|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Nov 30, 2014 0:17:03 GMT
Maintaining Gandalf's theme, 1. Put the lid of the table on the wrong way round so you have to race round to the other end of the table to pick the ball out of the tray for your next shot. 2. Have a "Grand Prix" start, ie the players have to race from the next pub down the road to get into the bar to start the game. Someone would be bound to complain after a while that the game had got 'too easy' so you could insist the players had their shoelaces tied together, or run between the pubs with their trousers round their ankles.  Now, what can we think of to thwart the best ladies ?  Not trying to thwart anyone tommo, surely the best players will still win, I thought we were trying to make the game spectator friendly for tv or have I missed the point again?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 0:22:32 GMT
I think my suggestions match yours for practicality ! (Just my opinion) Reckon the best thing now would be to let those likely to be participants in the mooted TV show (i.e. current top 16 in National rankings) to have their say as to what sort of contest they would like........ |
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Nov 30, 2014 0:44:04 GMT
[quote source="/post/137203/thread" timestamp="1417259362" author=" gandalf the untidy" You will find a lot of threads on here quoting the maxim "if it ain't broke, why try and fix it ?" Sadly I believe the game is broke, as demonstrated by the drastic reduction in players in the last year alone, Members may feel that my comments are fatuous, but they are made with the best intentions by a fellow member who loves the game, to me practicality is not important, though I`m not convinced any of the bullets are impractical, if there is the will (and I doubt there ever will be) then almost anything can be achieved. Still I`m getting used to standing alone on my soap box, with no one understanding what I`m trying to say  |
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Nov 30, 2014 0:46:09 GMT
I think my suggestions match yours for practicality ! (Just my opinion) Reckon the best thing now would be to let those likely to be participants in the mooted TV show (i.e. current top 16 in National rankings) to have their say as to what sort of contest they would like........ I agree with you on this tommo  Hang on a minute , I am in the top 16....just, but I won't say any more unless provoked  |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Nov 30, 2014 10:10:20 GMT
Apples, oranges again.....  Yes the normal game's rules need tweaking if ever there is to be TV coverage: that's the reason I asked for a thread where we could all discuss how. But the whole discussion has been hijacked on to a completely separate aspect, ie new formats to attract younger players to the game.  Again imho if the game does become more popular in a format that suits tv then that version will inevitably became the new way to play. So again with respect to all, flex the old grey matter in a positive way. I thought it was rather too obvious to have to point that fact out to Tommo, but perhaps Gandalf showed that it was necessary.... It is good to see that they both clearly have a sense of humour about some of the changes that could be made however you would need to count me out if the "Grand Prix start" from another pub is ever introduced as the games would probably be over by the time that I got there!  However, to try to return the thread to the original purpose and have a slightly more sensible view on what changes could be made perhaps we need to look at what makes other sports interesting to watch and therefore popular of TV? The answer (obviously) is that they all offer different skills and attractions.... the top Darts players are very accurate and the games are quick with often one mistake making the difference between winning and losing.... Football has the biggest TV audience and is a worldwide sport, speed, skill, teamwork and the "tribal followings" of their supporters all contribute to the success of football.... Tennis games are fast and furious with high levels of skill, athleticism and fitness from the top players.... Snooker brings skill and accuracy together with concentration and tactical awareness.... Cricket (possibly) requires more "skill sets" than any other sport especially with the different formats of the game at the highest levels with players requiring high levels of fitness, concentration over very periods and the importance of teamwork from all of the players which can often bridge the difference in standards of ability possibly more than in any other sport. What does our sport require to be successful? Skill and accuracy are certainly needed.... concentration is also very important.... the ability to "read" a table and work out the best way to play it.... speed can make a difference as well. What is wrong with our game that would make it unlikely to be popular as a TV Sport? The perception that it is "boring to watch" as each game takes too long (17-18 minutes) and that you only need to learn 3 shots (break, one-up and split) to be able to play the game. Although I could put forward the argument that if the game was really so easy that you only need to learn 3 shots to play it that surely everybody should play the table out every time they play it and that I very rarely play the "same" split-shot on consecutive occasions (different position on D, different side on the ball etc) the simple fact is that to a "TV viewer" it would look the same all the time and even the "highlights" would not make exciting viewing. However, if we make major changes to the game to try to make it more "exciting" or "interesting" would we actually be taking away everything that makes our game what it currently is? Would we lose the skills and attraction that makes people want to play it and just become an alternative version of Pool or another game/sport.... requiring less skill, concentration etc?  Personally, I am not sure that would help our cause at all.... other sports do not make changes to try to emulate each other and are successful in their own right.... snooker does not try to copy darts and shorten their games to just play the colours without having any reds on the table.... cricket does not try to be football and allow substitutes to try to tactically change the game.... should we therefore try to copy another sport and make wholesale changes to our game? I do think that at the moment our game would not be successful as a "TV Sport" so something would need to change to make it more attractive.... my own view is that "shortening" the game would probably be the only way that we could do that without taking away the main values of the game that we know at present, doing that would mean players would have to take more risks with some of their shots to try to make high scores in short periods of time. So, if we are going to take an idea from another sport, I would suggest that we look at cricket as our example.... test cricket is regarded as the ultimate and pure form of the game however 20/20 cricket brings in huge crowds and has meant that the game has a whole new set of followers. The 20/20 version has taken nothing away from test cricket, it has merely enhanced the whole sport and raised its profile further. Would a shortened version do the same for our game? |
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Nov 30, 2014 10:54:06 GMT
I think that all a shortened version would do would let the experienced players have to take fewer shots to play the table out...
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Nov 30, 2014 13:29:57 GMT
I think that all a shortened version would do would let the experienced players have to take fewer shots to play the table out... A fair point made here and welcome to the discussion Joe, nice to have a different view about things. Yes, the shortened version would probably mean that the more experienced players are more likely to play the table out.... but perhaps some of the less experienced players would also have a better a chance to play the table out themselves and (possibly) outscore their opponents? Looking at the game at "National" level, the main difference between the top players and the rest is frequently their ability to run the table out for the full time, something that requires concentration and consistancy for 17-18 minutes.... many players can score quickly for shorter times but make a small mistake and then come off the table shortly afterwards. A shortened form of the game could suit them more than the current format, especially if they are prepared to take higher-risk shots for greater rewards.... something that my original proposal could provide. I am not saying that my proposal should replace the current format for all games/tournaments, I certainly believe that National Competitions should certainly continue to be played in the "pure" form of the game that requires all of the skills needed to be good at the game.... however, I think that there is a place for a shortened version of the game that could make the game more exciting to watch (and play) which could encourage new people to try the game and possibly get the media interested in covering the game as well? Perhaps rather than discussing (and mostly disagreeing with) the suggestions put forward here it would be better if we actually tried some of them and see what others think after they have actually seen or played the different versions.....?  |
|
|
|
Post by The Bullet on Nov 30, 2014 16:13:34 GMT
Hi,
Just a quicky on this one.
First off the game stays as it is with no rule changes except all shots are off the spot and the second player has the balls back on their first visit , basically the same as Jersey in the single games.
Now the interesting part, a shot clock is used (similar to chess, Tommo will know about these) where each player has a maximum of three minutes at each visit, with a minimum of three visits to the table per player, in other words a 18 minute game.
How does this work I hear you say, well after a toss of the coin or throw of the dice the winner can pick either to go first or second. The marker will start the three minute clock (as at the start of each players visit) and player A will start the game as normal, when player A ends their visit as per the standard rules or at three minutes the balls are returned to the tray and player B starts their maximum of three minutes, as the balls will not be returned at the end of their turn they will tap up trying to leave a awkward ball or two for player A. If a player takes their shot just as the three minute bell rings then the ball/s are left to run but the player will not receive any score if a ball drops down a pocket, however if a peg is knock over the player will lose their score as per the normal rules, if a player takes a shot after their three minutes they will lose their break score.
That’s my lot for now, back to watching the snooker.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Nov 30, 2014 16:58:44 GMT
Hi Bob, I like this idea, apart from one thing.... If a player takes their shot just as the three minute bell rings then the ball/s are left to run but the player will not receive any score if a ball drops down a pocket, however if a peg is knock over the player will lose their score as per the normal rules .... I think that either the shot is a valid one or should not count at all, I don't think that a foul shot should be given if a score would not be allowed from the same shot.... if the player has clearly struck the ball before the time ends then they should get the score (or penalty) from that shot in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chancelot on Nov 30, 2014 18:23:43 GMT
Ok here is a serious one - for all Opens.
Introduce a green ball (in place of one of the seven whites) that scores treble points.
This green ball can only score points for the lower ranked player.
|
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Nov 30, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
Ok here is a serious one - for all Opens. Introduce a green ball (in place of one of the seven whites) that scores treble points. This green ball can only score points for the lower ranked player. You can't have different rules for each player. It doesn't sound like a very serious suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Nov 30, 2014 22:47:34 GMT
New format for the game, it's the title of the thread Again imho if the game does become more popular in a format that suits tv then that version will inevitably became the new way to play. So again with respect to all, flex the old grey matter in a positive way. What is wrong with our game that would make it unlikely to be popular as a TV Sport? The perception that it is "boring to watch" as each game takes too long (17-18 minutes) and that you only need to learn 3 shots (break, one-up and split) to be able to play the game. I do think that at the moment our game would not be successful as a "TV Sport" so something would need to change to make it more attractive.... my own view is that "shortening" the game would probably be the only way that we could do that without taking away the main values of the game that we know at present, doing that would mean players would have to take more risks with some of their shots to try to make high scores in short periods of time. Would a shortened version do the same for our game? Agree with these points Dave, But we need to think of solutions aimed at the spectator not the player, if we can get spectators interested in the game then a percentage will take it up, possibly the main cause for the decline is lack of players rather than tables and venues, just look at the non league tables available that don't have teams. Not trying to be confrontational, just giving an opinion which is as valid as others regs cs |
|
|
|
Post by The Chubbster™ on Jan 20, 2015 17:55:29 GMT
My favorate game of Bar Billiards is 31's. Always did prefer it to the offical rules. You break off, have to score 31 exactly and then touch up. Your opponent then tries the same. Once you achieve 31 exactly and touch you, you then move onto 32, then 33 etc etc.
Simple game, so much fun, very watchable and playable by players on any standards. If there was a tournament in this format I would be the first to sign up.
Only other thing I can think of is to change all tournament games to best of 4 legs, and have a different variant of the game for each leg. Mixes things right up.
Back into Exile......
|
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Jan 23, 2015 1:41:36 GMT
We had a go at 'bizarre billiards' during one of our league matches, where we spotted a blue ball (triple score) in the middle of the table between the 50 holes and a black ball (quadruple score) about half an inch from the black pin. The games were played under four pin rules, and it was agreed that the blue and black should switch places, as it turned out the blue was the more difficult shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Chubbster™ on Oct 14, 2015 15:52:48 GMT
Been thinking about this thread for some reason today, no idea why!
My mind was taken back to the first ever £50,000 buy in HORSE championship at the world series of poker.
In a nutshell, Poker for all current mass appeal is just one variant…..No Limit Texas Holdem….. But there are many, many variations of the game. HORSE basically incorporates 5 variants of the game in the tournament on a revolving basis. But on the final table they played only No Limit Holdem. The winner being the last one standing.
What you get here is a great game of poker than finishes with the most popular variant only, but to get to the final table you have to be a great all round player, skilled in many forms of poker, and not just have the ability to go “All In” and hope you get lucky.
So with that in mind, how about something along these lines……
Player A vs Player B – Best of 4 Legs, Highest total score overall wins
Leg 1: 31’s (check above if you don’t know the rules) Each “point” you get counts for 1,000 to your overall score.
Leg 2: Current Alternatives Rules (never played it, but the triangle thing) I notice the scores are pretty low, so lets double each players score and add that to the overall total.
Leg 3: Traditional Game, player with lowest total so far gets to choose who breaks in this leg.
Leg 4: Traditional Game, other player breaks in this leg.
Something like that and you still have your traditional 2 legs at the end, but you build an advantage based on other forms of the game. It’s more varied, will require a larger range of skills, and more importantly it’s 4 legs where you don’t have to sit there in the first round and watch someone for 40 minutes as I’ve done many, many times before. (In my opinion not a good way to spend £10 and 2 hours drive).
Just a suggestions. I’m going away again now.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Chubbster™ on Oct 14, 2015 16:09:35 GMT
Here is another option, not sure if someone has thought of this.
Keep everything exactly the same as it currently is, but making the following minor changes to the point values of each hole.
Firstly, change the 50 hole to 5 (as in 05, half the value of the 10 hole)
Secondly, change the 100 hole to 10.
As I said, every other rule remains exactly the same, but have a good long think about how that would change things....
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 18:04:10 GMT
Here is another option, not sure if someone has thought of this. Keep everything exactly the same as it currently is, but making the following minor changes to the point values of each hole. Firstly, change the 50 hole to 5 (as in 05, half the value of the 10 hole) Secondly, change the 100 hole to 10. As I said, every other rule remains exactly the same, but have a good long think about how that would change things.... I would tweak the scoring even further though, reflective of the difficulty of the hole thus: 10 hole = 100 pts 20 holes = 50 pts 30 holes = 30 pts 50 holes = 20 pts 100 hole = 40 pts 200 hole = 400 pts |
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 15, 2015 16:46:14 GMT
Agree that scoring of holes would make for a different game tommo.
So running it out splitting would net around 5k I reckon. But could you run a table out using the higher value holes for a bigger score?
I suspect that staying on the table would still be key and splitting is going to be the best way to do that......so maybe no change at all!
Sent from my G620S-L01 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2015 17:48:52 GMT
I suspect that staying on the table would still be key and splitting is going to be the best way to do that......so maybe no change at all! That had occurred to me, Nigel, but doubling the value of the 200 hole (=800 if the red used) could lead to tables being set up a different way with a drift to the middle. Some of the players of yore (I'm talking 1960s) were not averse to leaving the one-up close to the 200 and then going in-off. A good string to the bow is the ability to score a thousand after the bar has gone (I've seen this done about half-a-dozen times) and this is an element I feel could be encouraged to make the game more interesting. As a player with an affinity to 4-Pin I'm sure that you can appreciate that. |
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Oct 16, 2015 9:49:38 GMT
Well i might be going round in circles again but.... we need definition of the aim of the new format, why do we need a new format, what are the targets we need to achieve and how do we implement them, who will be responsible for leading a report team, how will the conclusions be reported, and to who, what powers will be given to enforce change should that be the recommendation. Simple in Theory |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 10:14:17 GMT
Well i might be going round in circles again but.... we need definition of the aim of the new format, why do we need a new format, what are the targets we need to achieve and how do we implement them, who will be responsible for leading a report team, how will the conclusions be reported, and to who, what powers will be given to enforce change should that be the recommendation. Simple in Theory The words "land" "cuckoo" and "cloud" come to mind. Simply because 99% of the people still playing the game are perfectly happy with the way things are. |
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Oct 16, 2015 17:07:53 GMT
Well i might be going round in circles again but.... we need definition of the aim of the new format, why do we need a new format, what are the targets we need to achieve and how do we implement them, who will be responsible for leading a report team, how will the conclusions be reported, and to who, what powers will be given to enforce change should that be the recommendation. Simple in Theory The words "land" "cuckoo" and "cloud" come to mind. Simply because 99% of the people still playing the game are perfectly happy with the way things are. yep i'm in a dream world where someone else might care a hoot about the decline in Bar Billiards and what anyone is goin to do about it before its too late, answer.... noone is going to do nothing as usaul.. might as well forget it and act like the rest of you!! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 19:59:39 GMT
yep i'm in a dream world where someone else might care a hoot about the decline in Bar Billiards and what anyone is goin to do about it before its too late, answer.... noone is going to do nothing as usaul.. might as well forget it and act like the rest of you!! I do not dispute that the game is in decline, but I just do not subscribe to the view that coming up with yet another variation of the game is the answer. (eg - Trilliards, anyone ?  ) Reducing the versions to just two - Off-the-spot for 3-Pin, with 4-Pin as the 'alternative rules' - would get my vote. IMHO efforts need to be concentrated elsewhere to save it: The game needs to be promoted in non-league areas where tables exist within easy reach of each other. |
|
)