Two Foul 9-Ball
- Thread starter Neil
- Start date
I've played a lot of 9-ball by these rules. There's a couple guys in town that won't play it any other way. I prefer texas express for a couple of reasons: 2 fouls gives you too much leniancy. Forcing errors are no longer rewarding. When I practice I don't allow pushouts and I try to gamble without pushouts too. This forces me to perfect my kicks. Being able to push-out on every shot takes kicking almost completely out of the game.
I grew up on two foul, also called "shootout", and I found it far less interesting than Texas Express. Today's version gives greater rewards for defense and two way shots well-played, and kicking is a far more critical skill.
Ever watch the old legends play nine ball? Most of them were mediocre kickers, not for lack of skill, but because they didn't have to kick nearly as often.
For this player, defense, kicking and two-way shots are the greatest fascinations of nine ball in this era in which virutally every top player can run the table.
Still, I'm glad that the push is still permitted on the shot immediately following the break. This rule, borrowed form the "shootout" version of nine ball, reduces the luck factor on the break (though many feel not nearly enough).
Ever watch the old legends play nine ball? Most of them were mediocre kickers, not for lack of skill, but because they didn't have to kick nearly as often.
For this player, defense, kicking and two-way shots are the greatest fascinations of nine ball in this era in which virutally every top player can run the table.
Still, I'm glad that the push is still permitted on the shot immediately following the break. This rule, borrowed form the "shootout" version of nine ball, reduces the luck factor on the break (though many feel not nearly enough).
I'll take push out...
I like the old rules...imo the game lost a lot when we changed to the quick ball in hand...there was a lot more strategy...and most important imo was less luck involved and less upsets...lol well I guess that might be a good thing...
I like the old rules...imo the game lost a lot when we changed to the quick ball in hand...there was a lot more strategy...and most important imo was less luck involved and less upsets...lol well I guess that might be a good thing...
John Barton
New member
I like both. I wish that push shots would be eliminated altogether in Texas Express. There is no need for it. Just take what it left after the break and go for it.
Two foul could sure make for some long games though. I don't think it originated as a strategy move. I believe the rule was intended not to punish players who come to the table after a foul. Like in Golf. Somewhere along the line players figured out that they could foul intentionally to "challenge" or dare the other player to take the shot, knowing exactly what they would do if it was given back to them.
I grew up on 2-foul 9-ball. I have to agree that neither kicking or jumping was practiced a lot in the two foul era. With the advent of Texas express it has forced people to learn to kick and jump. Let's not start the whole jump cue debate again either, let's leave it at the fact that not hitting the object ball results in the ulitmate penalty so there is a need in the current rules for the ability to jump and kick well.
Two foul could sure make for some long games though. I don't think it originated as a strategy move. I believe the rule was intended not to punish players who come to the table after a foul. Like in Golf. Somewhere along the line players figured out that they could foul intentionally to "challenge" or dare the other player to take the shot, knowing exactly what they would do if it was given back to them.
I grew up on 2-foul 9-ball. I have to agree that neither kicking or jumping was practiced a lot in the two foul era. With the advent of Texas express it has forced people to learn to kick and jump. Let's not start the whole jump cue debate again either, let's leave it at the fact that not hitting the object ball results in the ulitmate penalty so there is a need in the current rules for the ability to jump and kick well.
Mike_Mason said:
Keith McCready said his game went down a couple balls when the two-shot/push-out rules were changed in 9-ball. He believes that the game of 9-ball then became more a game of luck.
With the advent of the jump cue being the norm, the game also changed a bit, utilizing new strategies. Some players today still do not like the jump cue, but figure if they can't beat 'em, join 'em. A pro player today, like a golfer, has a shooting cue with various shafts, a break cue, and a jump cue. Heck, Earl Strickland usually has 3 large pool cases with him when he is competing.
When the two-shot/pushout rules were in force, Keith was most likely in his prime. He said the guys on the East Coast couldn't beat the guys on the West Coast at that time, and so they changed the rules. The world according to Keith!
About 4 years ago, Gene Hooker and friends put on a 10-Ball Championship at the Trump's Marina Casino in Atlantic City. They utilized the two-shot/push-out rules, but somewhat modified. Danny Hewett won the tournament, and Jim Rempe came in second place.
Some old-school players think that it sucks when you make a perfect safety on an opponent, only to have him/her whip out their jump cue. I know the pros and cons of jump cues today, and though the jump cue is banned in some venues, it seems to be the norm with the majority that jump cues are a part of the game's strategy.
Me personally, I'd like to see them bring in neutral rackers for all competitive events. It's bad enough that 9-ball has become a game of luck, but those rack mechanics shouldn't be able to advance only because they can rack the balls to thwart their opponent's break and/or enhance their own break to pocket the same wing ball in the same pocket each and every break. That ain't luck. That is cheating, IMHO.
JAM
I know I'm going to sound like a complete fool here but I have to ask this question, it's been bugging me for awhile. What exactly are "Texas Express rules?"
I'd never played 9 ball until 6 months or so ago, it wasn't that popular back in England when I played pool regularly. Now I keep seeing comments & flyers that mention TE rules. I honestly thought there was only one version of the game. Any enlightenment will be greatly appreciated!
I'd never played 9 ball until 6 months or so ago, it wasn't that popular back in England when I played pool regularly. Now I keep seeing comments & flyers that mention TE rules. I honestly thought there was only one version of the game. Any enlightenment will be greatly appreciated!
John Barton said:
Kind of a side point...I don't know if you need to know how to jump well. It seems like certain players (like Efren) do great only kicking while never (or nearly never) jumping.
JAM said:Me personally, I'd like to see them bring in neutral rackers for all competitive events. It's bad enough that 9-ball has become a game of luck, but those rack mechanics shouldn't be able to advance only because they can rack the balls to thwart their opponent's break and/or enhance their own break to pocket the same wing ball in the same pocket each and every break. That ain't luck. That is cheating, IMHO.
JAM
I think it should all switch to 10-ball. It is too easy to pocket a the wing ball in 9-ball, and far too easy to snap the 9 on the break. I played someone a set who snapped the 9 three times in a row to get an early lead (same pocket), then changed breaks.
That sort of thing is ridiculous and is one reason I sometimes hate 9-ball.
Takumi4G63 said:I think it should all switch to 10-ball. It is too easy to pocket a the wing ball in 9-ball, and far too easy to snap the 9 on the break. I played someone a set who snapped the 9 three times in a row to get an early lead (same pocket), then changed breaks.
Very good point!
I too have seen similar things happen, especially the winner-rack format.
I have seen quite a few arguments when it's time to rack the balls in tournaments.
There is a debate about whether winner-rack format eliminates all the arguing when it comes to racking. I don't think it matters.
If a player is cheating by racking the balls to suit his break so that he can pocket balls or, in the alternative, racks the balls so his opponent cannot make a ball on the break, then the game of 9-ball is not a game of skill.
One time, a tournament director told me that if a player can rack the balls in a way that benefits him AND his opponent doesn't check the rack or say anything to him about the questionable rack, then it is a fair rack. To me, this is cheating.
You don't see bowlers rack their own pins in competitive events. Pool should be the same way.
Those who frequent the tournament trail know who the rack mechanics are, and I hasten to say it, but one of the best in the business is one of today's super stars. I am not taking anything away from his game of shooting skills, but he is cheating when he rigs the rack to benefit him and/or thwart his opponent's break.
That's my story, and I am sticking with it.
JAM
gopi-1 said:Lemme guess... hmmm
CD?
Actually, no, it's not CD! In my own personal opinion, CD went to great lengths to perfect his BREAK, as opposed to his rack. He came forth with the soft break years ago, which was copied by many a player, until they came up with the 3-balls-past-the-side-pocket rule. I kind of admire CD in that he is a BREAK mechanic. He manages to match up his break with the equipment that he is playing on. Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.
The player I am referring to always whines and cries at every single tournament I see him at about the rack. Usually, a person who continues this dialogue throughout an event thinks everybody is trying to rig the rack on him because, truth be told, he's rigging the rack on everybody else.
I believe that a player has every right to gripe if he's getting a bad rack before breaking. However, I have seen this particular player I am referring to whine and complain about his opponent's racks. Finally, the opponent tells him to rack them himself. He declines. A TD is called in, and then he complains about the TD's rack. It's a never-ending dialogue, but when you see this happening, more times than not, it's a rack mechanic who is the most vocal about it.
JAM
Last edited:
gopi-1 said:I've never seen a thief liking it when he is robbed!
Exactly right!
Point being, there is a racking dilemma, whether is it winner rack or loser rack, at every single tournament I have attended, bar none.
I would much rather see a player advance in the charts because he shot well during the tournament, not because he rigged the racks.
I will guarantee you that if these same rack mechanics were to compete with neutral rackers, as opposed to their hands touching the balls when they are being racked, the outcome of their matches would be quite different.
JAM
I agree with Keith. I grew up in CA playing shoot out also, for money and tournaments. It allows the better player to control the game easier. And in Keiths case, he could roll out to a place where his opponent had no chance to make the ball, but he would/could/and did slam it in if given the shot. If your a weaker shotmaker, you are at a disadvantage, and the road players where the best shotmakers. The best player should win, if you want luck, go to the track.
Making the one ball in the side is a good break. I hate playing against someone that can make the corner ball everytime! Since I play mostly rack your own , ten ball is my game of choice! The Florida pro tour is ten ball which rewards a powerful break !! Nine ball is a broken game!JAM said:
When I learned to play 9-ball, the guy who showed me played 2-foul. When I saw it on TV, they were playing one foul. I liked one-foul because as a beginner, I didn't have enough skills or experience to understand the beauty of 2-foul.Neil said:
Today, I'd love 2-foul, but I still like one-foul because I'm impatient, lazy, and part of the go go go American culture.
Fred <~~~ impatient