Ban the 'Oxford shot'?

[Colemanator]

;D just though that i'd get a debate going on this 'issue'
It follows on from the article that we saw from the guy who said that when this shot was introduced it help 'kill the game'

What do you think?
Should it be restricted, like the fourth break?
would it be boring playing 50 holes?
what if you could only pot 3 50 hole shots before you had to play another shot?

Tin hat at the ready 8-)

[milhouse]

I think that if you could just pot on the 50 pocket all game most people would give up - where is the enjoyment or skill in that ?

[milhouse]

Or was that a suggestion to just ban the Oxford players from playing that shot because they keep winning ? ;D ;D ;) ;) ;) ;D

[Colemanator]

Apr 22, 2008 13:52:34 GMT Colemanator said:

what if you could only pot 3 50 hole shots before you had to play another shot?

it does help Mark to read the post properly before laying in to me :-/ ;)

[Chris_Sav]

Apr 22, 2008 14:32:16 GMT milhouse said:

I think that if you could just pot on the 50 pocket all game most people would give up - where is the enjoyment or skill in that ?

There are far fewer people in the game with the ringcraft to stay in position on a 50 hole than can play Oxford shots. fifty potting is far more complicated than learning one shot.

Restricting shot combinations would not worry me, anything to make the game less repetitive is a good idea to me. However any rule would have to be very carefully thought out.

Sav

[winkle]

Before you lads ban the shot, can I have time to find it please...

[BFG]

After starting to play this game and seeing people play that shot it did become a mission to play it!!

Kill the game ? for me that just seemed part of it when I have mastered the game I will have practiced for years, I will score 10k plus breaks all the time and then I will be boring????

What about one or two of my current favourites the 50/10 or 50/20 or what about the 50/30 would that be legal?

Surely all that would happen is that people who are able to play the oxford shotwith such accuracy would start to play other shots with equal accuracy and before long the debate would just shift to a shot without a name!!!???

[Mark James]

BFG has hit the nail on the head, the "Oxford" or "split" as we tend to call it in Sussex is simply a shot like all the others, designed to pot the balls efficiently and continue with a break. If it wasn't possible to play such a shot, for whatever reason, a different method would quickly be found to achieve the same end.

However, as an exercise in rule-drafting, I'd like to issue a challenge to anyone who wants to have a go at it, to post on here the wording for a precise rule amendment that would achieve what is suggested by Colemanator above. Just for a bit of fun, you understand. I think this might prove more difficult to do than one would first imagine.....

[Colemanator]

I think if it was restricted to 3 times in succession as like the break, and also restrict a 50 hole pot to 3 times as well, might make the game more interesting, although a bit harder for a scorer ;D

[DA-DM]

Apr 23, 2008 5:46:10 GMT Mark James said:

However, as an exercise in rule-drafting, I'd like to issue a challenge to anyone who wants to have a go at it, to post on here the wording for a precise rule amendment that would achieve what is suggested by Colemanator above. Just for a bit of fun, you understand. I think this might prove more difficult to do than one would first imagine.....

couldn't you just use the rule that restricts the fourth break and change the wording to 'oxford shot/split' ? ;D

[BB Warrior]

Apr 23, 2008 7:53:17 GMT Colemanator said:

I think if it was restricted to 3 times in succession as like the break, and also restrict a 50 hole pot to 3 times as well, might make the game more interesting, although a bit harder for a scorer ;D

I completely agree..... it would be a lot harder for the scorer, it could even end up meaning that you would have to have 2 people to score & check each game, one to keep the actual score and one to check the number of times each type of shot has been played in succession. ::)

At the end of the day, the players who have the ability to play the "Oxford / Split" shot on a consistent basis would easily have the skill to adjust the position of the red ball on the one-up shot to simply play a different type of split shot (ie 50/10 or 50/20) after they have played the 50/100 split 3 times, so the only real difference would be a slightly lower score for them at the end of the game.

I think that would defeat the object of trying to ban the shot in the first place.

Anybody who plays bar billiards regularly should be able to get the break easily enough, so it is right to restrict that to 3 times before you should have to play a different shot.

But the split shot does require more skill than the break and, potentially, can easily end up with hitting a peg if you get it slightly wrong - as I know to my own experience - frequently! :( :-[

My vote would definitely be to keep the rules as they are.

[specialone]

Not sure what 'the Oxford shot is'. Is it what I know as 'the split shot'?
If it is the split shot I think it can make the game very monotonous, especially at the top end of the sport. However I don't play at the top end of the sport so it doesn't bother me.
Got a 9k break recently and got the break back at least 5 different ways, without using the split. That's the way I enjoy playing, some people enjoy playing the split. Live and let live I say.
If we ban the split, people will come up with another repetative way of amassing a score and that will have to be banned as well.
I do not want to reduce the way I get a score to just 3 shots, but some players do and good luck to them.
Thefairone

Apart from splits 50/100, 50/10 or 50/20, there are three rival ways of playing a table out without using the split:
All involve leaving a ball close to the 50 pocket. One way, you crash one ball in after the other to pot both in the 50 hole; one way, you angle one ball off the cushion (again both into the 50 hole) and one way is by crashing a ball down to the 30 and following through to the 50.
So are these methods to be banned also ?
As has been said, there is a risk with the 'Oxford' that you might catch it too thin, whip and have a peg.
I think the game benefits from having all the options. On a good table, you can have been struggling - but still hold out hope that you can get the break-back and whip up enough to win at the end by using the split.
I cannot see any justification in banning it just for the sake of a tiny minority.

[BFG]

Taking it back to the reason for the post being relative to the article that PART blamed the oxford shot/split for the loss of interest in the game.

I first saw a bar billiards table at the Brittania in Guildford. I do not remember ever seeing anyone else playing and I am certain we never had to wait to play!

this big and busy pub had a great variety of customers, university and a college up the road old regulars, shoppers and locals.

There was no pool table then IT WAS 1976!!

The next time I saw a table was in 2005

I think a lot of other factors were involved in the reduction of popularity.........I do wonder what they were ???

[Mark James]

The point I was trying to make in my previous post was that, even if there was a will to prohibit a particular shot, it would be almost impossible to draft such a rule, because how would one define the shot in sufficiently specific terms?

The only shot in bar billiards which is defined in such precise terms is the last ball 100 or 200. No such description is applied to the break shot, the rules refer solely to the number of times you are allowed to sink both balls from that position, without any reference to which holes they might go down.

So, lets hear a water-tight definition of what constitutes the "Oxford" shot, one that would pass muster in a rule book. I'm pretty sure I couldn't write one, can anyone else?

[BFG]

absolutely Mark this would have to work around a rule based like the one up, of one ball remaining,ie 3 times one ball...oxford....3 times one ball.......oxford......3 times one ball.......oxford.......3 times one ball......and one ball!!!!!!! (no oxford!! no potting both balls with a long split!!

and then...........both down break back and we start all over again!!!

seems familiar ??? that will be it .....as we are now but differently!!

The rule re the Oxford is really fairly pointless as the long split is not an oxford but is both down break back....same result!!

Therefore you would automatically end up using the same principle as 3 times one up and just keep moving the definition.

The Oxford by definition is red to 50 white to 100. If you play it inverted white 50 red 100 it is not technically an Oxford so the definition is quite simple.

you would end up with a principle of 3 times one up, 3 splits long short or otherwise one up!!

I would definitely have to stick to lime sodas scoring these rules!!!

FOR THAT REASON ALONE.......KEEP THE OXFORD.....AND WITH A BIT OF LUCK....ONE DAY I WILL PLAY IT CONSISTENTLY WITHOUT PEGGING MY BREAK!!!!!!!!! >:( ::) :o

[bigtj]

I personally took a long time to learn the split shot and still am not that good that I can master always leaving the one up in the perfect position so have to adapt to playing it where I leave it. This causes pegs a plenty as you can make mistakes with how you hit the split.

Surely the whole idea of any game is that is played to the highest possible level, and restricting shots outside the break is impeaching on those who do play to that level. Also it gives those trying to improve something to aim at, and it up to them if they so wish to pesvere and learn to play the shots that will win them games.

As Mark James says it would be nigh on impossible to write a defining rule, and then good only knows how scorers would keep up with extra rules. In some sports he equipment makes a hell of a difference and I can see restericting the design of that equipment, but here we are talking about people mastering the art of their game.

[Ros]

Interesting discussion!

I can and do split, but rarely do so in competition - especially on a strange table. I am very fond of doing a 'direct' split on our home table, ie a very thin cut on the ball to send it directly into the 50 while the cueball goes into the 100.

I am full of admiration for those who can concentrate for over 17 minutes and play only the break, one-up and split, however it does tend to spoil the game as a spectator sport after a while.

Most of the top players who can play a table out are also masters of the rest of the table, however I've seen some players at opens who appear to have little idea of how to play the table if the balls end up at the back end - that is a pity.

I presume there must have been a time when it was legal to play the break as many times as you could without the need to do a 'one up'?

I agree with Mark, it would be pretty impossible to define the split and then draft a watertight rule to prevent it.

There could be methods to restrict or discourage it's use, or introduce other shots into the mix though.

None of following are suggestions, merely an exercise:

The split is much less common in Jersey, the reasons seem to be twofold, firstly that added to the risk of taking out a peg, there is also a strong risk of leaving a short ball in a very bad position for 'off the spot', the second reason is that it is very easy with the quick drop pockets to do the Channel Isles follow through with both balls going into the 50, one directly and one off the cushion. The current world champion didn't play a single split in the final - maybe not in the entire competition?

But surely the most obvious way to introduce another shot into the equation would be a second 'one up':

After only one ball has been potted from the break position (regardless of how many times both balls have been potted) the player must not pot both balls on the next shot, but must leave one ball up again.

That wouldn't be unduly difficult for the scorer, it would probably lead to a lot more players using the 100/30 rather than play a 'long' 50 to try to stay in postion for the 100/50 on the next go.

Maybe someone would like to test drive that in a summer competition?

Well, here is my opinion. ::)

I believe that the split shot is more then one shot. It is about placement after the one up. Unless you are god. The one up shot can vary in it's final position.

I call this kind of discussion, SLS (sore loser syndrome) ;D As only people who hate losing would even suggest it. ;)

I hate losing by people playing the oxford, but I get on with it. I just learn and get better, so I can do it back.

Will everyone steer clear of handicaps, they are not doing the game any good for youngsters who want to achieve something by playing! 8-)

[Colemanator]

Apr 24, 2008 16:18:07 GMT @sithlord said:

I call this kind of discussion, SLS (sore loser syndrome) ;D As only people who hate losing would even suggest it. ;)

:-/ I started this thread, but the above quote does not apply to me ::) 8-)

[davemay]

Some people may say that the " split " / " oxford " is and can make the game boring, but I remember a couple of years ago at the Kent Classic, the semi-final between Keith Sheard, and Kevin Tunstall, where Keith ran the table for a score of 20200. This is on an Open championship table where the timings are very accurate to 17 mins, ( give or take 5 secs ).
Kevin promptly set about the task of catching that score, and Keith was standing about 5 feet from where I was with other Medway players. I commented ( very quietly ) that I did not think KT had started quickly enough, but Keith had heard me, and, with only about 1 minute played said that as long as Kevin caried on at the pace he was playing, he ( Keith ) had lost, as this was the quickest he had ever seen Kevin start.
True to his words, Keith lost that match, and 5 mins after running out the table in the semi-final for a winning 21750, he ran the 1st leg of the final against Barry Holt for just over 19500. It was a wonderful feat of:-

1 Great ability and skill, and
2 Wonderful concentration

To be able to do that sort of play under that sort of pressure is a target that all of should aspire to, but hardly any of us achieve.
To remove any particular shot from anybodies reportoire, I think would be a shame, and a slur on those who have achieved the pinnacle of the game, by winning against the best in Open and World Championship play.

[CraigC]

I wouldn't think it possible to ban a shot, especially at the top competitive level, which is now such an integral part of the game.

However, you have to consider how demoralising it must be for someone new to the game asked to play for their team, only to watch their opponent play the same repetitive shots for most or all of 18 minutes. You probably wouldn't come back.
So for those leagues with 1 or 2 highly competitive divisions only, an alternate rule for a Summer League competition (for instance) may be worth considering. Once you get over the problems of drafting, definitions, loophole closing etc. That way, you still have the "proper" game the rest of the year.

Apr 24, 2008 17:35:50 GMT Colemanator said:

Apr 24, 2008 16:18:07 GMT @sithlord said:

I call this kind of discussion, SLS (sore loser syndrome) ;D As only people who hate losing would even suggest it. ;)

:-/ I started this thread, but the above quote does not apply to me ::) 8-)

For your benefit, really, Ian, reference to the article that started it all off was to be found on this thread.

barbilliards.proboards30.com/index.cgi?board=tablerental&action=display&thread=2819

As has happened to me more than once, innocently starting a thread on a topic of interest for debate has unwittingly turned you into a target. Having seen you play, I would imagine that you would be a supporter of the game in its present format.

I do however agree with everything Johnny George had to say on the subject, so long as it was targeted at the right quarter.

Perhaps you should incorporate a Poll: my prediction being that most players would be of the sentiment "it ain't broken - so why try and mend it ?" regarding our noble game !

[davejones]

no one has mentioned high breaks.

If you banned the shot no one could ever possibly gain the highest break ever again. Unless you lengthened the table time!

The top players would have nothing left to achieve.

Apr 24, 2008 19:29:34 GMT tommo III said:

I do however agree with everything Johnny George had to say on the subject, so long as it was targeted at the right quarter.

It was merely an opinion, not directed at anybody. No malice involved!

I think it makes the game more intense. Like Snooker, sometimes all they do is red black red black ..... etc
It takes certain skill to position yourself nicely for the split. And if it isn't right where you want it you compensate with side or play a different shot! The opponent watching will have to learn the skill of keeping cool and collected in case I miss!

[Matt]

I started playing bar billiards in september but have been playing competetive pool for about 6/7 years and play snooker to a social level.

The first few months of billiards are very frustrating. Its not got anything to do with the split as I couldnt even get the break at first! Now, towards the end of my first season, I am atlast able to hit 5k scores with split, but not all the time.

Anyone who can achieve this shot ALL the time is truly a world class player. I would say there are only half a dozen players in the horsham league that can hit anywhere close to 20k and if they are player a newcomer and have the game wrapped up, they will be sporting and allow the other player in.

Should Pele or Maradona have been banned from scoring so much in football or Wilkinson banned from drop kicking so well?

Well said Senie.

For someone who has only taken up the game so recently you have already achieved an impressive standard.

And with that sort of attitude you will undoubtedly reach the heights to which you aspire.

Perhaps (next year maybe) we will see you given your chance of a run-out at Interleague, and - when you are ready for it - take part in an Open.

Youngsters like you are the future of the game.

:) Indeed, very impressive Senie!

From experiance I wouldn't let people put you down for winning. Happens a lot from where I play.
I hope you find the formula to becoming a future World champion because with improvement like that you certainly will be one!

Keep it up, plus ignore the sore losers! :)

[beefy]

Apr 22, 2008 13:52:34 GMT Colemanator said:

;D just though that i'd get a debate going on this 'issue'
It follows on from the article that we saw from the guy who said that when this shot was introduced it help 'kill the game'

What do you think?
Should it be restricted, like the fourth break?
would it be boring playing 50 holes?
what if you could only pot 3 50 hole shots before you had to play another shot?

Tin hat at the ready 8-)

Thats an interesting point you make as when I was young before the pool playing days my Dad said to me the rules were you could play the 50's 3 times then had to play a different shot (didn't say anything about keeping one up at the time) so I learn't the 30 30 split with the red going in the 30 hole and the white in the 50. Quite often the red stays out of the 30 hole and increases the chance of the ball going awkward as you try to get both balls back in. Lets face it most of the top players rarely miss unless they take a peg out or get caught out early on playing the one up shot.

I haven't been to Jersey but I uderstand from others that have the so called OXFORD shot is much harder there as the tables are wider and the 50 holes are slightly further in from the cushion.

I have to say I have often thought that maybe a timed approach would be better. Each player has 5 minutes and at the end of that the opponent get 5 minutes and all clocks set to 20 mins ! It means even if your playing a top player they have to come off after 5 minutes so you get a chance to have a go.

[beefy]

Apr 23, 2008 7:53:17 GMT Colemanator said:

I think if it was restricted to 3 times in succession as like the break, and also restrict a 50 hole pot to 3 times as well, might make the game more interesting, although a bit harder for a scorer ;D

Difficult for the scorer - get a calculator then ;D ;D ;D ;D if you can't add up !

Most people say taking away is harder yet dart players don't have a problem with that.