Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrbrandonking | Hacker News Reader

Simple answer: Declining attention spans.

For those who've never seen straight pool (AKA 14.1) played, here's a link to video of an all-time classic match: Joe Balsis running 150-and-out to beat Irving Crane in 1966.

http://youtu.be/k06-M12lQWE

For a pool aficionado (like me), it's a delight to see such a masterful performance. But for most people, watching a guy shoot-in balls for an hour without missing is probably like watching paint dry.

I love the game, though. I like snooker even better, which was also popular in the U.S. back in straight pool's heydey. Now it's hard to even find a snooker table in the states.

View on HN

I knew a guy that had a snooker table that was close to 100 years old. It used to be in a bar, and had lots of cigarette burns on the wood, giving it lots of character. Overall, the table was in excellent condition.

What's amazing about a snooker table is the difference in size from a table you usually see at a pool hall or bar. Normal pool tables are either 7 or 8 feet long, whereas a snooker table is nearly 12 feet long.

Additionally, the rails curve into the pockets, instead of having sharp angles. This makes it nearly impossible to bank a shot in off of the pocket rails.

Finally, the balls were smaller. I'm not sure if there is a regulation size or not, but these were significantly smaller than what you typically see in a pool hall.

These three details add up to an extremely challenging game of pool. Although, once you play it long enough to get used to it, it makes a normal sized table feel like a child's game.

Edit: We played 9 ball exclusively. I can't speak to the actual game of snooker itself.

Snooker balls are smaller than regular pool balls. There's also a difference between snooker equipment manufacturer in the U.S. and what's used in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. American snooker uses 2 1/8" balls on a 5' x 10' table. British snooker (also the standard for the rest of the world) uses 2 1/16" balls on a 6' x 12' table.

Snooker is a major sport in the United Kingdom where players earn millions in prize money and endoresements. Pool pros in the U.S. earn less than most of the people here on Hacker News. And, yes, hardly anybody cares to watch pool on TV.

Fellow aficionado checking in! Thanks for the link, let me also throw in a super recent one from 2014 of Ralf Souquet running 178.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPFqNhRk70Q

I also enjoy watching competitive 9 ball, where if you aren't running the table, you're putting your opponent into a ridiculous safety, and then there's usually an amazing shot to escape, etc. until one side gives the other an opportunity and they likely run the table, which is also impressive. But then again, I'm just getting into straight pool, and I really enjoyed watching the above video. So straight pool's growing on me too.

For watching any kind of pool, I think it helps to play a bit to get a perspective for just how difficult some of the shots are, but also to be able to picture the thought process the player is going through. There are shots a player might be able to make 75% of the time, but if they miss that shot it's over, so they'll play safe, or choose a lower percentage shot that has a built in safety, and you can usually pick up what they're trying to do next. Or they come out of nowhere with a shot neither you nor the commentators saw coming and nail it, to which the commentators will say something like "well, I guess that's why Shane is the #1 ranked player in the world and we're not!"

I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I'll go ahead and throw these out there, too, so everybody can see comparable "masterpieces" in other billiard games...

Ronnie O'Sullivan with a 147-break at snooker...

http://youtu.be/bpeBugHSCnU

Torbjörn Blomdahl with runs of 20, 13 and 9 at 3-Cushion Billiards (a billiards variant not discussed thus far)...

http://youtu.be/FcC5vNMyXg0

I would say that a 147-break at snooker and a 20-run at 3-cushion are roughly comparable achievements to a 150-and-out at straight pool.

But there's probably never been a player who could achieve such high levels at all three variants - they actually require quite different skill-sets. Snooker players rarely use sidespin ("English") on the cueball while 3-cushion players use extreme amounts of top, bottom and sidespin that you'll never see in pool.

I've always wished there was an all-around competition to determine the best at all three games. My guess is that the all-around best would probably be a relative unknown instead of the current World Champion from any one of the three.

those are some great runs. 3-cushion is so challenging but taught me much about banks and ball control. highly recommended, would shop again!

Now there's the true casualty of the barbox. 3-cushion is practically extinct here in the US. You can still play straight pool if you want to, but good luck finding a pocketless table anywhere, outside of a Korean or Columbian neighborhood. It's a crying shame for such a creative and elegant game.

I've been trying to play, but there are literally zero tables in all of Manhattan where I live.

Sang Lee (Korean-American 3-cushion legend) opened a world-class billiards facility in Flushing, NY, called Carom Cafe. Heated billiard tables, the works. Sang Lee has since passed-away, but I just checked and the place is still open. Probably worth the trip!

They also host an annual memorial tournament where the world's best come to play. Raymond Ceulemans was guest of honor last year.

Twenty years ago, the only room in Arkansas with real billiard tables was a local place that catered to Vietnamese immigrants. I walked-in one day, cue in-hand, and was immediately halted by the owner who told me (in unfriendly terms) that they didn't offer 8-ball or 9-ball. I assured him that, despite my appearance, I knew how to play and won-over some new friends that day.

I've often wondered how many good ol' boys wandered into that place, found a bunch of pool tables without any pockets! and then went away, shaking their heads in bewilderment at the sight.

"But for most people, watching a guy shoot-in balls for an hour without missing is probably like watching paint dry."

Most people don't want to watch people play any type of pool.

I can't speak to halls or history, but it's pretty obvious that the barbox dictates the style of pool that's popular in most places today. Even people who prefer 9-ball feel cheated playing it on a coin-op table. And straight pool makes even less sense.

If you're playing per game, you can use the 10-15 balls for a game of 6-ball, which you play after the game of 9-ball. Two games for the price of one!

If it really is a matter of attention span, then I wonder why snooker remains so popular in the UK and is growing rapidly in China, Germany and elsewhere. The game attracts global TV audiences and sponsorships that dwarf any form of pool, in spite of being longer, slower and more difficult to understand.

Are Americans uniquely impatient? Are American TV networks lousy at presenting billiards? Is pool just inherently boring?

Good observation. I wondered the same thing when someone else commented that most people are uninterested in watching pool on TV. Yet snooker is a big hit on TV in the UK, as you point-out.

I think that, historically, snooker became popular on TV in the UK because the BBC started airing the weekly "Pot Black" series to showcase their early color broadcasts. The green cloth and different colored balls looked great!

Makes sense when you consider that snooker, while still enormously popular, has also seen a decline from its 1980's high point. Color TV isn't much of a novelty anymore.

Your second point about American TV networks and pool is also true. Commentary is usually provided by some vacuous talking head who's never played pool before, gets excited about simple shots yet remains oblivious to the subtleties that actually make-up great play, like cue-ball positioning or safety-play. If you're lucky, there might be an inarticulate former pro to provide color commentary.

That's why one of the things that stands-out about the 1966 video clip posted earlier is how unusually competent the commentator was! Announcer was "Whispering" Joe Wilson.

Ever since I got into snooker I could never get excited about pool anymore. Snooker feels just so much more cerebral... Feels like Checkers vs. Chess to me. Although I think that for snooker you have to be quite good to really enjoy playing... but on TV, the drama is incomparable. Too bad it is such a non-sport in the US :-(

> Declining attention spans.

Yes, the generation that brought us "Three's Company" had much higher attention spans than the generation that brought us "The Wire".

People really don't want to discuss this? OK.

I think "What societal change explains this?" is a very HN-worthy topic. In fact, that was my first guess as to why a straight pool article was submitted to HN.

But the straight pool heydey wasn't in the 1970's...

If you go back to the 1930's, you'll find that straight pool was a popular spectator sport that often got more newspaper coverage than basketball or hockey. Ralph Greenleaf earned $2,000 a week performing trick shots for Broadway audiences. That's comparable to modern salaries for pro athletes when adjusted for inflation.

I think there's an interesting sociological question here, and that the answer is probably more complex than simply declining attention spans. Ned Polsky, a real sociologist (I'm not!), thought that pool's decline in popularity was caused by the decline of a "bachelor subculture" in America.

Polsky's book "Hustlers, Beats and Others" http://amzn.com/0202308871

Hope I didn't come across as bashing an entire generation. I count myself right there among the afflicted! Staying focused and productive as a software developer is a real challenge when your computer can become a TV at any moment, as Paul Graham put-it.

http://www.paulgraham.com/distraction.html).

And, besides, "The Wire" is awesome!

I'm not convinced attention spans are declining, for the reasons I stated: If you look at the 1930s, the major entertainment was radio and movies.

Movies are longer than individual TV show episodes, but shorter than the full run of the serialized TV shows we have now, so that doesn't hold up.

Radio had serials, certainly, but a lot of shows weren't serialized, and ongoing radio serials didn't have the full continuity with tight plotting that a show which was plotted out in full from day one does.

Maybe attention spans have dropped. I'm willing to be convinced. It's just that the examples you've posted haven't convinced me.

This, however, is very interesting:

> Ned Polsky, a real sociologist (I'm not!), thought that pool's decline in popularity was caused by the decline of a "bachelor subculture" in America.

I'll have to look up his actual thesis, but it sounds reasonable on its face.

You got the names mixed. It was Crane that won the game with a 150 pt run.

You're right, it was Irving Crane who won that match. Good catch! I got mixed-up because Joe Balsis also had some famous 150-and-out runs - including one against Crane in their very next match!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com