Talk:Ten-ball

Photo Contradicts Caption

The photograph of a "valid" ten-ball rack features the 7-ball in a corner position instead of the 3-ball, but the caption specifies that the 3-ball must be in a corner position for the rack to be valid. 66.188.79.222 (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction

How can ten-ball be "preferred" on the basis that money-ball breaks are hard, if money-ball breaks are not actually game-winners? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is not a contradiction. It is saying that it is harder to sink ANY ball on a break, not just the 10-ball. [The previous unsigned commented was added by 69.109.234.255 (talk · contribs), February 10, 2007 ]

That seems counter-intuitive to me: I thought that 9-ball diamonds were supposed to be harder to "smash and hope" than 15-ball triangle racks, and I'd have assumed that 10-ball triangles would be broadly similar. But maybe not. Is this really true? Or better yet, can you cite some notable pool player (or other authority) asserting it, that could be used as a source? Alai 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Alai on this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looked into the stats on this; while I can't find a scientific study or anything, the general impression is that nine-ball racks are easier to sink a ball off of than eight-ball (or otherwise more crowded, and especially more self-crowding, i.e. triangular) racks. The gist is that likelihood of pocketing (or potting, if one prefers) is primarily a factor of ball travel and only secondarily of ball collisions that happen to deflect a ball into a pocket; every collision saps energy (i.e. travel) from the balls involved in the collisions, stopping many of them dead or near-dead, and forming clusters. Updated article text to at least make sense pending reliable sources on the matter; removed "Contradict" tag (as pointed out above, it wasn't ever really a contradiction in the first place; it was just inclarity of wording.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The contradiction is probably actually real, as there are two radically different versions of ten-ball. I have the sources to fully document both of them, and will do so as time permits. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Combination shots? Differing rulesets

I think this is wrong, as on youtube there are some 10 ball videos and people have used combinations on the 10 (and i think i remember a golden break as well, with Pagulayan saying "10 baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllll really loudly and Billy Incardona exclaiming about how he is such a character.) Anyway, the point is, I think this is wrong, and I have proof. OO, it seems they have turned iit into a private video. Wasn't the last time. Anyway, I may be wrong because this was a 10-ball "ring game", and these often have different rules than the main stream game.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Turns out there are two radically different rulesets. There's the pro game, the WPA World Standardized Rules; and then there's the traditional American game that was promoted by the BCA until recently. The 2008 edition of the BCA's Billiards: The Official Rules and Records Book uses the strict WPA rules, while the 2006 edition still had the old, nine-ball-like rules. I don't have the 2007 edition, so I cannot yet source for sure when this change happened (either from 2006 to 2007, or 2007 to 2008). I suspect the latter. Anyway, the article needs a complete rewrite, giving both versions of the game in two separate sections, as the older BCA version is certainly still played and notable. I would put the WPA rules first, however, as they are the IOC-recognized world sports authority for billiards. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

References to the World Ten-ball Championship.

This article is about the pocket billiards game of ten-ball. Therefore, we should wrote information that mainly pertain to ten-ball itself.

Making references about tournaments of the game can also add to the article. But if a lot of that information focusses there, I guess that should go into a separate article. FoxLad (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I had contributed sometimes to some Wikipedia sports articles (especially boxing, even if my passion is horse racing), and found that there must be separate articles for yearly games and tournaments, like 2008 Ten-ball Championship. But since law is my line of expertise, I do not desire to create this kind of sports article. Thus, I just added or contributed in this main article. Let me inform Wikipedians, that, first, this Ten-ball had just been born amid deep controversies. In fact, it was first done here amid protests and even non-participation by our to Filipino players. But it was so successful, it earned money. Thus, I agree, that there must be another 2009 Ten-ball Championship, as officially announced here in PICC, Manila, for October, 2009. Finally, and anyway, it might not be so messy to retain my or our added very first 2008 take-off events, since it is, for sure so "notably first."--Florentino floro (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the world championship does eventually need its own article. For now, the article is so skeletal there's not much point in a split. There's enough sourceable material floating around that this can happen, but until it's in here, there isn't much to go on. I wouldn't want us to focus on the alleged controversies, either. That might be notable, but this the ten-ball article; it's about the game itself, not focused on squabbles to do with how the game has been administered to date. Pool has no shortage of disputes, so having this material in there somewhere is plausible, but this may not be the place. For example, nine-ball has been the subject of enormous amounts of disputation as to who qualifies as a professional, how and when pros get paid, and so on, but we are not clouding the nine-ball article with this; if it gets addressed it needs to be addressed at the UPA and IPT articles. For nine-ball. For ten-ball, we may well have a different set of issues. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Name of the game purposefully hyphenated

Resolved

 – MOS:CUE is clear on this, and the snooker game isn't named in conflict with this article anyway.

The game of ten-ball (as ref'd in this article) is deliberately hyphenated, to distinguish it from the snooker game 'tenball'. It may also be referred to numerically (10-Ball), but it's important that the hyphen be iterated to distinguish the 'ten-ball' pool game from the 'tenball' snooker game. Yes, sources and articles can be quite lazy about this, but it's a pretty well established thing. For purposes of clarity, it makes sense that when referring to the game itself, it be called ten-ball. When referring the a physical 10 ball itself, no hyphen be used. Maybe a bit persnickety, but without standard nomenclature, it lends to confusion which is important to avoid when you have two entirely different games in the cue sports that share a virtually identical name.

• The pool game: 'Ten-ball'
• The Snooker Game: 'Tenball'
• The physical 10 ball: '10 ball'

LoverOfArt (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Spelling conventions Wikipedia:Manual of style/Cue sports which agrees with you. Because of the nature of Wikipedia, being active in watching articles is the only way this will be kept consistent. Posting about an error found in one revision is not really useful; you're preaching to the choir to people who know the area, and no one who added the material will ever see the post. For example, the person who added "pocketing the ten ball early results..." this revision was by a user whose only edit ever to Wikipedia was to add that sentence. The first 10 ball error you fixed was by another sporadic user.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with your logic that discussing this "isn't really useful". The presumption that the only people to make this mistake are the ones who never read talk pages definitely isn't accurate. But, good to know that the spelling conventions have already been laid out and are in line with what I said. So, we all agree. Hyphenated 'Ten-ball' it is. LoverOfArt (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

None of this is actually relevant anyway, since the snooker game is not called "tenball" or "ten-ball", it's called ten-red snooker, and has more than ten balls (just ten reds instead of fifteen), for medium-sized tables, like six-red snooker is for small tables. There's no article on ten-red as of this writing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You made the wrong assumption that "Tenball" is supposed to refer to snooker with only 10 red balls. Tenball is much more distinctive than that, it being best described as a snooker-pool hybrid. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the tenball snooker link

Resolved

 – Bad link, and not the right name anyway.

The beginning of the article states not to be confused with Tenball a game played on a snooker table, and it links as if it will take you to the tenball article for the game played on a snooker table, but instead it links back to this article. Does the other article exist? Can someone fix the problem? If it's not a popular enough game to have a wiki page, then I don't think the "not to be confused with" needs to be stated, or at least it certainly shouldn't appear to be linked, if the article doesn't exist. Dancindazed (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you and so does policy. We do not disambiguate for nonexistent articles, and obviously this hatnote is a circular reference. Even worse, it disguises the lack of an article on this other game by making it a blue link, implying it does exist, when any linking to it anywhere should be a red link (if it is a notable game). You are a new user so you did not act boldly (caution is a good thing), but here yur instinct is spot on, and I can tell you that this is a very unusual hatnote that does not belong and is against policy. Please do exterminate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I turned the redirect into a stub that it's a game played on a snooker table, and thus created the article. Perhaps I'll add some info on the game after I learn it, but for now someone who knows anything about it is going to have to write something. Dancindazed (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Moot topic. The snooker game is called ten-red snooker, not tenball or ten-ball. No article yet, but see six-red snooker for the idea. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, wrong assumption. See above. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a game but a TV show about snooker. The disambig note is back, but goes to the right place now. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)