World Summit of Pool - Yuck!

[Bob Romano]

As a promoter of the sport, I was glad to see that it was even aired. We get so little coverage that anything is good. I appreciate the efforts of all involved to bring this event to the public. Keep in mind that pool does not get the money it takes to put on the spread that baseball and football get.

~It is easy to critique when your not in the drivers seat.~

Eydie

 

[trophycue]

I don't get ESPN, nor did I see any of the Taiwanese coverage, but from the sounds of this thread these folks need to go take lessons from the BBC. I recall their snooker coverage being excellent when I used to travel into Europe a lot in the '80's. The only problem was that the matches were televised live, which meant I had to skip out of work (kidding .... really I am).

Dave

Very surprising to me that the "pool" world has not has not looked at the "snooker " world more closely. Snooker has been a multi million dollar sport for over 20 yrs. Many of the top players are millionares. The players look good , act like gentlemen, and collect the cash~!. You never see a snooker player doin an "Earl"

 

[Williebetmore]

You never see a snooker player doin an "Earl"

Are you sure?? Doesn't snooker have several "bad boys" like the WWWF?? (maybe Jimmy White, let's hear from some snooker fans).

 

[JustPlay]

The commentary for the matches was TOO MUCH. I like hearing the players talk to themselves or the crowd or some comments from the host. But at every shot all they kept doing was educating us on how each and every shot was made. It was just plain awful.

Dileberto, Mathews, Incardona and Varner would have been the best choices to do the job.

If ESPN would cut out the silly commercials, uninteresting history of the train station (or where every they are taping pool matches and waisted time showing us pros doing trick shots in between racks as they do so often then maybe the would have time to have the matches a race to 9 instead of races to 7.

I watched the espn's showing of a few matches from the world open and I enjoyed that more then the summit of pool matches.

 

[LastTwo]

Ya that thing about the WPC really pisses me off. I havent seen the 2004 WPC yet, but I watched all of the 2003, and I really wanted to see the player's mechanics when they strike the cueball, but they would always pan to just the balls, and nothing else. That used to really annoy me. Very rarely did they show a player's body when he made contact with the CB. I wonder why they do that? Did it not ever cross their mind that some people may actually want to see the pros mechanics? How lame.

Although that does bother me, it still is pool, and great pool at that, and I still look forward to seeing much much more of it played by the pros on TV. I can't wait to watch the 2004 WPC. Hint, hint, TATE....

 

[cardiac kid]

Hi dino,

Like you, I have broken more nine ball racks than I wish to remember. I however disagree on the not frozen part. If the rack is aligned to the marks on the cloth put there when setting up a Sardo, the balls will fall into the dimples in the cloth. Unless the rack is off, which is possible, they should re-rack. One of the reasons the WPBA went to the nine on the spot routine is to keep one or more of the balls from flying directly in. I think most of us have gotten the "Sardo Rack Break" down pat. I remember having to ask for a re-rack from Carmine in Vegas last year. I looked at the rack and the front three balls were not touching! Perfect its not. Consistent it is. On that I think we agree.

As far as old has been's comment of sponsorship, I agree that we need money from outside our industry. Until that comes, or we agree to keep playing for pennies instead of dollars, were stuck in this rut. On the quality of the equipment, I wish every event was played on Diamond Pro's or Gabriels Vector tables. Instead we get second class equipment. Why? Other than the dollars issue, the spectators like to see the players make balls. If every televised event was on even 4 1/2" pockets, the number of misses (jars) would go up dramaticly. Thats not good for TV either!

Perhaps ESPN is trying to hard to simplify the game for their viewers. Regardleess of whether we agree or not, the mainstream viewer is the one who pays the bills. There are an awful lot of pool players out there. But our numbers are insufficient to move the Nielson Ratings even a tenth of a point. To be successful, the networks need millions of viewers, not tens of thousands. Therefore Average Joe is the object of their desire. Not you and me.

In the end, whether we disagree or agree, I'm sure glad we have this forum to discuss the game we love. Not sure where you're from. I'll be in Vegas in November for the BCA event. Perhaps we can discuss this further!

 

[cardiac kid]

As far as people comparing pool to NASCAR, there is no comparison. NASCAR has the luxury of having ALL drivers at EVERY race. So as a fan, sponser, or anyone else is concerned, their guy/team is racing each week. This is a big reason for NASCAR's growth.

Hi Perk,

I think you missed my point about NASCAR. The suggestion was made, if the opposing player never got to the table because of winner breaks, too bad. If you were that players sponsor, I'd be pissed that I got no TV time for my investment. Hence the comment about NASCAR following cars way back in the pack. It is not that every driver is at every race. Its that every car gets TV exposure even if its driven by a chimpanzee and is five laps down. Keep the sponsorship dollars rolling!! JJ got it right about what is important on the TV side.

 

[SplicedPoints]

Just for your own info. To the best of my knowledge, the TV production at the WPC in Taipei this year was handled by Sky Sports, the same guys that has handled the production for the last 4 years.

The pockets are way too big on the tournament tables though, IMHO. It appears they are at least 2.2+ cue ball width. Seeing too many balls going in after contacting the rail a diamond away from the pocket is kinda crappy.

I tend not to like alternate breaks. I love to watch close matches, just like everybody here. But I don't like it if it is artificially manufacturered with alternate breaks. I would much rather have a close match if the two players are running racks like they really can. Also, an alternate breaks does give both players a chance at the table, but it takes away the chance for a guy whose opponent's on the hill and is also down multiple racks to make a come back by stringing multiple racks together.

Its kinda a late reply to thte topic, but eh~

 

[Kerry Impson]

Or even better yet - get Ewa Laurence's original husband (who introduced her to pool) - JIMMY MATAYA...

Actually, Ewa was a champion in Sweden before she came over here and met Jimmy, although he was no doubt instrumental in improving her game after they met!!!

Are you sure?? Doesn't snooker have several "bad boys" like the WWWF?? (maybe Jimmy White, let's hear from some snooker fans).

Alex Higgins!!!!

 

[OldHasBeen]

Lets test the Sardo Rack - With CASH!

Just to prove my point about the Sardo Rack, I am willing to play ANY pool player in the world, a match for $5K, race to 11, with nothing but a 3 game handicap. This would be Winner break. I would rack a mutually agreed upon tight rack a for my opponent. He however would have to use The Famous Sardo Rack to rack the balls for my break.
Keep in mind that I'm a 58-year "OldHasBeen", that almost no one has even heard of and I'm willing to play anybody this way.
I THINK I will have the advantage because making a ball or two on the break (using the Sardo Rack) will put the odds in my favor.
I might be right & I might be wrong.
I may win or I may lose.
But I'm willing to bet my "CASH" to find out.
??? "Mr. Sardo" ???
TY & GL

 

[trophycue]

Actually, Ewa was a champion in Sweden before she came over here and met Jimmy, although he was no doubt instrumental in improving her game after they met!!!




Alex Higgins!!!!

Very Good Kerry~!........Higgins is defenitely the bad boy of snooker......but..............even cliff Thorburn waited till they were in private to punch him in the head...........snooker players are so polite. Higgins was fined many times, and eventually, disqualified for an entire season , which efectively was the demise of his carrear. He paid dearly for his antics. Last thing i heard written about him , he was back in his home town , broke and freindless. This kind of discipline is unheard of in north america. [ I am in Canada].

 

[drivermaker]

Just to prove my point about the Sardo Rack, I am willing to play ANY pool player in the world, a match for $5K, race to 11, with nothing but a 3 game handicap. This would be Winner break. I would rack a mutually agreed upon tight rack a for my opponent. He however would have to use The Famous Sardo Rack to rack the balls for my break.
Keep in mind that I'm a 58-year "OldHasBeen", that almost no one has even heard of and I'm willing to play anybody this way.
I THINK I will have the advantage because making a ball or two on the break (using the Sardo Rack) will put the odds in my favor.
I might be right & I might be wrong.
I may win or I may lose.
But I'm willing to bet my "CASH" to find out.
??? "Mr. Sardo" ???
TY & GL

And how might the bet change if you were forced to use a red circle CB with Centennial balls?

 

[Perk]

And how might the bet change if you were forced to use a red circle CB with Centennial balls?

LOL...glad to see ya reading all the threads.

 

[OldHasBeen]

DRIVERMAKER - "NO CHANGE TO THE BET" !

There would be No Change to the "BET" if a Red Circle Cue Ball was being used. There would simply be - "NO GAME".
I would just insist that the cue ball be the same size & weight as the object balls because anything other than that would be just as Gaffey as the Sardo Rack. That would automaticly eliminate the Red Circle Cue Ball.
TY & GL

 

[dinovirus]

Very surprising to me that the "pool" world has not has not looked at the "snooker " world more closely. Snooker has been a multi million dollar sport for over 20 yrs. Many of the top players are millionares. The players look good , act like gentlemen, and collect the cash~!. You never see a snooker player doin an "Earl"

Oh pleeeeassse. Have you never heard of Alex Higgins? At least Earl never pissed in a potted plant while he was playing. Higgins makes both Strickland and McCready look tame.

 

[dinovirus]

Hi dino,

I wish every event was played on Diamond Pro's or Gabriels Vector tables. Instead we get second class equipment. Why? Other than the dollars issue, the spectators like to see the players make balls. If every televised event was on even 4 1/2" pockets, the number of misses (jars) would go up dramaticly. Thats not good for TV either!
QUOTE]

I disagree, snooker is popular and the pockets are difficlut in that game. Tight pockets adds drama to every shot, because it's very possible for a player to miss. And drama, let's not forget, is why everyone watches sports in the first place.

You say the spectators like to see the players make balls. I submit that I'm hearing a lot of people on this board agree that the pockets were too big and the tables too easy. Since they were all 'spectators' I would say you're wrong.

I'll tell all of you what makes me sick. In the pool world, you always hear this type of comment - "Sure Mike Davis beat Earl in the tournament, but there's no way he would beat him gambling." To me that comment alone is what makes pool (nine-ball especially) a second rate sport.

The tournament game should be HARDER to win than the poolroom game, not easier. Look at tennis, they play best-of-five sets in major tournaments (try doing that sometime, see if you can make it to set four without having a heart attack). In golf, they play FOUR ROUNDS on a tough course (in the old days, the final round of the US Open was 36 holes). When they gamble at those sports (and they do, believe me), it's never in matches that long. Thus someone might say, "sure I beat Andre Agassi in a set and won $5000, but there's no way I could beat him over five sets at the US Open or Wimbledon." Now THAT'S what I would like to hear in pool.

Both golf and tennis players are prepared to go out and play for FIVE HOURS at any given time to win their money yet in pool a 45 minute race-to-seven is considered acceptable. Give me a break.

Until the TV game is the same as the poolroom game, real legitimacy will always be missing from tournaments. Guys match up and play for their OWN money and they always play 'ahead' sets (or mostly anyways). The day will probably never come where they play a tournament that features all 'ahead' sets, but in my opinion that would be the greatest thing ever. How would you like that - the finals of the US Open as a 15 ahead set of ten-ball (winner breaks). Now we're talking pool.

Currently, major tournaments are competed and telecast as nothing more than quck exhibitions, and it makes me sick.

 

[BazookaJoe]

Hi dino,

I wish every event was played on Diamond Pro's or Gabriels Vector tables. Instead we get second class equipment. Why? Other than the dollars issue, the spectators like to see the players make balls. If every televised event was on even 4 1/2" pockets, the number of misses (jars) would go up dramaticly. Thats not good for TV either!
QUOTE]

I disagree, snooker is popular and the pockets are difficlut in that game. Tight pockets adds drama to every shot, because it's very possible for a player to miss. And drama, let's not forget, is why everyone watches sports in the first place.

You say the spectators like to see the players make balls. I submit that I'm hearing a lot of people on this board agree that the pockets were too big and the tables too easy. Since they were all 'spectators' I would say you're wrong.

I'll tell all of you what makes me sick. In the pool world, you always hear this type of comment - "Sure Mike Davis beat Earl in the tournament, but there's no way he would beat him gambling." To me that comment alone is what makes pool (nine-ball especially) a second rate sport.

The tournament game should be HARDER to win than the poolroom game, not easier. Look at tennis, they play best-of-five sets in major tournaments (try doing that sometime, see if you can make it to set four without having a heart attack). In golf, they play FOUR ROUNDS on a tough course (in the old days, the final round of the US Open was 36 holes). When they gamble at those sports (and they do, believe me), it's never in matches that long. Thus someone might say, "sure I beat Andre Agassi in a set and won $5000, but there's no way I could beat him over five sets at the US Open or Wimbledon." Now THAT'S what I would like to hear in pool.

Both golf and tennis players are prepared to go out and play for FIVE HOURS at any given time to win their money yet in pool a 45 minute race-to-seven is considered acceptable. Give me a break.

Until the TV game is the same as the poolroom game, real legitimacy will always be missing from tournaments. Guys match up and play for their OWN money and they always play 'ahead' sets (or mostly anyways). The day will probably never come where they play a tournament that features all 'ahead' sets, but in my opinion that would be the greatest thing ever. How would you like that - the finals of the US Open as a 15 ahead set of ten-ball (winner breaks). Now we're talking pool.

Currently, major tournaments are competed and telecast as nothing more than quck exhibitions, and it makes me sick.

Bet you still watch the next ESPN telecast.

 

[efirkey]

I for one was happy to see ESPN showing men play the game - sorry ladies, but their skill level is higher and more enjoyable for me to watch. And more different men play in the finals then just the two or three women I see in the ladies tour finals, if you know what I mean. (Allison and Karen)

I enjoy any pool I can get on TV, but I would like to see less commercials. For a sport with no sponsors they sure do have a lot of commercials.

 

[JustPlay]

Hi dino,

......As far as old has been's comment of sponsorship, I agree that we need money from outside our industry. Until that comes, or we agree to keep playing for pennies instead of dollars, were stuck in this rut. On the quality of the equipment, I wish every event was played on Diamond Pro's or Gabriels Vector tables. Instead we get second class equipment. Why? Other than the dollars issue, the spectators like to see the players make balls. If every televised event was on even 4 1/2" pockets, the number of misses (jars) would go up dramaticly. Thats not good for TV either!...


I and I think most everyone would like to see smaller pockets and so would the players who play in these tournaments as well. Does espn make the bowling balls bigger and the pins smaller when airing bowling? I didn't think so either, so why should they make the pockets bigger. The tv matches have the best players playing at that time of the event and so should the equipment. I really do not think we would see alot of missed balls with 4.5 inch pockets..........

 

[chefjeff]

<snip>

I enjoy any pool I can get on TV, but I would like to see less commercials. For a sport with no sponsors they sure do have a lot of commercials.

Excellent observation, efirkey.

But how can the players get enough of that dough to thrive, on a consistent basis?

Jeff Livingston