Post a reply

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Sickpotter

Mr Cam wrote:http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=209914


11-19-2010, 02:48 PM

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

On the surface it seems more difficult. But I don't think it even approaches snooker. It may be more challenging to pocket a ball, but if you notice the only potting angles they play are fairly straight. There is not as much positional play to worry about, especially when they are allowed to us any ball as the cb.

For me the toughest games, in no particular order are, Snooker, 14.1, 3 cushion and One Pocket. All of these games require an immense amount of knowledge and accuracy. Choosing one out of the three is impossible I think.

And I DID not write this post.


They've listed the 3 I chose, including one pocket which you insisted was not one of the toughest. :shrug:

Correct me if I'm mistaken but based on your answers your sole claim to knowledge in cue sports comes from reading other sites.

Sorry but if you don't have actual playing experience, particularly competitively, you really are in no position to rewrite the rules of the game.

Good luck with your new game, the changes do look interesting :hatoff:

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

Sickpotter wrote:
Mr Cam wrote:http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=209914

11-19-2010, 02:48 PM

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

On the surface it seems more difficult. But I don't think it even approaches snooker. It may be more challenging
to pocket a ball, but if you notice the only potting angles they play are fairly straight. There is not as much positional
play to worry about, especially when they are allowed to us any ball as the cb.

For me the toughest games, in no particular order are, Snooker, 14.1, 3 cushion and One Pocket. All of these games
require an immense amount of knowledge and accuracy. Choosing one out of the three is impossible I think.

And I DID not write this post.


They've listed the 3 I chose, including one pocket which you insisted was not one of the toughest. :shrug:

Correct me if I'm mistaken but based on your answers your sole claim to knowledge in cue sports comes from

reading other sites.

Sorry but if you don't have actual playing experience, particularly competitively, you really are in no position to

rewrite the rules of the game.

Good luck with your new game, the changes do look interesting :hatoff:


The One Pcoket people must be related to you. Because they "claim" that One Pocket is the MOST difficult game

in pocket or non pcoket billiards. And you did not blast them for failing to even mention your beloved Snooker.

You keep moving the goalposts. Your first position was, You cannot have an opinion about pool, billiards, or snook-

er unless you have my [Sickpotter's] qualifications = I have played for 30 years and I have played with X player. Now

you say: "Sorry but if you don't have actual playing experience, particularly competitively, you really are in no posit-

ion to rewrite the rules of the game." You have moved the goalposts, AGAIN. Now I cannot have an opinion about

SNOOKER. This may be news to you, but under your requirements, 99% or MORE of the posters here, would never

be able to offer an opinion about the rules of snooker or any other aspect of the game for that matter. It's like me

saying: Unless you are a better player than Ronnie O'Sullivan, Sickpotter is not QUALIFIED to offer any opinions

about the game.

Bottom line is this, I came here and from the very begining I have offered nothing but respect for your beloved

game. And I have waited to see just what kind of person and player you are. The fact that you have derided,desre-

spected, and have failed with every opportunity you've had to give 14.1 its just due, tells me you are a pocket billiards

biggot. You know not the meaning of the word OBJECTIVITY. And unless you are a current or former WORLD CLASS

PLAYER, your 30 years of playing competitively or recreationaly means nothing to me.

Tell me what country you are from and let us compare the accompliments of your best players vs. what America's play-

ers have accomplished since 1875 in pocket and non-pcoket billiards. Let us compare our two countries contributions

in game development, equipment, & rules.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

Wildey wrote:Mr Cam

you [You] come on here and try to change a 90 year old game to something its not.

I only posted a proposal. Did you see any Abrams tanks parked in front of your pub telling you
HAVE to play by my proposed RULES?

How do you think people like Sickpotter will react to that hes [he's] played snooker at a highish
level in Canada for years and knows Most Cue Sports because hes [he's] played Most [most] of
them in his time.

Snooker is not Pool and never will be.

14.1 & Snooker are BOTH POCKET BILLIARD games.

In fact, and maybe one of you a'll can help me here. It is said that American pocket billiard games
came from English Billiards. What an odd bird that game is. However, the source I read did not say
why they chose 15 balls.

im [I'm] not going to pretend i [ I ] know much about all the variations of cue sports. Each and every
one is different so if you cant respect snooker as the game it is and always has been why should others

I said I wanted to make the game harder. That in no way implies desrespect. You cannot point to a
single word, phrase, or sentence that I have written that in any way even IMPLIES desrespect.

respect pool or variations of pool.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

Wildey wrote:

Mr Cam you [You] come on here and try to change a 90 year old game to something its not.

I only posted a proposal. Did you see any Abrams tanks parked in front of your pub telling you
HAVE to play by my proposed RULES?

How do you think people like Sickpotter will react to that hes [he's] played snooker at a highish
level in Canada for years and knows Most Cue Sports because hes [he's] played Most [most] of
them in his time.

Snooker is not Pool and never will be.

14.1 & Snooker are BOTH POCKET BILLIARD games.

In fact, and maybe one of you a'll can help me here. It is said that American pocket billiard games
came from English Billiards. What an odd bird that game is. However, the source I read did not say
why they chose 15 balls.

im [I'm] not going to pretend i [ I ] know much about all the variations of cue sports. Each and every
one is different so if you cant respect snooker as the game it is and always has been why should
others

I said I wanted to make the game harder. That in no way implies desrespect. You cannot point to a
single word, phrase, or sentence that I have written that in any way even IMPLIES desrespect to
snooker.

respect pool or variations of pool.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Wildey

Mr Cam have you actually played on a full size Snooker Table?


because if you want to make snooker More difficult and have played it you must be a Brilliant player.


the beauty of snooker is how simple to understand it is and how easy great players make it look.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

Wildey wrote:Mr Cam have you actually played on a full size Snooker Table? because [Because] if you

want to make snooker More [more] difficult and have played it, you must be a B[b]rilliant

player. the beauty of snooker is how simple to understand it is and how easy great players

make it look.


And yet, I've seen Rocket Ronnie miss gimme shots on BOTH a snooker AND a pool

table. Why is it that snooker fans seem to be so provincial and narrow minded? Why is it

you cannot be bothered to understand and acknowledge the other billiard and pocket

billiard games? I watch three cushion billiards not because it is gripping entertainment,

but to appreciate the skill. I was taught to be OBJECTIVE. And that is a quality that is lack-

ing here. Wildey, if I give you a youtube video to watch, do you think you can objectively

judge and comment on what you will see in the 56 minutes that it runs? I even took the

pains to point out ALL of the noteworthy shots made in the video.

Why is it I, and I alone, have accorded respect and some limited knowledge about

snooker, your favorite I would think, and yet YOU, know next to nothing about 14.1 or

any other of the “American” games. Don’t you have any curiosity at ALL about any other

billiard or pocket billiard games invented and played outside of the U.K? Do you really

believe that SNOOKER is at the CENTER of the billiard & pocket billiard UNIVERSE. And that

all players must bow down to Snooker, their players, and fans?

Listen no game is perfect. I would change 14.1 as well. I would allow no more than ONE

safety per player per rack. I would revert the game BACK to a ten foot table with 4" or smaller

pockets. Ideally, a tournament high run would no more than 50. In 14.1 as in Snooker, if you

take away the safety, or in your case the “snooker” away, you have to give the player compen-

sation. Snooker already has the largest playing area and small pockets, so you have to look else-

where. Requiring the use of a break ball and forcing the player to not only sink the red break ball

but drive three or more racked red balls to cushion does that. It makes the game CONTINUOUS.

No more “conceding” frames and sitting on your ASS. It is your job to create shot after shot after

shot.

Most of the red balls will remain on the foot side if the table. And if you accidentaly sink a

colored ball while you shoot at and sink a red ball, simply repsot the colored ball. Now that you

have cleared the table of all of the red balls except for your red break ball. You now have to sink

the colored balls in numberical order. That will usually mean a long shot on the yellow ball into the

corner pocket, if you make the shot, you can now clear out the green and then the brown ball. Now

comes the blue, pink, and black. No need to worry about ties in a frame or a rack, this is a POINTS

game.

And NEVER EVER forget, tactics is a MEANS to an end, it is NOT the END in and of itself. You

win, or you lose, based on SINKING balls. The score board does not lie.

And if by chance you end in a tie: 1500 to 1500. You play an additional rack to determine your

winner. Just try it. Try and see if you can run just ONE RACK of 20 balls. And if you really want a

challenge, CALL and MAKE a red ball off the first or opening break. And run the rack. I do not believe

that there is a Snooker player alive that can do that.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HanjQHbvpU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOFRRv7axs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7wbE4BO1hY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm2vSjJkypY


Torbjörn Blomdahl def. Efren Reyes in 3-cushion billiards: 30 to 20 in 20 innings. This is the first
half of a two part challenge match from Japan where the two legendary world champions played
each other in their respective disciplines. Blomdahl won at both billiards (3-cushion) and pool (9-ball)!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm2vSjJkypY


Published on Sep 17, 2012

In a 2008 interview at an IPT event with Inside Pool's Vanessa De La Cuetara, Efren Reyes reveals
his interest and passion for 18.1 balkline, a very technical and intricate billiard game that Efren was
brought up with but is rarely seen playing.

On August 5, 2012, Efren Reyes played Raymond Ceulemans for the first time ever in balkline
billiards in NY during the Billiard Sages Exhibition at Carom Cafe. Two special DVDs were pro-
duced do document this extremely rare matchup between two great billiard legends.





Does anyone here believe that rocket Ronnie or any other Brit Snooker player

can do what this famous player is doing in a game totally diferent from his

speciality?

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Sickpotter

Steve Davis once beat Efren Reyes in a 9 ball match coming back from a 7 or 8 game deficit racing to 9.

The top snooker players are capable of stepping up and playing the best in the world on any table.

Top snooker players chances to beat top players in other disciplines is better than those other players beating them in theirs.

I never said you had to match my qualifications to have an valid opinion on rules, I said you require some form of experience, particularly at a competitive level to be qualified.

You have yet to state your playing experience, please do so. <ok>

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

Are you Canadian SickPotter?

Because if you are, Canadians have been a NON-ENTITY in Billiards

& Pocket Billiards. I laugh at Canada's accomplishments in Billiards and

Pocket Billiards. YOU and the rest of Canada cannot see what AMERICA has

accomplished in Billiards & Pocket Billiards with the Hubble Telescope. I

laugh at you, a Canadian, that does not have enough pride to celebrate what

CANADA has done in Billiards or Pocket Billiards. A Canadian that has devolved

into a Brit Pocket Billiard sycophat, how sad is that. Now unless I am wrong,

which is possible, I cannot think of a SINGLE Canadian player of note nor a single

Candian Billiard or Pocket Billiard game of note. At least us Americans DEVEL-

OPED our OWN Billiards & Pocket Billiards GAMES & gave merry Olde Engerland

the middle finger.

You are no more than a Commonwealth minded suck-up. Do you support

merry Olde Engerland in soccer and other sports as well? Snooker is a GAME!!!

You seem to base your IDENTITY on it. I play Snooker therefore I am. I play

Snooker and you do not, therefore you are beneath me. And you must BE a

Pocket Billiards BIGOT. You have not denied it. Anyway, continue to live in your

insular, ignorant, & provincial world of snooker is king & ALL other games are

inferior.

What does it say about YOU, Canadian SickPotter, that I ran across a person

that stated:

For me the toughest games, in no particular order are, Snooker, 14.1, 3 cushion
and One Pocket. All of these games require an immense amount of knowledge
and accuracy. Choosing one out of the three is impossible I think.

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

and yet, you have NEVER spoken of 14.1 with anything but derision, desrepect,

and outright hostility, why? Are you an anti-American bigot? Are you also an anti-

American bigot that hates ALL American Billiards and Pocket Billiards GAMES?

Has your hatred so demented you, that you cannot fathom, let alone exercise,

OBJECTIVITY?

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

“They've listed the 3 I chose, including one pocket which you insisted was not one

of the toughest”

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

Yes, he did, execpt unlike YOU, he accorded EQUAL respect to 14.1 & Snooker &

3 Cushion = Caroms. I have given RESPECT to Snooker. YOU continue to ignore

14.1 and that is why I LAUGH at you. You are not WORTHY of respect.

Snooker, 14.1, & 3 cushion have ALWAYS been Championship games. Continental

Europe, three cushion, the U.K. Snooker, the U.S., Billiards & Pocket Billiards were

the Championship games.

They may have one pocket title games in the U.S. But since 1912, if you wanted to

be a Pocket Billiards Champion, that meant 14.1 and 14.1 ONLY. If you wanted to

be a Billiards Champion, that meant one rail, straight rail, three cushion, 18.1, &

18.2 etc.

By the way, you have a most appropriate name, because you are one SICK potter.

A very sick puppy indeed.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Wildey

Mr Cam


Where on any post have i taken a swipe at pool?


i said Snooker is difficult enough without adding more difficulty because of some half baked idea you came up with.


you are starting to get personnel now pipe down and comment on the sports and not on nationality of posters on here

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Sickpotter

Are you ever going to state your level of play/experience or just continue your nonsense rants?

I'll put this in caps for you as it seems like you think it'll help others grasp your position

WHAT ACTUAL EXPERIENCE DO YOU HAVE PLAYING?

NO MORE YOUTUBE VIDEOS OF OTHER PEOPLE, STAT QUOTES, OTHER PLAYER QUOTES, THAT DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY
by Sickpotter » 08 Oct 2013 → Read

"If snooker doesn't move quick enough for you stick with the [little tables]. . .

THAT is your swipe at pool.

The other SWIPE is your continued REFUSAL to accord 14.1 the respect it

has earned throughout the world by the truly OBJECTIVE observers of pocket

billiards.

instead of trying to re-tool the [greatest of cue sports]."

Pure ASSertion!!!

As to where I learned what I know, it comes from AMERICANS I have spoken

to about billiards and pocket billiards. AMERICANS who know far more than

one very SICK Potter. Again, I LAUGH at you & Canada as far as your LACK

of achievement in billiards and pocket billiards. Point to ONE significant

achievement by Canadians in billiards and pocket billiards. Show me ONE

INOVATION, show me one game changing invention, show me ten all time

WORLD renowed Canadian players in billiards and pocket billiards. What

have your WOMEN achieved in billiards and pocket billiards, NOTHING. Just

like you. I come from a country that has achieved as much, if not more, than

ANY other country in the world of billiards and pocket billiards. As a Canadian,

you cannot claim ANY such lagacy.

If you cannot right here right now ADMIT that Canada is a TOTAL non-entity

in the world of billiards and pocket billiards especially when compared to

the achievements of AMERICA & AMERICANS, then you are profoundly

IGNORANT. And that is not an attack, but a statement of FACT!!! The

HISTORICAL evidence I have on my side is VAST!!! So man up, admit it.

Mr. Cam, it is true, we Canadians have not achieved in the world of billiards

and pocket billiards anything REMOTELY comparable to what our American

neighbors have accomplished. And I defy ANYONE on these boards to PROVE

otherwise.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Sickpotter

Had I said "smaller tables" would you still feel so slighted/disrespected? What are you, 12? <doh>

You're correct, the Americans have done well with 14.1, all the power to them. I've got news for you though...just because the Americans have excelled at a particular discipline doesn't make it the hardest. If you want to believe that 14.1 is the hardest or best measuring stick for cue sport greatness feel free but don't try and tell people who actually play the game that you know best, you quite simply don't.

Quick question....if 14.1 is such a great measure of talent why has the US never produced a player who made it on (or even to) the professional snooker circuit? Far more money to be won in snooker but that's not of interest to all the cue sport masters from the US?

As suspected (and finally admitted) you have no first hand knowledge regarding the difficulty playing the various games, you've relied on what you've been told. You've cherry picked one discipline that has had a lot of successful americans and decided hey, if it's been dominated by the USA it must be the best. :roll:

You have NO experience playing and therefore NO business thinking you know anything regarding the difficulties of the various disciplines.

I was going to ban you but decided you're relatively amusing...in a sad kind of way. I look forward to more of your insecure clueless postings. <ok>

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Roland

In 14.1 you don't have to nominate the next ball, only the current one. Straight away that makes it easier than snooker. I'm not dissing it, I enjoy it but being able to nominate the next ball rather than the one after that means you can get away with bad shots a lot more than you can in snooker or even 9 ball.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

Sonny wrote:In 14.1 you don't have to nominate the next ball, only the current one.
Straight away that makes it easier than snooker. I'm not dissing it, I enjoy it but being able
to nominate the next ball rather than the one after that means you can get away with bad
shots a lot more than you can in snooker or even 9 ball.


I do not know WHO give you that information. I have copied the rules of 14.1 and they have
remained, so far as I know, UNCHANGED since 1912. In 14.1, the ONLY time a player does
not have to call or nominate an object ball is on a safety, the opening break, a break after af-
ter a breaking foul, or a re-rack after a called stalemate by the referee, and thats aII I can
think of at the moment. I have given the link so that if any perosn would like, they can read
the rules for themselves.

BCA = Billiard Congress of America

http://home.bca-pool.com/associations/7 ... ry2008.pdf

Version 21/12/2007

Rule 1.6 is a STANDARD American pocket billiard rule.

1.6 Standard Call Shot

In games in which the shooter is required to CALL SHOTS, the INTENDED BALL and POCKET
MUST be INDICATED for EACH SHOT if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as
cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant. Only ONE BALL may be
CALLED on EACH SHOT. For a CALLED SHOT to COUNT, the referee must be satisfied that
the INTENDED SHOT WAS MADE, so if there is any chance of confusion, e.g. with bank, com-
bination and similar shots, the SHOOTER SHOULD INDICATE the BALL and POCKET. If the
referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call.

In call shot games, the shooter may choose to call “safety” instead of a ball and pocket, and
then play passes to the opponent at the end of the shot. Whether balls are being spotted af-
ter safeties depends on the rules of the particular game.

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

http://home.bca-pool.com/associations/7 ... ry2008.pdf

The following rules are SPECIFIC to 14.1

4. 14.1 Continuous Pool

14.1 Continuous Pool, also known as straight pool, is played with fifteen numbered balls and
the cue ball. Each ball pocketed on a LEGAL CALLED SHOT counts one point and the first player
to reach the required score wins the match. 14.1 is continuous in that after fourteen balls are
pocketed, they are re-racked and the shooter continues.

4.4 Continuing Play and Winning the Game

The shooter remains at the table as long as he continues to legally pocket CALLED BALLS or
wins the game by scoring the required number of points. When fourteen balls from a rack
have been legally pocketed, play is suspended until the balls are re-racked.

4.5 Shots Required to Be Called

SHOTS MUST BE CALLED as explained in 1.6 Standard Call Shot. The shooter may call “safety”
in which case play passes to the opponent at the end of the shot and any object ball pocketed
on the safety is spotted.

4.6 Spotting Balls

All balls pocketed on fouls, or on safeties, or without a CALLED BALL having been pocketed, and
all balls driven off the table are spotted.

4.7 Scoring

The shooter scores one point for legally pocketing a CALLED SHOT. Each additional ball pocketed
on such a shot also counts one point. Fouls are penalized by subtracting points from the offending
player’s score. Scores may be negative due to penalties from fouls.

And the best of the 14.1 players have called and POCKETED an object ball from the OPENING break,
and then have gone on to run 150 balls and OUT. Never allowing your opponent to take a shot IS the
most perfect Snooker ever :D

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Roland

Yes I understand the rules, I actually want a pool table of my own so I can play it on my own but the challenge comes from

1) developing balls which are not in good positions and

2) leaving the last ball on the table with an angle to pot it and go into the re-racked set of balls

My point was that you can go "2 ball, corner pocket" and smash it into the hole with no thought of what the next shot will be, and the chances are you will have an easy pot for your next shot because you can take any ball on that's left on the table. That's the point I was making.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Sickpotter

Don't waste your time Sonny.

He's never played and thus has no concept about what makes a game hard or easy.

Take this gem:

"And the best of the 14.1 players have called and POCKETED an object ball from the OPENING break,
and then have gone on to run 150 balls and OUT. Never allowing your opponent to take a shot IS the
most perfect Snooker ever :D"

He actually thinks that situation involved skill pmsl

No professional ever tries to make a ball on the break in 14:1 much less nominates a particular ball <doh>

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

Sickpotter wrote:Don't waste your time Sonny.

He's never played and thus has no concept about what makes a game hard or easy.

Take this gem:

"And the best of the 14.1 players have called and POCKETED an object ball from the OPENING break,
and then have gone on to run 150 balls and OUT. Never allowing your opponent to take a shot IS the
most perfect Snooker ever :D"

He actually thinks that situation involved skill pmsl

No professional ever tries to make a ball on the break in 14:1 much less nominates a particular ball <doh>


------

http://professorqball.com/17254/

Hohmann, Strickland, Schmidt Take Losses: Surprises on Day 1 Olhausen World Tournament 14.1
Posted by Paul on August 18th, 2013 Printer-Friendly

MIka Immonen of Finland has been finding his stride with a 100 ball run against Shaun Wilkie from the
break to win 100 to 0

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

"No professional ever tries to make a ball on the break in 14:1 much less nominates a particular ball "

You made an ABSOLUTE statement, I have proven you wrong, now it is up to YOU to substantiate/prove

that NO player in the history of 14.1 has EVER won a match/game from the break. The truth challenges

YOU to do that.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Roland

It doesn't say anywhere the player nominated the ball he'd pot from the break off. I've actually not seen the start of a 14.1 game, can't you just smash the pack and if a ball goes in you're still in play?

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Sickpotter

Mr Cam wrote:"No professional ever tries to make a ball on the break in 14:1 much less nominates a particular ball "

You made an ABSOLUTE statement, I have proven you wrong, now it is up to YOU to substantiate/prove

that NO player in the history of 14.1 has EVER won a match/game from the break. The truth challenges

YOU to do that.


Your proof depends on what the writer is meaning when they say "off the break" and I doubt they're referencing the first shot taken which is what most people deem the break. They are likely referencing the first turn the player got to actually pot balls AFTER the break.

The standard break shot in 14:1 is to clip off the bottom left or bottom right ball in the triangle with the intent of bringing the cue ball tight on the baulk rail and sending a couple of balls to the rail and back into the pack leaving nothing on. You're a lover of youtube clips....can you find one for a 14:1 match where a professional player actually lashes at the pack off the break?

The only way a professional would smash open the pack on the first shot is if there was no requirement to call a ball and that's not the case with 14:1 to my knowledge. If you have a link to the rule that says otherwise please post it.

There is no way what so ever to be able to say what ball will drop on a given break shot so IF a player ever did it, it's pure chance. Professionals do not leave things to chance when possible. <ok>

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

I sent this e-mail to a website and I HOPE they forward my question to a Mr. Charles

Ursitti and he answers my question. You can visit his website http://charlesursitti.com.

He is considered the formost authority on U.S. pocket billiards and billiards [caroms].

Dear

I would like to know if someone can FORWARD my question to Mr. Charles Ursitti.

In the history of 14.1, how many players in an official/sanctioned U.S. event have

ever won an important game/match/tournament/national/world title with a called

shot from the OPENING break and then proceeded to run 125 or 150 and out to win?

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

The original point total to win in 14.1 from 1912 to 1950 varied from 600 @ 200 points

per game to 150 and to 125. In 1950, the original point total to win in 14.1 per game was

increased from 125 to 150. From 1950 until very recently, the point total to win in 14.1

stood @ 150. Now, it stands at 200, AGAIN. Thorsten Hohmann won the 2013 World 14.1

title @ 200 points in one game.

However, we do not see the individual challenge matches like in boxing where the challenger

and the Champion play an extended series of games in various cities. Mosconi and Greenleaf

met for the last time in 1945:

http://www.billiardsdigest.com/new_curr ... told_4.php

Greenleaf and Mosconi meet one another for the final time in world competition. Mosconi, then

near the top of his game, beats Greenleaf 5,498 points to 3,738 during a long, multi-city challenge

match.

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

http://charlesursitti.com/?page_id=202

They were SUPPOSED to play 48 games or blocks @ 125 points per block to 6,000 points. Obviously,

that is not what they did. A perfect Snooker match @ 35 frames is 5145 points. That is imposible.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

[/quote]

The only way a professional would smash open the pack on the first shot is if there was no requirement to
call a ball and that's not the case with 14:1 to my knowledge. THAT IS the RULE.

There is no way what so ever to be able to say what ball will drop on a given break shot so IF a player ever
did it, it's pure chance. Professionals do not leave things to chance when possible. <ok>[/quote]

In the 1989 14.1 U.S. Open, Oliver Ortmann, made a called shot from the break. I have seen the shot

diagram. He banks the que ball off the right side long rail between the side pocket and the corner pocket,

then the que ball strikes the foot rail somewhere between the middle and outside diamond, then the que

ball hits the rack from the back, and either directly hits the right rear corner ball [last row of balls] of the

rack, or that ball and the next to it at the same time. Then this ball is driven the length of the table into the

upper right corner pocket located at the head of the table.

I will consult the book where I saw the shot diagram and revise my description as needed.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

I sent this question to a player that would know, and here is his response. The truth is

everything. However, players, even the great ones are rarely historians of the game

they play.

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

Hello Mr.

In my 50yrs. of playing and watching never have seen anyone do as you were asking.

Hope this answers the question.

On Friday, October 25, 2013 3:44 AM

Dear

As a former 14.1 World Champion and a BCA Hall of Fame inductee, I have a few

14.1 questions.

1. Have you ever won an important game/match with a called shot from the OPENING
break and then pocketed the next 149 balls to win?

2. As a competitor or spectator, have you ever seen another player win an important
game/match with a called shot from the OPENING break and then that player pocketed
the next 149 balls to win?

I have so much respect for 14.1 as a game and the talent, vision, imagination, and skill that it

demands from the players that aspire to be great. I believe that Greenleaf, Mosconi, Crane,

and the generation of players that followed, and that includes you,

Siegel, Miserak, are the greatest collection of 14.1 talent ever seen. But I am a mere spectator,

I am sure the players themselves have their "private" favorites. I thank you for your time and I

can only hope I receive a response.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Sickpotter

I'm glad you were able to get a reply, hopefully it has helped you understand that what you were suggesting is impossible except through sheer chance.

Enjoy being a spectator but you really should go out and play to really grasp tactical nuances of each cue sport. In the end the players win by scoring but setting up the opportunity to do so involves solid safety play. When you propose rules that take away that all important tactical aspect of the game you reduce the skill level required and challenge of the game.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Roland

Which leads nicely back to the opening post in this topic and to state that to propose big changes in the rules of snooker one must first fully understand why the existing rules have produced a sport followed and played by millions of people around the world.

Snooker is a great game as it is. Changing it by doing things like allowing ball in hand after a foul, or a shot clock, or nominating pockets, or playing with enough pace to hit a cushion after object ball contact, or making at least x reds hit cushions on the break off, or whatever else to create the perception of getting things moving along is to change the sport as we know and love it into a completely different animal.

It's also fair to say that most people who complain about the tactical side and want players to play faster and more attacking snooker have no appreciation of how difficult the game is. What these people should do is sit back and appreciate those players gifted enough to make it look so easy to play like that under tournament conditions with livelihoods at stake, and be fans of those players and support them against the slower paced more deliberate players whose games they seem to fail to grasp the appeal of, due in the main to a failure to appreciate the complexities of snooker both psychologically and technically.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Mr Cam

As promised:

DEAR sir;

I HAVE SEEN ANY RECORD INFORMATION ON SOMEONE CALLING A SHOT OUT OF THE REACK ON
AN OPENING BREAK AND RUNNING OUT. IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE SINCE ALMOST EVERY PLAYER
IN THE FIELD IS CAPABLE OF RUNNING OUT THE GAME.

cHARLES

Dear Mr. Ursitti

I want to make sure I understand you correctly?

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

I have [not ] seen any record information on someone calling a shot out of the rack on an opening

break and running out. It would make no sense since almost every player in the field Is capable of

running out the game.

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

May I ask you some 14.1 table and scoring questions?

As a 14.1 fan, I do thank you for YOUR tremendous historical work in documenting billiards [ Carroms]

and pocket billiards.

Re: My proposed rules changes for WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY

Postby Sickpotter

Ok, now you lost me.

Why don't you simplify the question and ask if he thinks it feasible to call a specific ball when breaking off? That's really what we're asking, I have no doubt the best often run 150s+