[evergruven]

obviously there are variables to consider, games are different after all
but I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on how 14.1 balls/racks run
might compare to say, racks of nine ball run? or any game
if joe is a 50 ball runner, he can run x nine ball racks, etc.
is it reasonable that there would be a correlation? or not

[mikemosconi]

Originally Posted by evergruven

obviously there are variables to consider, games are different after all
but I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on how 14.1 balls/racks run
might compare to say, racks of nine ball run? or any game
if joe is a 50 ball runner, he can run x nine ball racks, etc.
is it reasonable that there would be a correlation? or not

Well, a few things to consider- a 50 ball runner out of how many attempts on average would be the key to determine how skilled one is a 14.1. Let's just say, Joe can run 50 balls during MANY 2 hour sessions at a table alone playing 14.1- then Joe is an accomplished 14.1 player. A person who can handle the cue ball well enough to run 50 balls in many 2 hour sessions can handle running 9 balls in rotation fairly easily.

The shotmaking required in 9 ball will be at a higher level than 14.1 because most excellent 14.1 players will make 90% of their shots on half the table closest to the rack. The safety play and strategy are different for each game.

In terms of pure racks run, if Joe can run 50 balls regularly in 14.1; he should be able to break and run more than a few racks regularly in 9 ball - Nine ball position is almost never as demanding as 14.1 position - mostly talking area vs. spot position - but the cue ball traveling to each position area is usually longer in nine ball. You just can't be great at either game without excellent control of the cue ball- but really great 14.1 players usually have surgical control of the cue ball. In 14.1 If you don't plan right to get on your break balls- it is hard to make that up with shotmaking.

[evergruven]

Originally Posted by mikemosconi

Well, a few things to consider- a 50 ball runner out of how many attempts on average would be the key to determine how skilled one is a 14.1. Let's just say, Joe can run 50 balls during MANY 2 hour sessions at a table alone playing 14.1- then Joe is an accomplished 14.1 player. A person who can handle the cue ball well enough to run 50 balls in many 2 hour sessions can handle running 9 balls in rotation fairly easily.

The shotmaking required in 9 ball will be at a higher level than 14.1 because most excellent 14.1 players will make 90% of their shots on half the table closest to the rack. The safety play and strategy are different for each game.

In terms of pure racks run, if Joe can run 50 balls regularly in 14.1; he should be able to break and run more than a few racks regularly in 9 ball - Nine ball position is almost never as demanding as 14.1 position - mostly talking area vs. spot position - but the cue ball traveling to each position area is usually longer in nine ball. You just can't be great at either game without excellent control of the cue ball- but really great 14.1 players usually have surgical control of the cue ball. In 14.1 If you don't plan right to get on your break balls- it is hard to make that up with shotmaking.

thanks mike, you make good points

[iusedtoberich]

It’s just balls and a stick man.

In my personal experience over the years, I’ve found very little to no difference in the pecking order of players in any game. Be it straight pool, 9 ball, one hole, banks, 3 Cushion, etc. If a player is better than you in one game, he will be better than you in all of them.

The only exception is if he’s never played a particular game. But given a few weeks at it, his level will be on par with his other games.

[The_JV]

Originally Posted by iusedtoberich

The only exception is if he’s never played a particular game. But given a few weeks at it, his level will be on par with his other games.

That's my take as well...

I'm a fairly strong 8/9/10 ball player, and a <2wk newb at 14.1.

Probably around a 25ball average right now, with glimpses of proficiency. For me it boils down CB control after large cluster breaks. That's something that isn't an element of the other games. Some more time under my belt and I fully expect to climb to the 50ball average milestone.

[sjm]

Originally Posted by iusedtoberich

It’s just balls and a stick man.

In my personal experience over the years, I’ve found very little to no difference in the pecking order of players in any game. Be it straight pool, 9 ball, one hole, banks, 3 Cushion, etc. If a player is better than you in one game, he will be better than you in all of them.

The only exception is if he’s never played a particular game. But given a few weeks at it, his level will be on par with his other games.

Well said! Philosophically, I agree with everything you wrote, but at the highest levels, my observation doesn't bear it out.

When the straight pool era ended in the early 1980's, the straight pool legends had to learn to excel at a new game. Some of them, like Sigel, Varner and Rempe, made the transition easily and continued to mass produce titles at the new game. Some of the legends were far less successful and their skills didn't translate as well to the new game.

The break explained some of it, but not all of it, but I feel that the switch from a game of difficult problem solving, touch and finesse to a game that required a lot more power and more billiard knowledge was also part of the reason. That's why the few that have won a WPA sanctioned world championship in both straight pool and 9-ball (Sigel, Varner, Hohmann, and Feijen are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head) are all counted among the all-time greats of our sport.

Guess I still agree with what you wrote, because, on average, the skills translate well from game to game, but generalizing doesn't seem to work here.

[Bob Jewett]

Originally Posted by mikemosconi

... The shotmaking required in 9 ball will be at a higher level than 14.1 because most excellent 14.1 players will make 90% of their shots on half the table closest to the rack. ...

The top players are much higher than that once the rack is open. From stats of John Schmidt's runs, for all the shots excluding the break shot and the shot right after the break, John was 99.2% meaning he would miss 1 in 134 shots. If John got past the second shot of the rack, he was about 91% to clear the table (12 balls) and get on the next break shot.

In those percentages is one thing that 14.1 can give you. You get used to making a lot of shots in a row.

[mikemosconi]

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett

The top players are much higher than that once the rack is open. From stats of John Schmidt's runs, for all the shots excluding the break shot and the shot right after the break, John was 99.2% meaning he would miss 1 in 134 shots. If John got past the second shot of the rack, he was about 91% to clear the table (12 balls) and get on the next break shot.

In those percentages is one thing that 14.1 can give you. You get used to making a lot of shots in a row.

I was NOT talking about shot making % - I WAS talking about the difficulty of shots in terms of length of cue ball/object ball travel to the pocket. You may have misunderstood based on your quoting me - I was saying that MOST 14.1 shots- in a quality 14.1 player's game are pocketed within only half the table - less cue ball and object ball travel.

I agree with you completely, top 14.1 players must possess VERY high shotmaking percentage to have very high runs consistently- just that the shots themselves are usually not as demanding- on a percentage basis- as shots in nine ball- for the most part.

Some of this has nothing to do with either quality of pattern play or shotmaking ability- As you mentioned, the ability to STAY focused on a continuous run of say 75 balls is paramount to top 14.1 performance- there are more than a few nine ball players who just are not wired to stay focused on the same run for 30 or more minutes -

Steve Mizerak once commented on the late Jimmy Fusco, while acknowledging Jimmy's strength in rotation games and one pocket, Steve stated that Jimmy was just not wired to CONSISTENTLY stay focused during high run attempts- Jimmy could run 100s at times and play some great 14.1- but not on the same level as the very best 14.1 group, even though he had the shotmaking , pattern play knowledge, and game experience- Steve felt that 14.1 required some other "natural" abilities that could not be learned- to play the game at the most competitive levels consistently.

[Bob Jewett]

Originally Posted by mikemosconi

... I was saying that MOST 14.1 shots- in a quality 14.1 player's game are pocketed within only half the table -...

Yes I see that now. There are some stories of matches where only a handful of balls were played in the head pockets.

[evergruven]

Originally Posted by sjm

Well said! Philosophically, I agree with everything you wrote, but at the highest levels, my observation doesn't bear it out.

When the straight pool era ended in the early 1980's, the straight pool legends had to learn to excel at a new game. Some of them, like Sigel, Varner and Rempe, made the transition easily and continued to mass produce titles at the new game. Some of the legends were far less successful and their skills didn't translate as well to the new game.

The break explained some of it, but not all of it, but I feel that the switch from a game of difficult problem solving, touch and finesse to a game that required a lot more power and more billiard knowledge was also part of the reason. That's why the few that have won a WPA sanctioned world championship in both straight pool and 9-ball (Sigel, Varner, Hohmann, and Feijen are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head) are all counted among the all-time greats of our sport.

Guess I still agree with what you wrote, because, on average, the skills translate well from game to game, but generalizing doesn't seem to work here.

really good stuff, stu- thanks
I hadn't considered the societal transition from 14.1 to 9-ball
quite interesting how some made the jump well enough
and others didn't
philosophically, I also agree with the "stick and balls" deal
but there's always more out there to learn
new connections to make
and knowledge to appreciate
ever a treat to exist amongst you pool stalwarts
thanks again

[JusticeNJ]

My observation: I can usually put up a 50ish ball run in a 2 hour practice session. Some nights I'll put up a 60+, some nights its just a struggle to get the balls apart. I don't play much 9 ball, but rarely string more than two racks together if I'm not playing the ghost. My all time biggest package is 5 racks unfinished. I can only remember a handful of times I've run 3. I don't see myself running a 5 pack again (granted, I don't play that much rotation).

Why? The break, at least for me. Pocketing a ball and getting consistent position on the 1 is just not that easy for me and I don't have the patience to practice it. Plus, practicing the break wreaks havoc on the cloth, petty I guess, but I like keeping the burn marks to a minimum on my home table where 14.1 is the predominant game I play. And I guess the power break is somewhat unique - it's a stroke that you use once per rack in 9 ball and never in straight pool. So for me, there's really no translation from game to game on the break shot.

There is a big difference if there's just one cluster in 9 ball, with 8 balls on the table, and everything wide open and 7 balls on the table

[evergruven]

Originally Posted by JusticeNJ

My observation: I can usually put up a 50ish ball run in a 2 hour practice session. Some nights I'll put up a 60+, some nights its just a struggle to get the balls apart. I don't play much 9 ball, but rarely string more than two racks together if I'm not playing the ghost. My all time biggest package is 5 racks unfinished. I can only remember a handful of times I've run 3. I don't see myself running a 5 pack again (granted, I don't play that much rotation).

Why? The break, at least for me. Pocketing a ball and getting consistent position on the 1 is just not that easy for me and I don't have the patience to practice it. Plus, practicing the break wreaks havoc on the cloth, petty I guess, but I like keeping the burn marks to a minimum on my home table where 14.1 is the predominant game I play. And I guess the power break is somewhat unique - it's a stroke that you use once per rack in 9 ball and never in straight pool. So for me, there's really no translation from game to game on the break shot.

There is a big difference if there's just one cluster in 9 ball, with 8 balls on the table, and everything wide open and 7 balls on the table

hey J
the break shot is definitely a difference..good point
thanks for sharing your experience
(ps felt looks better without break shot burn marks,
but whaddya gonna do? oh yeah, play 14.1 )

[alstl]

I prefer equal offense to 14.1 because you get more variety and use the entire table more but in both cases you don't learning the type of kicking and safety play common to 9 ball and 10 ball.


It certainly helps with pocketing balls and controlling the cue ball. A great 14.1 player who learned a kicking system would be dangerous at 8 ball, 9 ball and 10 ball.