World 14.1 Championship Group Draws!

[StraightPoolIU]

I think it will be very interesting to see what the equipment at this event will be like. There is always something to be said for watching the best players in the world on tough setups or equipment (a la the U.S. Open golf tournament) in order to identify the best players in the world. However, the viewing public also likes lots of high runs, and high runs sell tapes/dvds. However, I'm hoping for the former.

I wasn't at those straight pool events in 1992 and 2000, but I do have several of the tapes and it does appear that the equipment (speaking about the featured table) was quite loose. I remember in a match with Mizerak Johnny Archer badly mishits a ball and it still goes. Also in a player review tape Jim Rempe speaks about how he felt the equipment played rather easily.

 

[TheOne]

B-man,
I seem to remember someone saying the equipment was embarrassingly loose there (maybe SJM will weigh in, I'm sure he remembers). I FERVENTLY hope we'll see some tight pockets this year.

P.S. - I think Mike Sigel was probably a threat to run 150 on ANY equipment; but only the very cream of straight pool thinkers would be such a threat on really tough equipment (but will we ever have a chance to find out???) in a pressure filled competition.

Willie, I think RG has already gone on record here and said the pockets will be 4.5" tight ones.

 

[bruin70]

there's also the confidence of "having been there"...and i don't know if that has been discussed. someone with a high 2xx has much more confidence than a 1xx player. he's been there.

after mika ran his 260 at amsterdam, ginky heard about it and came in a day or two later, and said he was going to break the record. he ran a 25x!!!! he had the confidence because he'd been there. i don't know that a 1xx player can think that way.

maybe 1xx players still think about numbers, while to the 300-400 player, numbers don't matter...he's at the table-he owns the table. i have no idea since i'm neither

 

[sjm]

even more so, because at the higher level, they're more consistant, and have a more dependable 14.1 philosophy. and on a rough table, the player with better position skills is more consistant because he'll invariably get closer to the ob. and rempe's remark echoes that sentiment.

there was also a prevailing feeling amongst the players(at the 14.1 tourney at the roosevelt hotel) of pure fear about playing sigel, because popping a 150 was no problem for him.

Bruin, you and Williebetmore are making my detective work difficult.

Are you talking about the events of the late 90s? Neither was at the Roosevelt Hotel.

The 1999 National Straight Pool Championships were played at Amsterdam Billiard Club East. George "Ginky" SanSouci won over a rock-solid field that included Allen Hopkins, who finished 3rd, and Dick Lane, who came 2nd. Mike Sigel did not play in that one, and neither did Varner or Rempe. The pockets were loose and the players were mass-producing hundred ball runs.

The 2000 US Open Straight Pool Championship was played at the Roseland Ballroom. In that one, Souquet prevailed over a tough field that included Ortmann, Robles, Engert, Schmidt, Varner, Rempe, and Sigel. As in 1999, the pockets were loose and the players were mass-producing hundred ball runs.

The last time a major straight pool championship was contested at the Roosevelt Hotel was the 1992 US Open, best known for Sigel's 150 and out vs Zuglan, the top selling Accu-stat match ever. The pockets were medium, though not tight, but there were not that many hundred ball runs.

Williebetmore is right. Hundred ball runs are a scarce commodity on tough equipment. If memory serves, Varner won the 1981 PPPA World Straight Pool title with only one run over 70. Back then, the equipment was togher and the cloth slower.

Finally, to set the record straight, Jeanette Lee ran a 124 on Table 4 at Amsterdam West, which has 4 1/2" pockets. Just ask the unfortunate victim, Mika Immonen. I believe the run occurred in 2001. The lady can flat out play straight pool.

 

[bruin70]

Bruin, you and Williebetmore are making my detective work difficult.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The last time a major straight pool championship was contested at the Roosevelt Hotel was the 1992 US Open,l.

that was it. i overheard the players talk at the deli next door.

 

[Williebetmore]

Back then, the equipment was togher and the cloth slower.

.

SJM,
Many thanks for the info (can't give you any rep points though, dang it).

I've heard several world-beaters claim that the effect of the slower cloth is even greater than the effect of tighter pockets (they're aiming at a 2 1/4" target anyway). Evidently it takes much more force to disturb the main pack, plus the obvious requirements for bigger stroke for positioning. It also rewards the careful, low-risk, close position game favored by the old-schoolers.

 

[sjm]

I've heard several world-beaters claim that the effect of the slower cloth is even greater than the effect of tighter pockets (they're aiming at a 2 1/4" target anyway).

I agree 100% but must point out that the two points are inseparable. One of the biggest differences back then was more missed break shots. This was as attributable to the fact that it toook more speed to spread the rack as it was to the fact that the pockets were a little smaller. Unless you pocketed like Lassiter, the only way to deal with the additional challenge was to get tight shape on the break shots. Superior pattern play was the way to accomplish this, and that's part of why the great "old school" technicians had such a big advantage on that type of equipment.

Loosening the pockets and speeding up the cloth greatly reduces the penalty for not getting tight shape on the break shot, thereby devaluing the rewards derived from superb pattern play. That's why I'm so hopeful that the equipment is challenging.

The easier the equipment, the less critical it is to play the patterns well. That being the case, if the pockets are loose, I believe it will greatly hurt the chances of old schoolers like Sigel, Varner and Hopkins.

 

[Williebetmore]

the only way to deal with the additional challenge was to get tight shape on the break shots. Superior pattern play was the way to accomplish this, and that's part of why the great "old school" technicians had such a big advantage on that type of equipment.

SJM,
In Mosconi's biography he reports that it was not until he began to play for closer position that he began to "own" Ralph Greenleaf. He states that his greatest accomplishment in pool may have been a match where he ran 125 and out; never getting position more than 8 inches from an object ball, and never missing position (I would kill for 1 rack like that).

There is no doubt that Willie's specialties were playing quickly (has documented run of 125 in 18 minutes) and playing close position. He routinely during his exhibitions would make a show of pointing to a dime sized spot, and park whitey right there; shot after shot - it was part of the "wow factor" of his exhibitions that he took great pains to develop. The guys that watched him play in his prime say no modern player tries for such close position on a routine basis, though some of the great one-pocket players are probably capable of similar feats. This description is from guys that played with him regularly for 2 or 3 years.

Further, it was this type of pinpoint position play that allowed (according to a description I heard from Irving Crane) Willie to continuously seek to park whitey right in the center of a semi-disturbed pack, and then just shoot his way out, moving the cue ball a precise inch or two at a time. Crane said this type of play was only preferred by Mosconi, and that Irving and the rest of his contemporaries preferred to get to center table and pick off balls from the periphery.

The only player I have personally seen play this style of pool was Danny DiLiberto - it is an art form. If forum members have never seen Danny play straight pool, then they can have no idea what I'm talking about from my feeble description. I've seen it, and I'm not sure I believe it.

 

[StraightPoolIU]

Willie,

I'm not quite sure if I can wrap my head around what you're talking about with Mosconi and DiLiberto. Do you mean that they would purposefully park the cueball in the stack with the intention of playing offensively from there, or is there something I'm not quite understanding?

P.S. Straight pool threads are hands down the best.

 

[bruin70]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The only player I have personally seen play this style of pool was Danny DiLiberto - it is an art form. If forum members have never seen Danny play straight pool, then they can have no idea what I'm talking about from my feeble description. I've seen it, and I'm not sure I believe it.

..........ervolino.

 

[bruin70]

Willie,

I'm not quite sure if I can wrap my head around what you're talking about with Mosconi and DiLiberto. Do you mean that they would purposefully park the cueball in the stack with the intention of playing offensively from there, or is there something I'm not quite understanding?

P.S. Straight pool threads are hands down the best.

there are whole bunches of ways to play a rack. two obvious ways are inside out and outside in. inside out keeps you in the center of the stack.

btw,,,a really interesting way to watch a 14.1 game is to speed it up, so it's easier to see the rack evolve.

 

[sjm]

..........ervolino.

The exact same name came to mind for me when I thought about players who played the table from the inside out.

The vast majority of the old schoolers played the rack from the outside in, parking the cue near center table and, where possible, addressing balls near the rails first. Playing the rack in this style was often referred to by the old masters as "playing the flower", a term rarely used by the current generation of straight poolers.

 

[Williebetmore]

Willie,

I'm not quite sure if I can wrap my head around what you're talking about with Mosconi and DiLiberto. Do you mean that they would purposefully park the cueball in the stack with the intention of playing offensively from there, or is there something I'm not quite understanding?

P.S. Straight pool threads are hands down the best.

SPIU,
Loosely spread 8 balls in an area that includes the rack and a surrounding area a balls width or two wide. Then put the cueball in the center of that mess, and try to pocket all of the object balls WITHOUT whitey leaving the rack area.

I saw Danny D. pocket 12 or 13 balls in such a way (during a game with me) without the cue ball moving more than 5 or 6 inches away from it's starting position in the center of the rack area. How cool is that??? It's low risk, high percentage position.

I also remember like yesterday a shot during a game with Danny D. It was an easy 2 foot shot (2 feet to the pocket, but cueball fairly close to the object ball), very slight angle. Danny told me to make the ball and back up the cueball an inch and a half. I backed it up about an inch and 3/4's, and Danny said, "Nahhh, that's no good." He then proceeded to show me how he could back up the cue ball (on a shot where the cue ball is fairly close to the object ball) 1/2", then 1", then 1 1/2", then 2".

If you are playing out of the center of a cluster of balls, then such precision is ESSENTIAL, and it is not as easy as it looks at first glance - especially if you are in the middle of a close, pressure-filled game, and a mistake of a half inch will end your turn. Unless you practice such position play, you will never achieve the kind of position skills exhibited by the masters.

 

[TheOne]

SPIU,
Loosely spread 8 balls in an area that includes the rack and a surrounding area a balls width or two wide. Then put the cueball in the center of that mess, and try to pocket all of the object balls WITHOUT whitey leaving the rack area.

I saw Danny D. pocket 12 or 13 balls in such a way (during a game with me) without the cue ball moving more than 5 or 6 inches away from it's starting position in the center of the rack area. How cool is that??? It's low risk, high percentage position.

I also remember like yesterday a shot during a game with Danny D. It was an easy 2 foot shot (2 feet to the pocket, but cueball fairly close to the object ball), very slight angle. Danny told me to make the ball and back up the cueball an inch and a half. I backed it up about an inch and 3/4's, and Danny said, "Nahhh, that's no good." He then proceeded to show me how he could back up the cue ball (on a shot where the cue ball is fairly close to the object ball) 1/2", then 1", then 1 1/2", then 2".

If you are playing out of the center of a cluster of balls, then such precision is ESSENTIAL, and it is not as easy as it looks at first glance - especially if you are in the middle of a close, pressure-filled game, and a mistake of a half inch will end your turn. Unless you practice such position play, you will never achieve the kind of position skills exhibited by the masters.

WillieOrWontHe,
Although I totally agree that having that kind of cb control is a great advantage I would have thought that the truly great 14.1 players would rarely play a shot requiring such precise cb control? I would suspect that 99% of there shots would be low risk stop shots, have insurance balls, and have various next ball options? I can't imagine anyone having big runs if they are relying on that kind of position too often?

This comp is sure is going to be an eye opener for me, the first time I have ever seen straight pool played by a pro was mosconi's video a few days ago!

 

[Williebetmore]

WillieOrWontHe,
Although I totally agree that having that kind of cb control is a great advantage I would have thought that the truly great 14.1 players would rarely play a shot requiring such precise cb control? I would suspect that 99% of there shots would be low risk stop shots, have insurance balls, and have various next ball options? I can't imagine anyone having big runs if they are relying on that kind of position too often?

This comp is sure is going to be an eye opener for me, the first time I have ever seen straight pool played by a pro was mosconi's video a few days ago!

TheSmallestPrimeNumber,
Excellent point. I will definitely agree that the "old pro's" are heavily into risk reduction. If there is a way to play position on more than one ball at a time they will do it. They will find themselves "with their back to the wall" far less often than the average player; and will structure their patterns to include insurance balls and alternative possibilities should they miss position. That's the art and beauty of the game.

However (and this is a quote heard EVERY day in Betmore's Basement), "sometimes you've just got to bring it." Also, what is high risk and low percentage for me, might be low risk and high percentage for you or other accomplished players.

 

[Black-Balled]

...Straight pool threads are hands down the best.

This is a fine thread.

Sadly, though, my 14.1 game isn't getting better as a consequence of reading it! I run 14s all day!

 

[NYC cue dude]

tables

With regards to the equipment, Gabriel's tables with 4 1/2 inch pockets. This would qualify as "tight" pockets.

Good luck craig, see ya in the finals.

rg

 

[Blackjack]

there's also the confidence of "having been there"...and i don't know if that has been discussed. someone with a high 2xx has much more confidence than a 1xx player. he's been there.

after mika ran his 260 at amsterdam, ginky heard about it and came in a day or two later, and said he was going to break the record. he ran a 25x!!!! he had the confidence because he'd been there. i don't know that a 1xx player can think that way.

maybe 1xx players still think about numbers, while to the 300-400 player, numbers don't matter...he's at the table-he owns the table. i have no idea since i'm neither

I don't necessarily think about numbers, I concentrate on what needs to be done at the table. I've seen 100+ numbers countless times, I've been over 200 five times. In all of my high runs I was playing with more consistency and precision. By consistency, I mean that I was pretty much getting the same break shot and the same spread of the balls on almost every rack. Cisero Murphy taught me a long time ago that the break shot in 14.1 was more important than every other shot. You can run 13 balls off the table, but if you don't have a break shot that will pull you another 14 balls, then you have wasted your time. I always try to have a primary and secondary break shot, and a set up ball for each. Many beginners don't realize that they must recognize these balls from the outset, and you can sit in the chair and watch guys eliminate these balls without a clue as to what they are doing.

As far as equipment goes, it is very very important. On Monday I had a brand new 8 foot Brunswick Amherst set up in my home. The pockets are not to my standards (yet), but on Tuesday I decided to see how many I could run on this table. When I got to 175, I stopped (I missed - lol), I was mostly embarrassed because I knew that the table was ridiculously easy. I'm confident that if I wanted to, I could score some extremely high numbers on this table, but it wouldn't mean anything to me. I got 86 on a tight 9 footer last night... that's about right for me - I average 4-5 racks or 65 balls per run if given a good opportunity. I welcome the challenge of tough equipment because it forces me to play my best. I'd rather run 70 on a tight table than 200 on loose equipment.

The key to good straight pool is sticking with what works for you. I learned that from watching guys like Eddie Robin, Cisero Murphy, Jack Colavita, Mike Sigel, Steve Mizerak, & Johnny Ervolino. These guys would run carbon copy racks, and if something went wrong along the way, they dealt with it. They were all great at manufacturing a great break shot or creating a sequence that would continue their run when other guys would have folded under the pressure. What separates the German field of 14.1 players is their ability to remain calm and exercise patience under pressure. If you ever get a chance to watch Thorsten Hohmann play straight pool, watch his eyes... he can burn a hole through the balls with his eyes. He becomes absorbed in what he is doing, and his mind is always working.

Reference my 175 on the easy table the other day, it ended when I got careless. That happens to me despite the table size or pocket width/depth. Here is what happened. I try to learn why I missed, or how I got out of line - then I try to learn from my errors and mistakes.

 

[bruin70]

I

blackjack....was this planned? i hate to say this but this is a bad out, and it's pretty easy to see why. you needed the third ball to be in just about any position OTHER than what you were left with.

mind if i ask what the layout was that led to the 8 and 14 being your last two???

 

[Blackjack]

blackjack....was this planned? i hate to say this but this is a bad out, and it's pretty easy to see why. you needed the third ball to be in just about any position OTHER than what you were left with.

mind if i ask what the layout was that led to the 8 and 14 being your last two???

The 8 was stuck in a cluster with some other balls. When I broke it out, one of the balls was in front of that pocket. In retrospect, I should have:

a) dealt with that cluster earlier in the rack
b) I should have pocketed the ball blocking the corner pocket with the 8 ball (I had that option but did not use it)

I played the entire rack carelessly at the end, and I paid for it. I don't recall exactly how the balls were clustered or I would have provided a diagram. Next time I will video my run and let others laugh at my obvious absentindedness. It should be noted that I felt myself getting mentally weak during the rack prior to this. I'm pretty sure that when I broke, I did not get a good spread - and I probably told myself I couldn't get out and consequently I didn't. Bottom line - I should have never been in this position. That is what separates good from great.