Women's 14.1 High Run
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
The basement FargoRating is probably between 700-725. It's so hard to say. I know guys with 725 FargoRatings who I would regard as the underdog to run 50. On the other hand, I see guys at 625 running a 100. But, I think, if you're only looking at women above 700, that's a legitimate place to start.
players who just want to play rotation or ? have the skills, but not the patience?
it's interesting tho, to consider why skilled/apt players can't/don't play straights well
men and women, anybody
The best way I can describe it is, imagine being a runner and never having seen nor heard of a marathon before. Why would you have any interest in running 26.2 miles? You may have strong legs and great lungs but until you set your goal to run a marathon, you won't know if you have what it takes but, we can all agree, it takes strong legs and great lungs.
In Austin, I know two people who appear to have the skills to run 200 balls. Like, if they made it their mission, in a year or two, they might actually accomplish it. The others, as great as they may be, would have to develop new skills specific to 14.1. Managing clusters, picking out patterns, all while making balls... In 8 or 9, you can whip out a jump cue to solve your problems, or hit a 3 rail bank. You can't do that in 14.1.
I think most over 700 have either developed the necessary skills to run 200 or have the knowledge to develop these skills. But I wouldn't say it's a given. There will be exceptions both ways.
I think that's a fair analogy, especially being a person who literally googled "couch to 5k" just yesterday ^_^
thanks for explaining.
lol, I'm walking a tight rope answering that question. I know a few people who have run 200+ balls and it's one of the things they're most proud of (and rightfully so). In no way whatsoever would I want to diminish their accomplishments. On the other hand, just because many great players have never accomplished the feat doesn't mean they don't have the patience. Their focus is just on different things.
thanks for the reply
it's a question worth considering tho, I think
for anyone interested, here are a few threads likening FR, 9-ball, and 14.1:
100 Ball Runners - FargoRate
For those of you who have run 100 balls, I'm curious to what your FargoRate is. I'm right around 600 Fargo and my high run is 59. I'm curious if there are many around my Fargo with 100 ball runs or not.
forums.azbilliards.com
how might 14.1 results translate to other games?
obviously there are variables to consider, games are different after all but I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on how 14.1 balls/racks run might compare to say, racks of nine ball run? or any game if joe is a 50 ball runner, he can run x...
forums.azbilliards.com
it is interesting you don't see nearly as many women playing "fringe" pool games like 14.1, 1p, banks
I could envision a few reasons why, but is the most significant because fewer people play these games in general?
Yup, that’s what I am thinking. My feeling was 725 would be a minimum for 200. With Siming Chen’s rating as high as it is, in theory she should be able to get to upper 200s or even above 300.
Joss Tour founder Mike Zuglan and straight pooler extraordinaire was once counted among the five greatest straight poolers in the world, but he never ran 200. Mike is one of many over the years that wasn't inclined to run more than was required to win. I recall that Grady Matthews was booking some side action on the 1992 US Open 14.1 and his betting favorite was Zuglan, not the far more obvious Sigel. As we know, Sigel gave Mike his first loss in a one-inning 150 and out and Dallas West eliminated Mike in a two inning game, leaving Mike with a bronze medal. It's tough at the top! Yup, Mike was good enough to be favored by Grady Matthews to win the 1992 US Open 14.1 despite the presence of guys like Sigel, Varner, West, Rempe, Mizerak, and Hopkins, but never ran 200 in practice.
I recall chatting with Jose Parica over breakfast in about 1998 at a Camel Tour event on the subject of high run. He offered that he once ran 200 in a match. I said "exactly 200?" and he replied "yes, the game was over." He had run 200 and out and did not continue. Like Zuglan, he saw no reason to run more than what was required for victory. To my knowledge, Jose never did exceed this run.
Legendary all-around player Jimmy Fusco of Philadelphia, runner-up to Steve Mizerak in the World 14.1 Pool Championships in 1983, also never ran 200.
Having a high practice run meant nothing to some players. On the flip side, Babe Cranfield and John Schmidt were obsessed with it. High run outside of competition never has been and never will be the measure of a straight pooler, even though a high run outside of competition is a fine and noteworthy accomplishment.
I think it's easy to underestimate how difficult 14.1 can be.
It's a subtle game and the nuances escape many players. And if you've only played rotation games it is very possible you don't have many of the required 14.1 shots in your toolbox.
Lou Figueroa
DieselPete
Active member
I read a good research paper (not always an oxymoron) a few years ago addressing the question "Why don't female golfers putt as well as the men?" After establishing, empirically, that they don't putt as well, they concluded this:
Athletes hone their skills to the level that allows them to be competitive and win and advance relative to THEIR competition. Men come from a larger pool of youth golfers, there are great incentives to win (both financial and social reward), and so they MUST putt better to get what they want. Women could win and advance (to college, to mini-tours, to the LPGA) on the strength of ball striking and accuracy. They don't putt as well because they don't HAVE to.
Applied to 14.1 and women:
IF:
Girls and boys competed head-to-head at young ages, (so the pool of players they are trying to beat and emerge from is of equal size), for the same prizes, AND the game of preference was 14.1, AND if they continued to play head-to-head as adults, AND the primary adult tournaments were 14.1, I believe that we could reasonably expect that the top women would run 200+, 300+ because they would HAVE to and there is no reason (physically or mentally) to suggest that they can't.
DieselPete
Active member
Great analogy. And given that Fargo Ratings come from games of 8-ball, 9-ball, and 10-ball only (not 14.1), it would be like using one mile and 5K results to make predictions about marathon success.
Do I generally like the better 5K runner to do better in the marathon? Sure. Am I positive about it? Nope. Does the size of differential matter? Yep. I'll take the 14:00 5k guy over the 21:00 runner any day. The 16:40 guy and the 17:00 guy? That could go either way over 26.2 miles.
I'm just waiting on some male player to realize they identify as a female and raise the bar into the 200 or even 300 realm.
Anybody know any quick change artists out there My favorite is the 220 pound plus wrestler, that looks like Brock Lesnar and wrestles as a woman , roflmao.
The romans didn't have jack on this era of weirdos. I have several in mind whom, I think would be stunning in an evening gown and some vintage Nike High Tops
Anybody know any quick change artists out there My favorite is the 220 pound plus wrestler, that looks like Brock Lesnar and wrestles as a woman , roflmao.
The romans didn't have jack on this era of weirdos. I have several in mind whom, I think would be stunning in an evening gown and some vintage Nike High Tops
One of my personal favorite examples of this is the creation of a key ball. 9ball players routinely run balls where they sit. In fact, you're taught to not move balls unless you have to. GREAT 14.1 often means manipulating the layout so you can have a routine end-pattern and the very best recognize these opportunities to change these layouts every single time.
In 9ball's defense, Stu Mattana will often call out moments when you have an opportunity to re-arrange the layout to make it easier. His favorite is moving balls off the end-rail to the side rail when the pattern doesn't have a natural course to get there. But, Stu also plays a lot of 14.1
I would add a tennis analogy, you would think the top singles players would automatically have the skill set to also be top doubles players, which is sometimes true, but often not. The skill set is different in a few areas, and there is sometimes a lack of desire to focus on two (slightly) different games.
what such research paper if i might ask?