Should Snooker implement shot clocks?
-
SnookerFan - Posts: 150752
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
Badsnookerplayer wrote:No. He is a good long potter and should stick to potting long balls.
If certain players are causing a problem with slow play, then an average shot time limit would be a better solution.
Johnny Bravo wrote:Hell yes, it would be the best way the grow the number of spectators.
Just like in any other sport, the snooker audience is composed mostly of people that want to be entertained. These type of people simply want their money's worth, meaning they like to see people pot balls, make big breaks and attempt flashy shots. Only purists care about tactical and safety play, for the average Joe watching the game, there couldn't be anything more boring.
Shots clocks also tend to benefit the more talented players.
Most of the time, Murphy talks garbage, but this time he has a great idea. Just look at the Mosconi Cup. It's a shot clock tournament and it's packed every year.
Shot clock is the way to go.
Cloud Strife wrote:Johnny Bravo wrote:Hell yes, it would be the best way the grow the number of spectators.
Just like in any other sport, the snooker audience is composed mostly of people that want to be entertained. These type of people simply want their money's worth, meaning they like to see people pot balls, make big breaks and attempt flashy shots. Only purists care about tactical and safety play, for the average Joe watching the game, there couldn't be anything more boring.
Shots clocks also tend to benefit the more talented players.
Most of the time, Murphy talks garbage, but this time he has a great idea. Just look at the Mosconi Cup. It's a shot clock tournament and it's packed every year.
Shot clock is the way to go.
I wouldn't mind having it one tournament a season, and by that I mean a proper ranking event and not the shoutout.
Johnny Bravo wrote:Cloud Strife wrote:Johnny Bravo wrote:Hell yes, it would be the best way the grow the number of spectators.
Just like in any other sport, the snooker audience is composed mostly of people that want to be entertained. These type of people simply want their money's worth, meaning they like to see people pot balls, make big breaks and attempt flashy shots. Only purists care about tactical and safety play, for the average Joe watching the game, there couldn't be anything more boring.
Shots clocks also tend to benefit the more talented players.
Most of the time, Murphy talks garbage, but this time he has a great idea. Just look at the Mosconi Cup. It's a shot clock tournament and it's packed every year.
Shot clock is the way to go.
I wouldn't mind having it one tournament a season, and by that I mean a proper ranking event and not the shoutout.
How about at the Masters ???
Pink Ball wrote:Johnny Bravo wrote:Cloud Strife wrote:Johnny Bravo wrote:Hell yes, it would be the best way the grow the number of spectators.
Just like in any other sport, the snooker audience is composed mostly of people that want to be entertained. These type of people simply want their money's worth, meaning they like to see people pot balls, make big breaks and attempt flashy shots. Only purists care about tactical and safety play, for the average Joe watching the game, there couldn't be anything more boring.
Shots clocks also tend to benefit the more talented players.
Most of the time, Murphy talks garbage, but this time he has a great idea. Just look at the Mosconi Cup. It's a shot clock tournament and it's packed every year.
Shot clock is the way to go.
I wouldn't mind having it one tournament a season, and by that I mean a proper ranking event and not the shoutout.
How about at the Masters ???
Wow, what a brilliant idea
Pink Ball wrote:Johnny Bravo wrote:Cloud Strife wrote:Johnny Bravo wrote:Hell yes, it would be the best way the grow the number of spectators.
Just like in any other sport, the snooker audience is composed mostly of people that want to be entertained. These type of people simply want their money's worth, meaning they like to see people pot balls, make big breaks and attempt flashy shots. Only purists care about tactical and safety play, for the average Joe watching the game, there couldn't be anything more boring.
Shots clocks also tend to benefit the more talented players.
Most of the time, Murphy talks garbage, but this time he has a great idea. Just look at the Mosconi Cup. It's a shot clock tournament and it's packed every year.
Shot clock is the way to go.
I wouldn't mind having it one tournament a season, and by that I mean a proper ranking event and not the shoutout.
How about at the Masters ???
Wow, what a brilliant idea
Badsnookerplayer wrote:The basic premise of a shot clock is flawed.
Once the balls are struck and in motion relative to an observer, they no longer obey Newtonian mechanics in the true sense. In fact, in the frame of reference of the balls time passes more slowly for the players - this is basic (special) relativity. In essence, players who hit the balls harder should be given proportionately longer times adjusted for the relativistic effect of this motion compared to players who strike the ball softly - like Mark Williams.
I am all for relativistic shot clocks but until this is considered it is a non starter.
Badsnookerplayer wrote:The basic premise of a shot clock is flawed.
Once the balls are struck and in motion relative to an observer, they no longer obey Newtonian mechanics in the true sense. In fact, in the frame of reference of the balls time passes more slowly for the players - this is basic (special) relativity. In essence, players who hit the balls harder should be given proportionately longer times adjusted for the relativistic effect of this motion compared to players who strike the ball softly - like Mark Williams.
I am all for relativistic shot clocks but until this is considered it is a non starter.
Badsnookerplayer wrote:The basic premise of a shot clock is flawed.
Once the balls are struck and in motion relative to an observer, they no longer obey Newtonian mechanics in the true sense. In fact, in the frame of reference of the balls time passes more slowly for the players - this is basic (special) relativity. In essence, players who hit the balls harder should be given proportionately longer times adjusted for the relativistic effect of this motion compared to players who strike the ball softly - like Mark Williams.
I am all for relativistic shot clocks but until this is considered it is a non starter.
Johnny Bravo wrote:Hell yes, it would be the best way the grow the number of spectators.
Just like in any other sport, the snooker audience is composed mostly of people that want to be entertained. These type of people simply want their money's worth, meaning they like to see people pot balls, make big breaks and attempt flashy shots. Only purists care about tactical and safety play, for the average Joe watching the game, there couldn't be anything more boring.
Shots clocks also tend to benefit the more talented players.
Most of the time, Murphy talks garbage, but this time he has a great idea. Just look at the Mosconi Cup. It's a shot clock tournament and it's packed every year.
Shot clock is the way to go.
The_Abbott wrote:Johnny Bravo wrote:Hell yes, it would be the best way the grow the number of spectators.
Just like in any other sport, the snooker audience is composed mostly of people that want to be entertained. These type of people simply want their money's worth, meaning they like to see people pot balls, make big breaks and attempt flashy shots. Only purists care about tactical and safety play, for the average Joe watching the game, there couldn't be anything more boring.
Shots clocks also tend to benefit the more talented players.
Most of the time, Murphy talks garbage, but this time he has a great idea. Just look at the Mosconi Cup. It's a shot clock tournament and it's packed every year.
Shot clock is the way to go.
BIB - Really? Didn't Nigel Bond win the shoot out once? Which has a shot clock.
Badsnookerplayer wrote:A chess style system would be better.
PLtheRef wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:A chess style system would be better.
One of the Billiards events used to have a chess style format. Each player had got 15 minutes table time in each game with the match best of three games (Blue Arrow Masters I think it was)
Badsnookerplayer wrote:PLtheRef wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:A chess style system would be better.
One of the Billiards events used to have a chess style format. Each player had got 15 minutes table time in each game with the match best of three games (Blue Arrow Masters I think it was)
Fairer than a shot clock I think.
Not that I would want any timings really.
Sickpotter wrote:Advocates for a shot clocks in ranking/professional events need to get back on their ADD meds and leave the beautiful game alone or go back to watching darts.
Cloud Strife wrote:Sickpotter wrote:Advocates for a shot clocks in ranking/professional events need to get back on their ADD meds and leave the beautiful game alone or go back to watching darts.
Typical bull response.
Nobody's asking for widespread use of shot clocks. If it ever happens, it will only probably be for one event, in order to retain the novelty value of it. I don't see why that would be such a big deal.
I would personally like to see it, even in an experimental capacity if needs be, and this is coming from someone who can't stand the Shootout and thinks the World Championship is the most entertaining sporting event of the year....I suppose I had better get back to my ADD meds.
Sickpotter wrote:Now I'm curious...What other instances of a non-level playing field are you referencing?
IMO as long as any change being brought in doesn't offer an advantage to any one player/type of player I don't mind experimenting with an event or two.
Sickpotter wrote:Now I'm curious...What other instances of a non-level playing field are you referencing?
IMO as long as any change being brought in doesn't offer an advantage to any one player/type of player I don't mind experimenting with an event or two.