I think where you are missing it, is most players themselves don't care that much about the rules. The tinkering with the rules is mostly to try and create a game that will attract an audience. Regardless of the rules, in most cases the better players almost always going to dominate. It just may not be very interesting to watch. Ever see this match?
https://share.google/E8nnHdUgBwDN2P8hS
Much truth here.
Still, the introduction of call-shot rules to 10ball, which was played without call shot for some 60 years, reduced the entertainment value of the game, forcing onlookers, who can rarely hear what shot is being called, to figure out what the player is attempting.
I have always believed that call-shot rules, while necessary in 14.1, had a lot to do with why the straight pool era ended and was replaced by the 9ball era, which offers a faster game played without call shot rules.
I have been chatting with fans for fifty years on a regular basis and for every one that prefers alternate break, there are five that prefer winner breaks for the simple reason that they greatly enjoy seeing pros string racks together. Tournaments that use alternate break are not as entertaining, but some event producers don't care and use it anyway.
These are two examples of rules changes the players wanted and got at the expense of the entertainment value of the game.
I think we're on the same page here. Rules should be geared toward the maximization of the game's entertainment value. Unfortunately, it does not always go that way. I aslo agree that the best players will tend to prevail regardless of rule set.
RIP my chances
