uspto.gov/) in 1994, and it was granted on September 19, 1995. Even though this was a momentous date in poker history, nothing really happened for a couple years. Nobody picked up on Orenstein’s innovation, until the British show Late Night Poker used it in 1997.
I've seen this patent mentione before. Maybe the patent came after its initial use? Or maybe the original in-table cameras were of a different style. But, as long as poker has had its one-tourney-a-year showing of the final table of the WSOP, the hole card was definitely seen. I do remember that they weren't always able to see the cards clearly, so that may lend something to the idea that this patent is some improved method compared to what they used before.StrokeofLuck said:Sorry Cornerman but I clipped the following from the Web. You've seen televised hole cards since "at least the 80's"
But why is Mr. Orenstein so important to the sport of poker today, anyway? Ten years ago, nobody had gotten a chance to see the hole card camera in action. He had applied for his patent (Number 5,451,054 – you can even look it up at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website http://www.uspto.gov/) in 1994, and it was granted on September 19, 1995. Even though this was a momentous date in poker history, nothing really happened for a couple years. Nobody picked up on Orenstein’s innovation, until the British show Late Night Poker used it in 1997.
Still, 1995 is over ten years ago. The boom in poker television started in 2002/2003.
Fred <~~~ couldn't people see the hole cards in the Chan vs. Seidel finals???
"What aspiring golf pro or basketball player spends between 6-12 hours a day, every day, playing and practicing the game? "
I'm guessing every single one that you have ever heard of or read about. I doubt any golfer is going to make it to the top only practicing 10 -12 hours a day!
Eddie in Detroit
I'm guessing every single one that you have ever heard of or read about. I doubt any golfer is going to make it to the top only practicing 10 -12 hours a day!
Eddie in Detroit
eddieindetroit said:
You may be right, but I remember reading somewhere that Vijay Singh is considered one of the hardest working golfers on tour, and he spents about 4-5 hours a day hitting balls.
When you see the guys/gals on TV, they look like robots. Heck, the players don't even talk to each other... It looks boring.
Does pool have a "star." Like golf, pool needs that one person to represent... yes, marketing. Everyone knows Tiger Woods.
I agree with the comment about locking ten players in a room with 10k... that would be nice to watch.
Does pool have a "star." Like golf, pool needs that one person to represent... yes, marketing. Everyone knows Tiger Woods.
I agree with the comment about locking ten players in a room with 10k... that would be nice to watch.
Keep in mind that I am espousing making another good pool movie, and the thread went along the lines of "what made poker so popular?"
Heh heh.. That's easy. A movie about scumbag people playing poker. Can you say "Rounders"?
It came out a year or two before poker on TV started picking up steam.
I say scumbags because as nice as Mike McD was, he still cheated people out of money by communicating cards to his partner, and willingly said he had no guilt about it.
Worm of course was a scumbag, as well as Teddy KGB, and the bouncer guy who bought up Worm's debt. All scumbags. Talk about redemption, blah blah, rey rey. They were scumbags.
The American people got showed that poker is built on a bit of math, and can be controlled, that is true. But the characters also had some allure, as well. Everyone wanted to participate in the game of taking other people's money directly from them.
That's what really gets people into pool, poker, and other forms of direct gambling competition. There is something awesome about you coming away with more money than you had, and the other guy walking away with less.
So, it was a movie that drove poker's new popularity.
Seriously, we need to make a new movie about a scumbag pool player who also happens to be a somewhat nice person when he is not as much as holding a gun to people's heads and stealing their money. That's what pool needs before it totally dies out.
Someone contact Scorscese.
Russ
Heh heh.. That's easy. A movie about scumbag people playing poker. Can you say "Rounders"?
It came out a year or two before poker on TV started picking up steam.
I say scumbags because as nice as Mike McD was, he still cheated people out of money by communicating cards to his partner, and willingly said he had no guilt about it.
Worm of course was a scumbag, as well as Teddy KGB, and the bouncer guy who bought up Worm's debt. All scumbags. Talk about redemption, blah blah, rey rey. They were scumbags.
The American people got showed that poker is built on a bit of math, and can be controlled, that is true. But the characters also had some allure, as well. Everyone wanted to participate in the game of taking other people's money directly from them.
That's what really gets people into pool, poker, and other forms of direct gambling competition. There is something awesome about you coming away with more money than you had, and the other guy walking away with less.
So, it was a movie that drove poker's new popularity.
Seriously, we need to make a new movie about a scumbag pool player who also happens to be a somewhat nice person when he is not as much as holding a gun to people's heads and stealing their money. That's what pool needs before it totally dies out.
Someone contact Scorscese.
Russ
