You do not play your opponent directly in a back and forth, you play the table.
He can't understand about somebody "playing the table", so he obviously is stuck on comparing it to every other sports on the planet, when it is obviously its own game.
So pool is only played against the table and is like golf in that respect huh? Look, it is clear that neither of you are the sharpest tool in the shed, but to have a belief of this stupidity level just has to be impossible. It just has to be that you just didn’t think this through very well. At least for your sakes I hope that’s all it is although it still doesn’t make it much better.
In golf (minus any psychological affects) your score is going to be the same whether you play against Tiger woods or some +45 handicap beginner hack because neither interacts directly with your game or is able to have any direct effect on it. You really think your score will be the same whether you play Shane Van Boening or some APA 2 hack though? Why do you think this is? It’s because in pool you are playing directly against an opponent, one who directly interacts with your game and is able to have a direct effect on it.
Think of a prolonged safety exchange as an example if your feeble minds are still struggling to grasp how pool is not like golf where you are only playing the course. In golf nobody can pick up your golf ball and throw it in a sand trap, or rearrange the layout of the course as you are playing it like they can in pool. In pool you have an opponent who you alternate turns with on the same table and with the same balls. An opponent who has a direct impact on your game, table, layouts and opportunities, one that you are often having to directly battle and interact with and trade shots with and defend against and outsmart etc. Unlike in golf, in pool you are also playing an opponent and not just the table.
I do agree that in pool there is obviously a component of playing the table as well, just as there are varying degrees of playing the table/field/board/slope/etc in most other sports or games out there. But for you both to suggest that in pool you are exclusively playing the table as if your opponent has no significant effect on your success is beyond asinine. Again, consider the difference in playing SVB or an APA 2 if you are still struggling with comprehending that concept. Now if we were talking about some break and run competition full of guys at a table by themselves playing the ghost seeing how many racks they can break and run, then THAT would be like only playing the table. THAT would be like your golf example where you are simply playing the course and nobody else can have any effect on your game but that isn’t how pool is played at all.
But as I pointed out previously, what difference does any of the above make to whether or not it makes good sense, in a competition intended to find out who the best player is, to have a format that may not allow one side the same opportunity to compete and try to score? The answer is that none of the above makes any difference to that at all. If competing to see who is the best is a major reason for doing something—and this is certainly the reason for pool tournaments and pretty much every other competition out there-- then with that in mind it doesn’t make good sense if both sides aren’t guaranteed an equal opportunity to compete. Stationary this or that is immaterial to this. What type of clothing or uniform they compete in is immaterial to this. So are all the other immaterial differences that could be pointed out. The only thing that matters when it comes to whether or not both sides should get about an equal chance to compete--is whether or not it is a competition intended to see who is better. If it is, then both sides need to be afforded about an equal opportunity to compete otherwise the results will always have less significance, relevance, and accuracy. That is one of the main reasons why pretty much every other sport and game in the world has rules in place for all competitions that guarantee both sides get about an equal opportunity to compete, so you actually get a chance to see who is better, you know, the whole point of the competition to begin with.
You both keep avoiding my questions because you know the answers to them are in direct conflict with the arguments you have been trying to make but I am going to ask a couple of them again anyway. I’ll even number them so that it is a little more obvious when you conveniently choose to ignore them again. You can even number your answers to help you make sure that you don’t “accidentally” miss one. Try to actually think your answers through this time for a change though so you don’t end up posting more nonsense.
1. Please explain why one pocket uses alternate breaks.
2. Please explain why the reason for using alternate beaks in one pocket is not also a good reason for using it in 9 ball or 10 ball.
3. If packages are so great--the ones that come about from the scorer retaining advantageous offensive possession which may result in the opponent not being able to compete as much or at all--then why wouldn’t you want to see this format in even just one other sport somewhere? Wouldn’t it make sense that out of all the sports out there, that there would be some other sport somewhere where you would also like to see some packages since packages are so awesome? Why isn’t there then? Is it because you know that it defeats the purpose of a competition if one side is not fully allowed an opportunity to compete?
4. How can you even tell who the better player is (which is supposed to be the whole point of a competition) if one side is prevented from being able to compete as much or at all? Even if one person breaks and runs out a whole race to say 7, doesn’t that only just tell you that he is capable of running 7 racks, but still doesn’t tell you anything at all about whether he was playing better than his opponent on this day or not which was supposed to be the whole point of the competition between the two to begin with?