Should one pocket be played on a 10 foot table

[ulikastr8pool]

Why should we care?

Would you care if Accu-Stats did a 1pocket tournament on a 6x12 snooker table? What is the attraction? How does it relate to the average 1pocket player? What is there to identify with when what is being shot has next to nothing to do with what you are *ever* going to shoot?

Lou Figueroa

To me, I found it very interesting. It was a different perspective. There were more mistakes made. More balls missed. They weren't always dead out when they had a shot. All of my 'heroes' had at least a couple 'WTF was that?' moments. Reminded me of a road player trying to adjust to some gaffed up table. I like how the big table makes these champions look a little more mortal. That being said, there was also some great one pocket played.

I don't think the 10 footer is ideal. But, for an event a couple times a year, I'm sold.
Also, the commentary was the nuts.

 

[lfigueroa]

I don't know who the "we" is that you refer to but I'll tell you why most should or do care.

Most of "us" sports fans love watching players do things that we cannot do. Whether it's "Magic" throwing no-look passes, "Bird" hitting a long, off-angle 3, Michael doing what Michael did, Bobby Fischer playing 12 move combinations to checkmate, Montana or Bradshaw throwing a football where it didn't belong, Tyson having guys beat before they stepped into the ring, Arnie, Jack, Phil or Tiger shooting phenomenal shots, Gretzky doing his thing, John Holmes doing Marilyn Chambers, all of them have one thing in common for us regular guys; they can do things that we cannot do. That's the reason we watch them.

Would you want to watch Tiger & Phil or Jack & Arnie play miniature golf? Would you want to see Bird & Magic play half-court or 3 on 3? Your neighbor hammer his wife? Of course not. You want to see the best at their chosen game/sport tested to the max. All of the best one-pocket players in the past played on a 5 x 10 and that's where the players of today can show how they match up with the players of yesteryear.

In the "Twilight Zone" episode "A Game Of Pool", Jessie Cardiff says to Fats Brown: "I don't need a challenge". Fats Brown replies: "Everyone needs a challenge. Someone from the past who says "match this boy and make it better". This is what the players are up against and trying to do. Some are just trying to eat tonight and some are trying to match-up with long-gone heroes & legends.

As to your question about 6x12 snooker table one-pocket: I have played it a few times but I much prefer a 5 x 10 snooker table for that game. It was a big game here for quite awhile and to my knowledge it was the only game that Paul Brusilof would play for big money. At least until the Rack closed down.

I realize that most today can't relate to one-pocket on a 5 x 10 but they can't relate to playing at Augusta either, or playing in the Super Bowl or World Series. Bottom line to me is that I want to see the greatest players of today tested to their limits and see who comes out on top. It will change from week to week and year to year but it's what I love seeing.

No golfers ever complain about the Masters being a course where they will never play or the British Open being on courses they will never set foot on. The history that is there is respected and revered by all. We only watch to compare ourselves to the greatest while we prepare to go in to work tomorrow.

Dennis

Except for the really older farts, most players today would not recall the era of the 5x10s. And if we wanted to really compare and contrast players in a valid manner, as you suggest, we'd need to trot out the clay balls and heavier cloth. (Maybe we should have everyone play with Balabuskas and Rambos too.) Seriously, how many people really care how players from a bygone era compare to today's players when most players cannot name anyone in recent memory besides Fats, JL, Mosconi, and maybe Efren? Even the more serious of fans, while they may know the names, have never ever seen the old-time players play. IOW: no one cares.

Who of today's players are wondering how they stack up against the old-time players? The good Dr. has already made a compelling case as to why today's play is of a higher caliber. That game is over.

Lastly, golf is not a valid comparison. Maybe bowling, or even track and field, or chess, or any competition where, up front, there is an attempt at standardizing the playing field. Everyone knows that every golf course is different and it draws people with that component of the game on the table, so to speak. At other sports, such as pool, it is exactly the opposite and the fact that everyone is playing on similar equipment that is one of its draws and a legitimate expectation.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Alfie Taylor]

Except for the really older farts, most players today would not recall the era of the 5x10s. And if we wanted to really compare and contrast players in a valid manner, as you suggest, we'd need to trot out the clay balls and heavier cloth. (Maybe we should have everyone play with Balabuskas and Rambos too.) Seriously, how many people really care how players from a bygone era compare to today's players when most players cannot name anyone in recent memory besides Fats, JL, Mosconi, and maybe Efren? Even the more serious of fans, while they may know the names, have never ever seen the old-time players play. IOW: no one cares.

Who of today's players are wondering how they stack up against the old-time players? The good Dr. has already made a compelling case as to why today's play is of a higher caliber. That game is over.

Lastly, golf is not a valid comparison. Maybe bowling, or even track and field, or chess, or any competition where, up front, there is an attempt at standardizing the playing field. Everyone knows that every golf course is different and it draws people with that component of the game on the table, so to speak. At other sports, such as pool, it is exactly the opposite and the fact that everyone is playing on similar equipment that is one of its draws and a legitimate expectation.

Lou Figueroa

WAY TO GO, MR. F.
This is why I get up in the morning and play around on this site. Sure, the scrapping is a hoot but what a well written, intelligent post...and, nobody got punched in the nose.
You mentioned "caliber of play" and why it's changed for the better?
This is something that, because of my walking away from the thick of the fray for a few decades then easing back in, I believe I know something about. It's wordy so I won't clog up your post Lou, my friend. I'll discuss it with the masses.
Keep it coming, sir. Alfie

 

[wincardona]

Except for the really older farts, most players today would not recall the era of the 5x10s. And if we wanted to really compare and contrast players in a valid manner, as you suggest, we'd need to trot out the clay balls and heavier cloth. (Maybe we should have everyone play with Balabuskas and Rambos too.) Seriously, how many people really care how players from a bygone era compare to today's players when most players cannot name anyone in recent memory besides Fats, JL, Mosconi, and maybe Efren? Even the more serious of fans, while they may know the names, have never ever seen the old-time players play. IOW: no one cares.

Who of today's players are wondering how they stack up against the old-time players? The good Dr. has already made a compelling case as to why today's play is of a higher caliber. That game is over.

Lastly, golf is not a valid comparison. Maybe bowling, or even track and field, or chess, or any competition where, up front, there is an attempt at standardizing the playing field. Everyone knows that every golf course is different and it draws people with that component of the game on the table, so to speak. At other sports, such as pool, it is exactly the opposite and the fact that everyone is playing on similar equipment that is one of its draws and a legitimate expectation.

Lou Figueroa

Over at AZB there was a thread about "Today's better players at one pocket" there was one particular poster that got my attention with his summation on players from different era's, and it really couldn't of been said any better.

ote:
Originally Posted by Cornerman
My simple opinion based on attending the DCC all these years and watching the evolution is that more top players are playing one-hole. And therefore the old idea of better movers vs better shooters ends up being moot as the best shooters in the world can move. And the best shooters moving is completely integrated with their shooting. That is to say that what are normally great moves might not work against world class shotmakers anymore. And world-class shot makers can expand the definition of "the correct shot" based on their great shotmaking.

So, I don't think it's so much that the game has changed (maybe it has) but rather more of the best players are playing it and leaving behind the concept of "better movers."



Exactly!!!

Dr. Bill

 

[wincardona]

Over at AZB there was a thread about "Today's better players at one pocket" there was one particular poster that got my attention with his summation on players from different era's, and it really couldn't of been said any better.

ote:
Originally Posted by Cornerman
My simple opinion based on attending the DCC all these years and watching the evolution is that more top players are playing one-hole. And therefore the old idea of better movers vs better shooters ends up being moot as the best shooters in the world can move. And the best shooters moving is completely integrated with their shooting. That is to say that what are normally great moves might not work against world class shotmakers anymore. And world-class shot makers can expand the definition of "the correct shot" based on their great shotmaking.

So, I don't think it's so much that the game has changed (maybe it has) but rather more of the best players are playing it and leaving behind the concept of "better movers."



Exactly!!!

Dr. Bill

This is the natural course that evolution takes, it happens with everything in all sports, including pool, and one pocket in particular. I say this because one pocket is the game that players knew least about in terms of understanding the game. It's only been in the last 10 or so years that we have begun to see the popularity of the game expand and the better pool players competing. There are still a vast majority of great players that still haven't taken one pocket seriously, and with that understanding one can only imagine how much more the the game will evolve in terms of proficiency.

John Schmidt is a perfect example of what i'm speaking about. Schmidt has never been regarded as one of the best players playing one pocket until he beat Frost in the finals of the DCC. Later on he played Chris Gentile and won easily. However, players and other people still didn't place Schmidt along with the games best movers.:frus Are we starting to get it? Schmidt is an excellent ball striker with a good understanding of the game of one pocket, which will always make him a threat to win major one pocket tournaments. The better pool players are getting involved with one pocket, and the future of one pocket will be much more competitive than it ever has because of this. Earl Strickland was in the finals a couple of years ago against Shane. What do you think propelled Strickland into the finals??? It wasn't his superior moving skill.

Lets not get fooled into believing that the better ball strikers will always prevail. (They still need to understand how to think playing a thinking mans game, I think)

Dr. Bill

 

[tylerdurden]

In many ways though, I see a guy like schmidt's thinking to be above "movers" (hate to generalize) though. Maybe you can just call it different thinking. I don't think the movers think better than guys like schmidt necessarily. He is very savvy, has played plenty of one hole, and knows what to do to win given his skill set. I really don't think you can say something like "gentile moves better than schmidt", not that anybody said that, but those are not true statements imo. They just move and play differently. In many way, I think that real first hand knowledge of how to win is better than studying any certain way to play. I see a lot of schmidt style thinking in OPH posts too; which i personally really enjoy because I have thought for a while that to win in one pocket you must think more like this.

 

[Fatboy]

we wont be here but i wonder in 50 years(assuming there is a pool table left) what 1P will be like?

 

[lfigueroa]

In many ways though, I see a guy like schmidt's thinking to be above "movers" (hate to generalize) though. Maybe you can just call it different thinking. I don't think the movers think better than guys like schmidt necessarily. He is very savvy, has played plenty of one hole, and knows what to do to win given his skill set. I really don't think you can say something like "gentile moves better than schmidt", not that anybody said that, but those are not true statements imo. They just move and play differently. In many way, I think that real first hand knowledge of how to win is better than studying any certain way to play. I see a lot of schmidt style thinking in OPH posts too; which i personally really enjoy because I have thought for a while that to win in one pocket you must think more like this.

I've always consider guys who have schooled themselves in 14.1 to be the "classically trained" players of he game, like maybe Varner, Cook, Mizerak, Hopkins, et al. And I think when you combine that kind of knowledge with precision ball striking, you are going to see them beating "one pocket" players who are more self-taught and schooled purely in 1pocket.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

WAY TO GO, MR. F.
This is why I get up in the morning and play around on this site. Sure, the scrapping is a hoot but what a well written, intelligent post...and, nobody got punched in the nose.
You mentioned "caliber of play" and why it's changed for the better?
This is something that, because of my walking away from the thick of the fray for a few decades then easing back in, I believe I know something about. It's wordy so I won't clog up your post Lou, my friend. I'll discuss it with the masses.
Keep it coming, sir. Alfie

lol. Thanks, Alfie.

Lou Figueroa

 

[gulfportdoc]

Schmidt has never been regarded as one of the best players playing one pocket until he beat Frost in the finals of the DCC. Later on he played Chris Gentile and won easily. However, players and other people still didn't place Schmidt along with the games best movers.:frus

Schmidt beat Frost in those finals because Frost had 2-3 unexpected scratches when the balls were spread open, leaving Schmidt at least two fairly routine 8-and-outs.

Schmidt beat Gentile because he can out-shoot him. Gentile is probably one of the best movers in the game today, but when playing guys who are good movers AND good ball runners --like Frost, SVB, Pagulayan, etc.-- he's not likely to prevail.

Schmidt, self-admittedly, is not one of the top movers in the game. But as a ball runner, he's probably in the top 10.

Doc

 

[tylerdurden]

I would have loved to have seen an in stroke schmidt play in this 5x10 tourni. I think ther'd have been some very entertaining "upsets."

 

[wincardona]

Schmidt beat Frost in those finals because Frost had 2-3 unexpected scratches when the balls were spread open, leaving Schmidt at least two fairly routine 8-and-outs.

Schmidt beat Gentile because he can out-shoot him. Gentile is probably one of the best movers in the game today, but when playing guys who are good movers AND good ball runners --like Frost, SVB, Pagulayan, etc.-- he's not likely to prevail.

Schmidt, self-admittedly, is not one of the top movers in the game. But as a ball runner, he's probably in the top 10.

Doc

I agree with everything you say (which is unusual in itself) however, the point is, is that Schmidt is a very offensive player that strikes the ball great. Plus he has a very good understanding of the game. Which brings me to the point of "moving" Which in my opinion is very subjective because players have their own style, and by them playing to their strengths is, and should be considered their way of "moving" Granted, Gentile will handle certain positions differently, where Schmidt may opt to play a more aggressive shot,. However, in either case if the shooter prevails then they both were able to benefit from their style of play. One being a more conservative type as opposed to the other being a more aggressive type. Example: Is Gentile a better mover than Daulton? Is Daulton a better mover than Varner? Is Artie a better mover than Reyes? It's all about the style of the player and how efficient of a player he is with his style of play. Also, a lot has to do with how well a player strikes the ball, for instance, Gentile can't afford to play the way Schmidt or Deuel plays because he can't execute as well, with that understanding he must then find another way to win, which he has but to say he's a better mover than some of the better ball strikers is not fair. But there are many great ball strikers that don't quite understand the game, and it's those players that should be considered inexperienced "movers"

Just my opinion.

Dr. Bill

 

[gulfportdoc]

Oh, I don't know, Billy. I think we agree lots of times. Especially when you stop talking long enough to listen to what I'm saying. But you seem to be taking the position that good shooting can be assessed objectively, whereas good moving is only subjective. That doesn't make any sense. A good example is that Gentile is a better mover than is Schmidt, but Schmidt is a better shooter.

Doc

 

[lfigueroa]

Oh, I don't know, Billy. I think we agree lots of times. Especially when you stop talking long enough to listen to what I'm saying. But you seem to be taking the position that good shooting can be assessed objectively, whereas good moving is only subjective. That doesn't make any sense. A good example is that Gentile is a better mover than is Schmidt, but Schmidt is a better shooter.

Doc

er, Doc, I think good shooting can be assessed objectively: give each player ball in hand and tell them to start running balls.

JS will stop somewhere around two or three hundred balls. CG will be lucky to get to 50.

Lou Figueroa

 

[wincardona]

Oh, I don't know, Billy. I think we agree lots of times. Especially when you stop talking long enough to listen to what I'm saying. But you seem to be taking the position that good shooting can be assessed objectively, whereas good moving is only subjective. That doesn't make any sense. A good example is that Gentile is a better mover than is Schmidt, but Schmidt is a better shooter.

Doc

Gentile wins more games trapping his opponent than Schmidt does, Imo that doesn't necessarily make him a better mover, especially if he does it out of necessity. However I agree that Gentile gets more mileage out of his game than Schmidt when looking at both their skill set. It's much more difficult to exhibit good table management if you're a great ball striker in comparison to a fair ball striker. More often than they should great ball strikers tend to over shoot, when playing the safer shot is the better percentage shot. I have watched Schmidt play excellent table management and use very good discretion with shot selection. He did it against Frost not only in the finals at the DCC but also in a stream of a California one pocket match that I watched.

Ask Gentile how good Schmidt moves, he was very impressed, at least that's what he told me.

Dr. Bill

 

[tylerdurden]

That was exactly right though Doc, good shooting can be assessed quantitatively (ie objectively), whereas moving could not. That makes perfect sense.

If you were to try and come up with an imperfect way to measure how well a player moved, it would HAVE to involve winning percentage against the game's best. That is the mistake people make. It was most starkly represented in here when Efren was winning everything, and people were saying he was shooting the wrong shot all the time.

I personally agree with Billy. I don't think it is fair at all to say a guy like Gentile moves better. We can pretty much solidify schmidt shoots better though, correct? If they played each other 50 games of one pocket, and came out about even I think you could in fact have a good argument that Gentile moves better though.

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

I'd still like to see someone unambiguously define the term "ball striker", of course that means not covering both ends of your definition to include "shooters" and/or "movers" and/or "position players".

I've seen good ball strikers strike balls right into a rail.

 

[lfigueroa]

I'd still like to see someone unambiguously define the term "ball striker", of course that means not covering both ends of your definition to include "shooters" and/or "movers" and/or "position players".

I've seen good ball strikers strike balls right into a rail.

A good ball striker is a player with a stroke that can hit an object ball with a high degree of precision over a wide range of speeds and with the full compliment of spins.

As a counter point, some guys swipe the CB so they are less accurate at distance. Or there are those that can only slow roll the ball.

Lou Figueroa

 

[onepockethacker]

I agree with everything you say (which is unusual in itself) however, the point is, is that Schmidt is a very offensive player that strikes the ball great. Plus he has a very good understanding of the game. Which brings me to the point of "moving" Which in my opinion is very subjective because players have their own style, and by them playing to their strengths is, and should be considered their way of "moving" Granted, Gentile will handle certain positions differently, where Schmidt may opt to play a more aggressive shot,. However, in either case if the shooter prevails then they both were able to benefit from their style of play. One being a more conservative type as opposed to the other being a more aggressive type. Example: Is Gentile a better mover than Daulton? Is Daulton a better mover than Varner? Is Artie a better mover than Reyes? It's all about the style of the player and how efficient of a player he is with his style of play. Also, a lot has to do with how well a player strikes the ball, for instance, Gentile can't afford to play the way Schmidt or Deuel plays because he can't execute as well, with that understanding he must then find another way to win, which he has but to say he's a better mover than some of the better ball strikers is not fair. But there are many great ball strikers that don't quite understand the game, and it's those players that should be considered inexperienced "movers"

Just my opinion.

Dr. Bill

This makes me think of Michael Jordan and Larry Bird. They were 2 of the best basketball players ever and had completely different skill sets and talent level. Larry is considered by many as the smartest basketball player ever because he couldn't run, couldn't jump and yet was MVP 3 years in a row. Jordan was quick as a cat and could jump out of the building and should have been the MVP every year.. Larry was one of the best shooters ever and Jordan was the best offensive player ever(and please nobody mention Chamberlain here). Larry couldn't play Michaels style and michael couldn't play Larry's style. They both took their skill sets and what they were good at and got the maximum out of them. However that does not mean Michael wasn't one of the smartest players ever also. He was so gifted athletically people sometimes overlook the fact that he was a genius on the court just like Larry.

 

[wincardona]

That was exactly right though Doc, good shooting can be assessed quantitatively (ie objectively), whereas moving could not. That makes perfect sense.

If you were to try and come up with an imperfect way to measure how well a player moved, it would HAVE to involve winning percentage against the game's best. That is the mistake people make. It was most starkly represented in here when Efren was winning everything, and people were saying he was shooting the wrong shot all the time.

I personally agree with Billy. I don't think it is fair at all to say a guy like Gentile moves better. We can pretty much solidify schmidt shoots better though, correct? If they played each other 50 games of one pocket, and came out about even I think you could in fact have a good argument that Gentile moves better though.

Excellent observations. I can appreciate Gentiles one pocket game because he can compete against the best in spite of him not being as accurate a ball striker as many of the worlds top players. Would it be fair to asses his game as a very good mover? Absolutely. Gentile has designed his game to accommodate his ability as a pool player. Chris is a very good table manager, he understands his capabilities and plays within them. He's an excellent gambler which Imo is very beneficial when deciding which available option (for him) suits the situation thats presented, best. Gentile wins many of his games with his management skills, not only by moving balls and trapping but understanding the right time to choose shots that offer him the best chance of winning. Does that make him a good mover? Of course, but most importantly he is using his imagination to suit his skill set Just as players like Reyes, Daulton, and others choose options that complement their skill set. So who is the better movers? I can appreciate all style of players, particularly the players that understand the game and use their skills to create wins. That is Imo "moving"

Dr. Bill