Should one pocket be played on a 10 foot table

lfigueroa said:

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. (at any distance)

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

Click to expand...

Excellent description of a good ball striker. Also, your counter point was a good one as well. Accuracy starts with striking the cue ball accurately. All great ball strikers have that in common...they strike the cue ball exactly where needed to get the desired results. Depending on where we strike the cue ball will determine how much "squirt" and "masse" goes into the shot. Two integral actions that we all need to understand to improve on our accuracy. Of course the speed of the stroke is also a concern when judging "squirt" and "masse" but that's another area entirely. Striking the cue ball accurately will enable us to hit the target with more consistency.

The following technique has helped me with accuracy, maybe it will help others if interested. This technique will also offer you a better understanding of the cue ball and what your stroke will do with the shot. In terms of consistency.

In preparation in shooting a shot stand in back of the shot and envision making it from the standing position. Keep your eyes on the cue ball and object ball as you bend down to get into a comfortable position to site the shot. When you're in the position that you will be shooting from tweak your aim with the target (feel it) it's in this position that you need to focus on your cue ball hit. Put 100% focus into striking the cue ball where you feel it needs to be hit to control the cue ball to where you need to go.(an experienced player will be able to judge the amount of "squirt" or "masse" that the shot will produce.) This is where it gets tricky. You must be able to develop a sense of timing to integrate the cue ball hit with hit with the object ball. Some players have the ability to strike the cue ball accurately as they look at the object ball and then shoot. While other players have to go back in forth from cue ball to object ball, looking at the object ball last. And then there are some players that can look at the cue ball and object ball all at the same time as one picture. This is where you need to develop your own way of integrating the cue ball hit with the target. :focus

Dr. Bill

lll said:

scott in his commentary stated that many of the players i think except shannon? didnt like the 10 foot format for 1p.
he said it left too many "spaces" it was easier to get out of traps and alot of the shots he(scott) likes the bigger table wasnt conducive to his "style" of play (paraphrase)
is playing on 10 footer just a prop game in todays day and age??
is 1p "better" on a 9 footer???
your thoughts are welcome

Click to expand...

Just to get back "on topic", no, one-pocket is better on a tight 5 x 10, preferably a snooker table. Let the good ball strikers have at it.

P.S. Scott doesn't have a "style of play", he plays one game on one table.

Dennis

wincardona said:

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

Click to expand...

I concede that Schmidt might be a better mover today than he was in the past; and it's true that good shooters have a tendency to pass up good trap opportunities. It's also true that good shooters have the capacity to get out of traps better than lesser shooters.

But the fact is that our assessments in general of 1P excellence are all subjective. No one uses stats except for placement in tournaments. Since all pool games are based upon shooting balls into the pockets it seems self evident to consider balls run as the criterion of good shooting. But in 1P, measuring is a tougher assignment.

Moving is usually more evident by the guy who's been moved upon than it is by onlookers. Even knowledgeable spectators oftentimes are bored by good defense, and do not quantify it. I'd like to see a system used as was the original Accustats formula which assessed excellence. It was used for 9-ball, but I think it could easily be adapted for 1P as well. For example, how many innings the opponent was left without a shot, how often was an intentional scratch forced, quality of breaks, etc., etc. Then there would be actual statistical data to rate a player's moving use and ability.

Doc

gulfportdoc said:

I concede that Schmidt might be a better mover today than he was in the past; and it's true that good shooters have a tendency to pass up good trap opportunities. It's also true that good shooters have the capacity to get out of traps better than lesser shooters.

But the fact is that our assessments in general of 1P excellence are all subjective. No one uses stats except for placement in tournaments. Since all pool games are based upon shooting balls into the pockets it seems self evident to consider balls run as the criterion of good shooting. But in 1P, measuring is a tougher assignment.

Moving is usually more evident by the guy who's been moved upon than it is by onlookers. Even knowledgeable spectators oftentimes are bored by good defense, and do not quantify it. I'd like to see a system used as was the original Accustats formula which assessed excellence. It was used for 9-ball, but I think it could easily be adapted for 1P as well. For example, how many innings the opponent was left without a shot, how often was an intentional scratch forced, quality of breaks, etc., etc. Then there would be actual statistical data to rate a player's moving use and ability.

Doc

Click to expand...

Doc, I don't think that statistics that would idenify the excellence in moving ability woulf be an easy thing to do, nor would it carry much of an interest, other than us one pocket afficiandos. Did I spell that right?

Dr. Bill

This stuff about movers verse shooters has been going on since one pocket was invented. It is real simple... you take the tools and ability you were born with and you take up the style that fits your game. 30, 40 50 years etc.. only a few players knew all the normal moves let alone the advanced ones and because of that guys that couldn't shoot that great could beat straight shooters that didn't know the moves. Now days everyone knows the moves because of videos, books, you tube, accustats, etc.. The reason Gentile doesnt play shanes style is because he doesnt shoot as straight as Shane and because of that he plays a more conservative style.. Everyone needs to realize that someone like Shane may shoot a ball that someone like Gentile will play the move instead.. That doesnt mean Shane didnt see the move, it might mean is that he is so confident in his abilities that he decides to fire a ball in that some might consider risky and run the hell out. I have seen supposedly great movers pass up shots that shane would shoot in and run out and instead the "mover" passes the shot plays the move and LOSES the game later on. The name of the game is first to get 8 balls in their hole wins!! doesnt matter how you get them... The people say that efren used to shoot the wrong shot all the time!!:lol the guy only dominated one pocket like nobody before him. 5 Derby City one pocket tournament wins in a row.. races to 3... yeah he shoots the wrong shot all the time

wincardona said:

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

Click to expand...

Well put - that sums it up nicely.

onepocketmoron said:

5 Derby City one pocket tournament wins in a row.. races to 3... yeah he shoots the wrong shot all the time

Click to expand...

Efren doesn't have 5 wins in a row in DCC one-pocket.

I thought he won 5 in a row, that he entered.

Don Smith said:

I thought he won 5 in a row, that he entered.

Click to expand...

I guess it's true then; The Pittsburgh Steelers really did win 4 Super Bowls in a row. The Chicago Bulls really did win 6 NBA titles in a row. Arnold Schwarzenegger really did win 7 Mr. Olympia titles in a row.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought he won 5 in a row, that he entered.

Don Smith said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought he won 5 in a row, that he entered.

Click to expand...

Efren has won five times. 1999 and 2004 through 2007.

Four or Five -- It was not consecutive years because Efren didn't enter every year, but like Don was saying, it might have been five times running that Efren came to DCC he won the One Pocket all five of those years. Pertty impressive. I know Incardona, who did most if not all of the those finals commentary kind of ran out of superlatives toward the end of that streak. It was fun to watch!!

lll said:

scott in his commentary stated that many of the players i think except shannon? didnt like the 10 foot format for 1p.
he said it left too many "spaces" it was easier to get out of traps and alot of the shots he(scott) likes the bigger table wasnt conducive to his "style" of play (paraphrase)
is playing on 10 footer just a prop game in todays day and age??
is 1p "better" on a 9 footer???
your thoughts are welcome

Click to expand...

Now that we have Efren's record cleared up let me reiterate; yes, one-pocket should be played on a 5 x 10. A snooker table would be preferred.

Cowboy Dennis said:

Just to get back "on topic", no, one-pocket is better on a tight 5 x 10, preferably a snooker table. Let the good ball strikers have at it.

P.S. Scott doesn't have a "style of play", he plays one game on one table.

Dennis

Click to expand...

Any game of pool on a snooker table, or an excessively tight table, ceases to be pool and becomes something else -- IOW, it changes things so much that it is no longer pool. At pool you need to be able to work the CB and that means the pockets cannot be too tight.

Lou Figueroa

figueroa said:

Any game of pool on a snooker table, or an excessively tight table, ceases to be pool and becomes something else -- IOW, it changes things so much that it is no longer pool. At pool you need to be able to work the CB and that means the pockets cannot be too tight.

Lou Figueroa

Click to expand...

A game of one-pocket on a 5 x 10 snooker table is more "one-pocket" than it will ever be on a pool table. Guys who shoot the "wrong" shot and then run balls behind it(on a pooltable) will go home (back to the Philippines) with no money.

The larger tables also remove the intentional foul as a tactic so when you are getting weight it really is weight. The break is also worth less so you don't have to listen to those annoying commentators talk about how "big" the 1st break is in a 5 game match.

There's a reason Efren waited for the Rack to close before coming to this country. Paul would've aired him out.

Cowboy Dennis said:

A game of one-pocket on a 5 x 10 snooker table is more "one-pocket" than it will ever be on a pool table. Guys who shoot the "wrong" shot and then run balls behind it(on a pooltable) will go home (back to the Philippines) with no money.

The larger tables also remove the intentional foul as a tactic so when you are getting weight it really is weight. The break is also worth less so you don't have to listen to those annoying commentators talk about how "big" the 1st break is in a 5 game match.

There's a reason Efren waited for the Rack to close before coming to this country. Paul would've aired him out.

Click to expand...

All kinds of things change when the size of the equipment is altered. Basically, going to a snooker table is creating a gaffe game that, no doubt, some guys will get good at.

Lou Figueroa

Cowboy Dennis said:

A game of one-pocket on a 5 x 10 snooker table is more "one-pocket" than it will ever be on a pool table. Guys who shoot the "wrong" shot and then run balls behind it(on a pooltable) will go home (back to the Philippines) with no money.

The larger tables also remove the intentional foul as a tactic so when you are getting weight it really is weight. The break is also worth less so you don't have to listen to those annoying commentators talk about how "big" the 1st break is in a 5 game match.

There's a reason Efren waited for the Rack to close before coming to this country. Paul would've aired him out.

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? One pocket on a 5X10 is a great game, however, it's a much different game on a snooker table. I agree that playing one pocket on a snooker table is a good game but not as difficult a game to play as on a pool table. You must understand how to play the game on a snooker table to be successful against experienced players. As far as appreciating talent goes Imo one pocket played on a pool table is much more entertaining for the viewer than on a snooker table. On a snooker table the important skills are banking, speed of the object ball, and shot making. Once one understands how to play one pocket on a snooker table it's an easy and fun game to play. But don't ever think that Reyes or Pagulayan, or probably any of the top players from the Philippines couldn't make the adjustment and play great. I agree with Lou when he says that you take away a lot of what pool is about when playing on a snooker table, like cheating the pocket to create angles for position, or to loosen up clusters that are problematic. Those are just a few of the things that you can't do on a snooker table to take advantage of your skills. I feel that one pocket on a 5X10 with 4-1/2" pockets would be the game that would favor the players with the most talent, not necessarily the players with the most experience. I say this because the players today (all players) have a fairly good understanding how to play one pocket, with that said then the most talented players would prevail in most cases.

Dr. Bill

Growing up on a farm in Missouri my first experience with one pocket was on a snooker table.

At 12 years old I was allowed to go to town on Saturdays and have a little time to myself.

I would always go to the bowling alley where they had pool and snooker tables but would not let me play. I would sneak a few shots when no one was looking.

There were two guys that played every Saturday. One pocket on the snooker table over in the left hand corner. One was a house painter dressed in coveralls. The other one was a horse trainer that looked like Tony Curtis.

I watched every shot the made and filed it away.

Years later after I had moved to Dallas and had become a very good player I came back to my home town. They both remembered me and were anxious to play. I broke them both. What a rush.

I remember it just like yesterday.

Bill S.

fred bentivegna said:

If I remember, they converted one of those 5 by's to a billiard table. The tightness of the table you are talking about was just another feature that I didnt like about it. The tighter the big table, the more perfect it would have to roll as far as I was concerned.
One more consideration, before the advent of the Diamond table with the single, thicker slate, very few of the 5 x 10 Gold Crowns or Anniversarys played very well. You needed more than that 1 inch of slate for a 5by. Before Diamond, the thicker slate (1 1/4 - 1 1/2 in) was only available on the old antique wooden tables.

That is probably one of the reasons tourns didnt use any 5 x 10s -- and I didnt care if they did or not-- unless they were going to use the wooden antique ones.

Beard

Click to expand...

Freddy,

The bigger-pocketed 5x10 was next to the 3C table as I recall. If they converted it to a 3C table they would have two 3C tables in there. Since 3C is and was deader than Kelso's nuts it doesn't add up. I guess it would give everyone a place to lay their cues & coats.

You're right about the 5x10's rolling straight though. A big part of playing one-pocket on a snooker table was learning the rolls on the particular table. I play on a 5x10 snooker table now that rolls absolutely, perfectly straight from everywhere on the table to anywhere on the table and, like you said, it's an old, antique looking table. It's got rails so narrow that it's a pain to bridge on the rail.

Dennis

Hmmm, let's see what we have now...One-Pocket on a tight Snooker table:

1. Prevents good players from firing at their pocket, particularly when in trouble.

2. 5x10's roll off so you must learn the rolls.

3. Good players can't "work the cueball".

4. Intentional fouls are almost non-existent, preventing a top player from taking them and forcing me to respond in kind, thus lowering the weight I'm getting.

5. The break is worth less so good players don't have a great advantage on their break.

6. It's a gaff game.

7. Good players can't cheat the pocket to move the cueball around.

8. Breaking up clusters is tougher.

Wow, I guess I was wrong. I really should prefer a game that good players are comfortable with. After all, they need the money.

P.S. Why the f@@k would I care what a viewer would like to see?