I have explained over and over again my objection to your suggestion. Changes to traditional institutions, One Pocket being one of these, requires careful consideration and a firm understanding of all that is potentially at stake. You would be mistaken if you thought I have not tried to think of all pitfalls that could occur. I know of a few from experience that would cause me pause but I don't feel the onus is on those who disagree but on those who wish to convince. One does not go to a bank looking for a loan and say to the loan officer "I want a loan, tell me why I shouldn't get the loan." They convince the loan officer it is good business for the bank to provide the loan.
As I have ask repeatedly, why must you turn it around and try to elicit reasons why not each time I have ask you why. Your patented answer is always the same, suggesting that it would speed up the game but you don't say how that will happen given common situations that arise in so many One Pocket games. Up table games for one example. There are others. How does your solution solve a situation like that? I think the answer is obvious, I don't expect you to answer with any practical knowledge because you lack the experience. You have made that perfectly clear through the numerous posts you've made.
Tom
Yeah, brilliant. You're a genius, Wow, now I understand everything. Thanks ever so much. I've been so thickheaded but you, in your infinite wisdom have guided me to the clarity of enlightenment. I will sleep easy now knowing that I have now be blessed with your all knowing insight. I pray that I may in some spiritual way touch the hem of your garment.
Thank You, Thank you, Thank You.
Now can we please move on to other things?
I'm so tired of this BS
Tom
I respectfully disagree. To be honest my impression is just the opposite -- to me it has seemed like for some reason you and Tyler just would not accept any contrary opinion -- despite the fact that your idea is the one trying to buck the status quo, which to me places more of the burden on you to prove the value. It is amazing to me that you have not even tried it, yet you have pushed it relentlessly for a week and in my opinion you have not respected those who like the game as it is -- which has come from many different players, not from "on high".
To the contrary, Steve, I have commented on several other ideas, agreeing that some of then have merit, and some don't IMO. As to the value of my idea, to shorten each and every game of one
pocket played, you gotta be very dense not to see that fewer balls needed to get out, translates to shorter games. My trying this idea would no doubt be recieved by gushing adulations, NOT. It would be far more valuable for you to try it cause readers would inherently know that anything good you had to say would be very painful for you.
This quoted post of yours for example is very disrespectful IMHO -- you actually seem to believe your own idea is the only logical well thought ought view and are dismissive of those that disagree, yet you have no zip nada experience with how well or not your idea might actually work or how smart players might adapt to it.
Have you read the disrespectful and insulting garbage written by TW and others? I think I am far more polite. I have said numerous times that I love to play one pocket in its current form. These threads are about how best to speed the game up. Why would anybody whose only contribution is to keep repeating how much they want to keep the game as is, even read let alone post on these threads? Are they just trying to keep us all from even talking about it?
Honestly I would suggest you back off and try it yourself and get some feedback and share that. How about adding a little money for a mini tournament? There are plenty of members here (me included) who have added a limitless to make a tournament happen...
What is that old expression about catching more flies with honey than vinegar?
Steve, you don't even follow your own advice. You have offered several ideas of your own, spotting balls from kitchen, using the "pick" as a penalty, both of which I think are perhaps workable and have some merit. But, you have offered absolutely NOTHING to support or PROVE their worth or that they would work (very hypocritical).
What am I to think??
I just looked, and of your 39 posts here on OnePocket.org, incredibly all but one of them have basically been hammering away on the same single point. Yet, you have called others stubborn. Take this sentence of yours: "Why would anybody whose only contribution is to keep repeating how much they want to keep the game as is, even read let alone post on these threads?" and just for giggles imagine if someone else had made the same point about how much you keep repeating your own single idea to change the game instead.To the contrary, Steve, I have commented on several other ideas, agreeing that some of then have merit, and some don't IMO. As to the value of my idea, to shorten each and every game of one
pocket played, you gotta be very dense not to see that fewer balls needed to get out, translates to shorter games. My trying this idea would no doubt be recieved by gushing adulations, NOT. It would be far more valuable for you to try it cause readers would inherently know that anything good you had to say would be very painful for you.
Have you read the disrespectful and insulting garbage written by TW and others? I think I am far more polite. I have said numerous times that I love to play one pocket in its current form. These threads are about how best to speed the game up. Why would anybody whose only contribution is to keep repeating how much they want to keep the game as is, even read let alone post on these threads? Are they just trying to keep us all from even talking about it?
Steve, you don't even follow your own advice. You have offered several ideas of your own, spotting balls from kitchen, using the "pick" as a penalty, both of which I think are perhaps workable and have some merit. But, you have offered absolutely NOTHING to support or PROVE their worth or that they would work (very hypocritical).
What am I to think??
Looks like shot clock is pretty easily favored in the choices I gave. That makes sense, most players want the actual one pocket changed as little as possible. I think the shot clock affords a good blend between not changing the game, and having the desired effect of speeding it up.
I was thinking last night about "Texas Express". First, I wondered who came up with that rule in 9ball. Some unnamed player? Who is he/she/they, and what do they think about the potential changes to one pocket? Anyway, maybe there exists a version of "Texas Express" one pocket, where the game is in fact changed, but people still like it, and it is faster. I really don't know. Tough questions. The other thing to note about it is, once Texas express took over, even the players who preferred the old push rules seemed to be playing the new express way. Some still argue push is a better way to play of course, despite the lack of actual playing time it gets.
This brought me to thinking about things we as humans become accustomed to. It seems to be human nature. Whether it is our pool cue, our bowling ball, our rifle we have used for years, whatever.... we may not have the best one, but there tends to be an inclination there to not change due to our being accustomed to it. We are used to its intricacies and we feel comfortable when we have it. Again, these are tough questions. If one pocket were to change, would we need to force the change onto players, like Texas express seemed to be? Would the changes take off on their own? Would the players scoff at the potential changes? I guess there is no way to tell until we tried something. Really no specific inferences being made here, just thoughts to consider
I just looked, and of your 39 posts here on OnePocket.org, incredibly all but one of them have basically been hammering away on the same single point. Yet, you have called others stubborn. Take this sentence of yours: "Why would anybody whose only contribution is to keep repeating how much they want to keep the game as is, even read let alone post on these threads?" and just for giggles imagine if someone else had made the same point about how much you keep repeating your own single idea to change the game instead.
You have also called everyone who disagreed with you at all, "dense", "silly", "you got nothing", "don't even understand what we are talking about", "you keep repeating like a broken record", "dogmatic" -- and probably more, but I did not reread all 38 of your posts on the same point. In fact, you have consistently talked down to all who don't embrace your idea, including me.
To me, repeatedly criticizing others for essentially the same thing you are guilty of yourself is the very definition of hypocrisy.
You also posted earlier to Tom, that he should "put up or shut up" -- well now is your chance to do the same.
I have offered to put up a share in a small added money Express One Pocket tournament. I notice Tyler initially dismissed that, and it looks like you have too, with yet another put down something about how painful it would be for me. What's with that? A hundred apiece added would be pretty good for a mini- tournament of the type they hold every night at Derby City for example. Since they start their minis at midnight, it makes sense to use an accelerated game format for that type of thing.
The same applies to Tyler here -- if you two really like your idea and want to see if it will work, it is definitely time to put up or shut up, imo. I am in if we can all agree on the exact rules. If it is at Derby City we have six months to work it out. Of course, for DCC we would still have to get it approved by Greg Sullivan and the DCC tournament directors -- which who knows, that could be just as hard a sell as OnePocket.org has been for you Maybe Lou would chip in and it could be $400 or more added
Texas Express as named, I do not know who started it, but it was the Jansco's that first introduced "one foul ball in hand anywhere on the table" , which is the main component of Texas Express. They used it first in 1967!!!!
I wonder whose idea it was to implement their idea more prominently. Looking at this history could aid us here?
I would start looking in Texas
By the way, in 1967 there was nothing more prominent in pool tournaments than what the Jansco's were doing at Johnston City and Stardust. The US Open Straight Pool had only recently revived after apparently closing up shop due to lack of support and interest.
If you look in old magazines the history would probably come up. Since it is a nine-ball rule, I think I will personally pass on researching it, simply because I have zero interest in that game. The only reason I know about the Jansco role is because I do have a great deal of interest in the Jansco Brothers and Johnston City history.