beefy
Distinguished Member
T
Posts: 753
|
Post by beefy on May 20, 2008 11:38:42 GMT
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 ??? Personally I think its down to 3 reasons.... 1. People don't rely on Pubs anymore for socialising 2. Other pub sports more popular (Darts and Pool) and get TV coverage 3. The thought of standing there for 20 minutes without having a shot. Its a bit like someone clearing up on a snooker table from the break - pretty unlikely as you have to pot a red from the break and no one has figured that out with any consistancy. 4. The game can be repetative. I play pool a lot and must say if you know how to play with side, top and dray bar billiards is defintiely easier but you have to concentrate for 20 minutes not 5 minutes like pool ! I just wish the screw shot would work as you could screw the white off the split into the 200 but the other ball is a lottery then and the D takes the grip implanted on a screw shot by the cue from the ball.
|
|
beefy
Distinguished Member
T
Posts: 753
|
Post by beefy on May 20, 2008 11:44:32 GMT
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. Play the alternative rules then that keeps the socring friendly and evens up the gulf between a top player and a relative novice. You can always ban shots its just having the balls to do it. Pool rules have regularly been changed one really good example is removing the ability to roll up behind a ball to snooker the opponent unless you have made contact with the cushion after striking one of your own balls. A radical change that was designed to remove the boring fuge shots but people learned other ways to snooker opponents so change leads to more change. Here is an idea why not remove the white pegs from the table when the player chasing is inferior or just remove them when they are more than 5K behind.....
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on May 20, 2008 12:55:52 GMT
I just wish the screw shot would work as you could screw the white off the split into the 200 but the other ball is a lottery then and the D takes the grip implanted on a screw shot by the cue from the ball. You don't have to have the D, a simple white spot on a drawn semi circle on the baize would do, the cloth wouldn't last long though but at least you would be able to impart spin on the ball :D
|
|
|
Post by JerseyLugs on May 20, 2008 15:11:37 GMT
Interesting subject.
As of yet nobody has mentioned the fact that the vast majority of players at the worlds don't split. In fact I do recall a certain Mr Millward having a bit of success playing the 50 hole.
Admittedly there are only a couple of us on the rock who regularly use the split but it's not down to any difference in table width or hole positions. It's because we play off the spot making the need to use more side and screw almost a necessity not to mention the fact that a lot of tables have the red spot at max distance.
(Just for the record I'm one of the split players)
|
|
beefy
Distinguished Member
T
Posts: 753
|
Post by beefy on May 20, 2008 16:39:27 GMT
You don't have to have the D, a simple white spot on a drawn semi circle on the baize would do, the cloth wouldn't last long though but at least you would be able to impart spin on the ball :D[/quote]
I think you have a point without the D cover that part of the table would wear thin quickly.
As for imparting the side you must be out of practice the "Pool Players" of the bar billiard world don't have an issue with the side.
Ask Milhouse he used to play county pool for Oxford and now focuses on Bar Biliiards, Phil Collins is another very good example and of course Ray Sturgess.
|
|
|
Post by The Bullet on May 20, 2008 19:58:57 GMT
Interesting subject. As of yet nobody has mentioned the fact that the vast majority of players at the worlds don't split. In fact I do recall a certain Mr Millward having a bit of success playing the 50 hole. Admittedly there are only a couple of us on the rock who regularly use the split but it's not down to any difference in table width or hole positions. It's because we play off the spot making the need to use more side and screw almost a necessity not to mention the fact that a lot of tables have the red spot at max distance. (Just for the record I'm one of the split players) For once I must agree with a jerseyman why not change to playing from the spot not the whole "D" and increase the distance between the spots, it works well in the World Champs and Gsy Open. Although you will never stop the top players splitting it does make it a much more risky shot especially if you drop the cue ball short of the hundred or between the hundred and ten pocket. You would all have to start practicing using the cushions for balls in the center of the table instead of moving the ball along the D. ;D
|
|
Julian Dale
Full Forum Member
Yes, my teeth really are that white ;-)
Posts: 70
|
Post by Julian Dale on Oct 23, 2008 11:55:31 GMT
Like many of you, I don't think you can ban any particular shot. However, going back to the original point that Tommo made ( - wasn't me - tommo !) when starting the thread (which was that the Oxford/Split shot has helped to kill the game), I believe the game does suffer from being boring to watch, especially when players can go through what I would call the 'standard break routine' of 3 break shots, the one-up and split, and can repeat that break routine like a metronome. Put simply, despite it taking talent and skill to maintain a large break, it is not interesting to watch when the same shots are repeated over and over again.
So, what can be done about it? Personally, I don't think it is necessary to change anything. Bar Billiards will always appear boring when one player dominates the table playing the standard break routine. It's also boring when a player takes far too long over each shot, or when a player rolls the balls into the 50 pocket repeatedly. These things may never change. In the top echelons of the game, big breaks using the standard break routine are going to happen regularly. That's the way of the game. Between two average players, the game is a lot more competitive and involves a lot wider variety of shots, some a lot more difficult/risky than others, which helps maintain the interest of spectators. I think this is what people want, for the game to be more interesting and more competitive.
People have mentioned limiting break times to stop one player dominating the table time. I used to like that idea but instead, I've often wondered what the game would be like if you didn't start with the balls on the spots. What if you put some balls elsewhere on the table before a shot was played as a kind of 'starting position'? For example, you could put a ball tight up in each far corner and one tight on the cushion dead centre behind the 10 pocket, or you could allow each player to place two balls on the table in any position they like as long as it is beyond the level of the 200 pocket. That would at least make the first few shots more difficult and thus the player may not get the balls back for the break. It could even lead to two players playing the majority of the game down the far end of the table. I would certainly take more interest in the game if something like this was introduced as to me the game is about potting balls using angles, cushions and correctly weighted shots, not playing like a metronome for 18 minutes. It'd be fascinating to see this sort of idea being played even if it is just for fun, or in a charity tournament or something.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 23, 2008 12:58:06 GMT
Perhaps you should come to the Alternative Rules in Readin this weekend Julian. The break shot is never played, balls start off in a triangle at the back and if the balls are cleared the triangle is reformed. All shots played off the spot. Highest breaks are usually only around 1,500
|
|
|
Post by SirKT on Oct 23, 2008 12:58:50 GMT
Hi Julian Yes, Bar Billiards is boring to watch at the top level. We have tried on numerous occasions to make the game more "exciting", to get TV companies interested, even changing the colour of the cloth to Blue & having red/yellow balls for the Grand Prix final several years ago. I played in that match, I think it was against Paul Sainsbury. It didn`t make any difference though, there were still big scores.
I personally think the only way of playing this at top level and getting the media interested would be to play all big tournaments on the Jersey/Guernsey type tables. There have been some fantastic matches in the World championships, watched by hundreds of people, especially when it was held at the Inn on the park in St Helier (now a block of plush apartments), played on those tables, I know, i`ve been involved in a couple.
There is a tournament this sunday in Reading called the Alternative rules open. No break shot allowed and you start the game with six white balls set up in a triangle, inbetween the 100 & 10 holes. With every shot played off the spot, it certainly brings the angles into play more. Any break of 1,000 or more would probably be enough to win any match.
If you`re free, come down and have a go ;) The more the merrier.
|
|
|
Post by bobhall on Oct 23, 2008 12:59:44 GMT
The idea of having balls on the table all ready would make the game slightly more fun and for me i am more in favour of seeing players like SIR KT play a table out as this is a joy to watch and this is what i would personally strive to reach in time.
As being the brother of MR BBREAPER i have seen him hitting 2k in a game when he first started too now hitting 15k in a game which is where i would like to be, of course this is my personal view on the game and i felt i would mention it i will never get bored of seeing someone play the table out infront of me just as long as im not scoring. put as the player it gives me chance to watch learn and certainly entertain the crowd..
many thanks
bobhall
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Oct 23, 2008 13:16:11 GMT
I would like to see the balls set up in a triangle behind the 100 hole and then start with one ball off the D on the spot and then anywhere on the D thereafter and whoever got the break back would be able to play it as we do now, i think the game suffers due to starting with the break instead of earning it.
|
|
Julian Dale
Full Forum Member
Yes, my teeth really are that white ;-)
Posts: 70
|
Post by Julian Dale on Oct 23, 2008 14:14:45 GMT
You'll have to send me a copy of the Alternative Rules. Never knew they existed!
The Alternative Rules do sound interesting, though if it's as hard as you make it sound (where a 1000+ break is enough to win most games), I'm not sure they would appeal to the casual player. I'd imagine playing from the spot that you'd avoid the balls down the middle, thus you'd try and play a lot of repeated shots around the 30 hole or knocking a ball back far enough so that you can play on the 50 hole? I can see why that would lead to smaller breaks. I'll have a go at it in practice and let you know how I get on.
I agree with Colemanator, that an amalgamation of the two sets of rules would be a good thing to try... To start with the 6 balls in a triangle but let the play continue from the spots when all of the balls have been potted.
|
|
Julian Dale
Full Forum Member
Yes, my teeth really are that white ;-)
Posts: 70
|
Post by Julian Dale on Oct 23, 2008 14:19:33 GMT
I think the game suffers due to starting with the break instead of earning it. Simply put, but I couldn't agree more :)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2008 15:31:57 GMT
Like many of you, I don't think you can ban any particular shot. However, going back to the original point that Tommo made when starting the thread (which was that the Oxford/Split shot has helped to kill the game), Julian, your recent input has been refreshing, but please try and avoid misquoting people. I did not start this thread, neither do I think that the Oxford shot has helped to kill the game - nor even that the game is being killed. If you care to read back, this is what I had to say on the subject: 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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2008 15:45:19 GMT
......and, for the record, my view on the 'Triangles' is that it's run its course and should now be replaced with 4-pin as the true 'Alternative Rules' (the AEBBA started the competition off as a simple 'off-the-spot' which players quickly adapted to):
The reasoning: Sudbury (Suffolk) play 4-pin; There is also a functioning 4-pin league in Northants, the Wellingborough League. Why not invite these into our bar billiards world once a year ?
4-pin tables are normally Narrow SAMS (very difficult to play normal bar billiards on). It follows that extra skills are involved which would present a real challenge to the masters of our game !
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Oct 23, 2008 15:54:25 GMT
4 pins? Good idea Clive. What about setting the tables up 'crown green' fashion? I'm sure some players would feel at home on them ;) ;D
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Oct 23, 2008 15:56:10 GMT
i think the game suffers due to starting with the break instead of earning it. I mean it's possible to be drawn against the break week in week out and then struggle to get the balls back due to a poor table :(
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2008 19:10:07 GMT
i think the game suffers due to starting with the break instead of earning it. I mean it's possible to be drawn against the break week in week out and then struggle to get the balls back due to a poor table :( I have often thought that b/bs is one of few sports where you can be beaten before you even start. And that the fairest way round the situation is : If the player who broke off plays out more than half the time, and the opponent is still in play when the bar drops, he should be able to carry on by putting another coin in.This has been in use locally for deciding games in cup matches. But there has always been the argument of whether the game finishes a) once he has had equal time or b) once he has overtaken at leisure. The simple way round this is to say that the game enters "double frame mode" - ie allowing both players the chance to come back at each other. Agreed that this could not really be adopted at top level tournaments - the standard of play meaning it would happen too often and become an organiser's nightmare. But no reason why local leagues couldn't embrace the concept. And taking advantage of the rule could be 'optional' for the second player.
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Oct 23, 2008 19:17:48 GMT
Can you think of another 'sport' / game where you can be beaten before participation, Pool maybe? you need to clear the table to win in pool, with BB just use half of the aloted time and the other half is immaterial,
maybe that's one of the reasons why it's not recognised as a sport, simply because there is in some (alot of) instances 'no sporting chance'
|
|
yorkshireterrier
Full Forum Member
I'm from Gods country you know - Yorkshire
Posts: 90
|
Post by yorkshireterrier on Oct 23, 2008 19:38:52 GMT
I couldn't resist joining in with this one.
I haven't read all the posts in this thread cause that would be just as boring?? as the Oxford shot???????. By the way this shot is by no means new. I was playing the split shot in 1971 when I first played the game in the Andover league where I was taught by my mentor Maurice Taylor, a fine exponent of the 50/100, 50/20, 50/10 shots whichever you care to choose.
If the rules had to be changed then why not just put a fourth peg in front of the 100 hole to protect it like the 200 hole. That would make the final shot interesting too.
Or perhaps the best players could be forced to play left handed to stop them winning all the time.
But seriously though, the only way to beat these players is to become better than them at their own game, thats how sport works.
|
|
BFG
Distinguished Member
Posts: 591
|
Post by BFG on Oct 23, 2008 20:09:10 GMT
I have had a few games of 4 pin in Wellingborough with honchair and I would have to say that it absolutely removes the Oxford or anything like it!!
The frustration is that all balls count double after the bar drops, this means a possible 800 from the last ball which is probably enough to win the game anyway!
Although the table is indeed a narrow sams type it could be fun to try setting up 4 pin on your own table and see how you like it!
Also you have to swap the values of the 10 and 30 pockets.
Maybe we could start another league.....playing wide table 4 pin ;)
By the way the pins sit as the black in front of the 50 and 100 as well The one in front of the 100 can be either a black or white peg depending on you masochistic needs!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2008 20:22:46 GMT
I couldn't resist joining in with this one. By the way this shot is by no means new. Agree with that comment, I can think of players from 35-odd years ago who were particularly associated with the shot, but they did not always prevail as it only seemed to work on certain tables if they 'clicked'. The dominant players tended to be the ones who could do it if need be but had a good all round game and were able to grind out results. These days the game seems to have gone up a level, with the very best players being able to work out the split on 'any' table - and also to play at a faster speed than normal. :o
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2008 20:30:29 GMT
I have had a few games of 4 pin in Wellingborough with honchair and I would have to say that it absolutely removes the Oxford or anything like it!! The frustration is that all balls count double after the bar drops, this means a possible 800 from the last ball which is probably enough to win the game anyway! Although the table is indeed a narrow sams type it could be fun to try setting up 4 pin on your own table and see how you like it! Also you have to swap the values of the 10 and 30 pockets. Maybe we could start another league.....playing wide table 4 pin ;) By the way the pins sit as the black in front of the 50 and 100 as well The one in front of the 100 can be either a black or white peg depending on you masochistic needs!! Great idea, we're going to have to develop this earlier theme of a Pink/West Sussex/Kipling challenge - and 4-pin could provide the basis of it. ;) I favour the idea of modifying their Rules slightly, so that the destiny of the game is NOT decided after the bar has gone, with double points. It's still possible to get 1000 breaks and a final score of 3000 is the target to aim at.
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Oct 24, 2008 7:55:28 GMT
Does our game need the playing rules changed if it is to be more popular? 8-)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 10:03:06 GMT
Does our game need the playing rules changed if it is to be more popular? 8-) I dunno, Colemanator ::) ::) We've only just found and republished the Rules (well, Sav has ;D ) after they became 'lost' for several years, and already you want to change them. ::) ;D ;D
|
|
Julian Dale
Full Forum Member
Yes, my teeth really are that white ;-)
Posts: 70
|
Post by Julian Dale on Oct 24, 2008 11:31:57 GMT
But seriously though, the only way to beat these players is to become better than them at their own game, thats how sport works. I don't think anyone would disagree with that statement, if we were talking about games/sports such as football, darts, golf, tennis, snooker, etc... But, we're talking bar billiards. The essence of this debate is whether bar billiards needs some kind of change in order to make it more competitive, as a lack of competition makes for a poor game. If the majority of the game comes down to executing 3 shots then it's not much of a game, let alone a sport. If, as you say, the only way to beat these players is to become better than them at their own game, then the standard will get to a point where it'll come down to "he who breaks, wins", in which case a single frame of bar billiards may as well be a coin toss. Even if you change the format to games being the best of two frames, it's still not varied enough. If it was easy to score a goal, if it was easy to throw 180, if it was easy to hit a hole in one, if it was easy to serve an ace, if it was easy to make a 147 break... They would change something to increase competition.
|
|
barneybear
Full Forum Member
Paul Barnett
Posts: 296
|
Post by barneybear on Oct 24, 2008 12:08:25 GMT
Glad this thread has been resurrected as I didn't see it first time round.
Before I offer my opinion I must confess my 'situation'. I have been playing the game for 30 years and before I (more or less) gave up drinking I was a pretty reasonable split player - 18200 break my best. Now that I don't have a drink I get the 'yips' on the split shot and so can no longer play it (at least not until the game is won) - so the 50s it is for me.
Having fessed up I have to say (sour grapes) that I find the split shot boring in the extreme now that everyone is so good at it. I find that I rarely watch 'split' matches and detest scoring them - I've almost nodded off by the end. Sadly between games at the Sussex Open and Jersey (the only opens that I enter) you will probably find me outside with the smokers so that I don't get badgered into scoring.
We played the Stadium in the Worthing league last night - they are all split players - and very good at it, but I have to say that my 9000 score on the 50s must have been the most interesting game of the evening because I looked as though I was going to come off on more or less every shot (we were 2-1 down at the time) - I probably played 30/40 different shots during my game.
As for solutions (if they are needed although I understand that not everyone thinks it is a problem), I have thought for the last few years that we should all play 'off the spot' - a split shot left short and you are in big trouble. I also quite like the idea posted earlier of a second one up after the first one - although I haven't really thought this through.
Apologies to all the split players, particularly Ian Lelliott, Geoff Jukes and Mark James who all gave a brilliant demonstrations of the shot last night, but I have been having these thoughts for a few years now (it really has contributed to the decline in my interest of the game - although probably not as much as the aforementioned yips ;D) and have now had the opportunity to get things off my chest.
See you all in St Helier in a couple of weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Chunky Monkey on Oct 24, 2008 13:24:25 GMT
Up until two years ago i didn't even know what the split/oxford shot was let alone know how to play it or even what to look for. My name was put forward to join a team in the Worthing league (Three Horseshoes) there i have been shown how to play the split and i can now excecut atleast 99% of them cleanly but there is still that 1% that rim/go behind and completly balls up and take a peg. I am a big fan of the split and think it is fantastic watching world class players (KT, Millward, Mariner, Tony Walsh) ect playing the game with the split, and is something i hope to achieve. Being able to play each match as comfortable as they do.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 14:13:57 GMT
Whilst I can empathise with both Julian and Paul - wise words from both, I also find myself agreeing with young Kev that it is exciting watching a 'split player' in full flow.
But I also reaffirm that there shouldn't be the situation where you can be beaten before you take your first shot.
It was exciting, yes, watching Dave France, 9k behind Terry Oakley, going hell for leather with the 'split' and getting 6k in little more than four minutes - but what was the point of it ? I couldn't do that, if I'm beaten I'm beaten so no point in trying.
It should always be a case of 'equal opportunities'. Unfortunately in Sussex the unfairness is taken to an extreme, where your Inter-League captain decides for you if you're going to have the break. A real bummer if you have to stand there like a lemon and watch a fully warmed up and recently practised home player have the break and run up 20k-plus. >:(
The split is actually a very difficult shot to master and play properly: you could almost say there are three distinctive variations of the 50/100 shot depending on the distance of the leave from the 50 pocket. I've tried to bring it into my game in recent years but my success rate is nowhere near Kev's 99% - yet ! But I want to develop a mastery of it, but am being thwarted in my ambitions by the unequal share of opportunities in certain competitions.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 24, 2008 16:32:00 GMT
As a player who cannot set up to play split at all and plays 50/30 push which many find totally boring as well...( I can do split if it just happens to set up).. I would like to say...
No matter what you put in place, there are top players, who are for me just totally excellent players... and whatever you give them as the start position they will just achieve and score... not because of the Oford shot or anything else that is put in... but because they are fine, talented players...
I totally admire them.... and if/when I beat them... then I have played extremely well and I take that personally with me...
Whether you play split/push/or any other combination... 1 ball down every shot would win the game..!!
Is not the objective to strive to improve?? or is that just mine ??
|
|