"Winner breaks" rule hurts the game

brechbt

brechbt

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've recently watched quite a few matches posted by Billiard Club on Youtube. Most of the matches featured top 20 players who were fairly evenly matched. It seemed to me that having the winner break was often a HUGE factor in the outcome of the match. All of these players are capable of stringing racks together, so one bad roll or mistake early in the match frequently had the result of one player sitting in his chair until he was basically out of the match with little hope of catching up. Pool is the only sport I can think of where it is literally possible for someone to lose a match without ever getting to play.

This rule seems to rob many matches of a true spirit of competition. I also think that it can make matches uninteresting, especially to casual watchers. I'm wondering why this rule exists and how tournament organizers justify it instead of an alternating break format. What say you all?
 
brechbt said:
I've recently watched quite a few matches posted by Billiard Club on Youtube. Most of the matches featured top 20 players who were fairly evenly matched. It seemed to me that having the winner break was often a HUGE factor in the outcome of the match. All of these players are capable of stringing racks together, so one bad roll or mistake early in the match frequently had the result of one player sitting in his chair until he was basically out of the match with little hope of catching up. Pool is the only sport I can think of where it is literally possible for someone to lose a match without ever getting to play.

This rule seems to rob many matches of a true spirit of competition. I also think that it can make matches uninteresting, especially to casual watchers. I'm wondering why this rule exists and how tournament organizers justify it instead of an alternating break format. What say you all?
Click to expand...

I agree that in a tournament setting, it should be alternate break. I've seen a handfull of matches where the loser of the match never missed a "makable"shot and was usually kicking 1-3 rails just to get a hit just because they lost a coin flip/ or a lag in the beginning.

If you wanna find the best of the best and one guy never shoots, then you have no idea who's really the best.

Side note, I've gambled some in my time and seems that most people that gamble insist on winner breaks, why's this?
 
Last edited:
For short races, mostly in 9 ball i agree.

However, i have had a 7 pack put on me before and it was a pleasure to watch. I didnt like it, but thats the way it goes.
 
I like winner breaks more than alternate break. I personally believe that the races should be longer, i.e. at least to 15. In shorter races, alternate break may be better, but in long races, winner break is better.
 
brechbt said:
I've recently watched quite a few matches posted by Billiard Club on Youtube. Most of the matches featured top 20 players who were fairly evenly matched. It seemed to me that having the winner break was often a HUGE factor in the outcome of the match. All of these players are capable of stringing racks together, so one bad roll or mistake early in the match frequently had the result of one player sitting in his chair until he was basically out of the match with little hope of catching up. Pool is the only sport I can think of where it is literally possible for someone to lose a match without ever getting to play.

This rule seems to rob many matches of a true spirit of competition. I also think that it can make matches uninteresting, especially to casual watchers. I'm wondering why this rule exists and how tournament organizers justify it instead of an alternating break format. What say you all?
Click to expand...



​
I think this has been one of the issues with pools popularity in the past, really. Every other sport, your opponent gets to retaliate, ie. bowling, golf, baseball, darts, you name it. I agree that if you havent missed, why shouldnt you get to keep shooting, but at the same time if it is truly a competition, then one should welcome his opponent the opportunity to do to you what you have just done to him, like run out the rack.
​
I personally used to really like the idea that used to be done in Vegas at the last call for 9ball events. No safety play. The opponent got ball in hand on any non pocketed ball. If my memory serves, Jose Parica won the last one and it was a number of years ago. I love that format, not because I cant play safe, but because it is all offense, go for everything. Really does the average viewer understand the intricacies of safety play? Or would they rather see unbelievable shotmaking? :wink:

Jay Jensen
 
brechbt said:
I've recently watched quite a few matches posted by Billiard Club on Youtube. Most of the matches featured top 20 players who were fairly evenly matched. It seemed to me that having the winner break was often a HUGE factor in the outcome of the match. All of these players are capable of stringing racks together, so one bad roll or mistake early in the match frequently had the result of one player sitting in his chair until he was basically out of the match with little hope of catching up. Pool is the only sport I can think of where it is literally possible for someone to lose a match without ever getting to play.

This rule seems to rob many matches of a true spirit of competition. I also think that it can make matches uninteresting, especially to casual watchers. I'm wondering why this rule exists and how tournament organizers justify it instead of an alternating break format. What say you all?
Click to expand...

That's one of the things that made pool special. (The fact that you could lose without even coming to the table) It would be nice though ♦to let the player that is down have one last chance at the table to tie it up and then have a tie breaker set.
 
Sadly the format is up to the Promoters. The players don't have much say in the breaking format.

IMO, you never give up the table unless you miss or scratch. Yes, I am somewhat OLD School.

But, IMO, rotation games are not the game for Championships. But, then again, these games are chosen by the promoters.

What game do you think the Players would chose if they were running the show?

Players that have the same skill level would rather play winner break. If they do fall behind because of a bad break, error or tough rolls, they still have a chance to 'string' games together. Alternate break reduces the chances for player trying to play catchup.
 
well it makes the game favoring the guy that breaks the best. he has such a big edge,but it makes it better for tv.
it is also what has killed off alot of gambling in pool rooms. it is too easy to see who is best when the game is break and runout.
 
Winner break is always the way it should be!!!

arnt people looking for the best player on that particular day? Or does everything need to be sugar coated into thinking it should be fair?



it should be atleast a race to 7 or more. races to 3-4 are a joke
 
Last edited:
Winner breaks is oudated in tournament formats. Money matches yes. tourneys no. You hold serve in tennis, do you keep serving? Bowl a strike in bowling, keep the lane? It's insane, unfair, defies logic, etc. The ONLY sport with this stupidass logic. Why they have tiebreakers, extra innings, overtime, sudden death, etc.
 
brechbt said:
I've recently watched quite a few matches posted by Billiard Club on Youtube. Most of the matches featured top 20 players who were fairly evenly matched. It seemed to me that having the winner break was often a HUGE factor in the outcome of the match. All of these players are capable of stringing racks together, so one bad roll or mistake early in the match frequently had the result of one player sitting in his chair until he was basically out of the match with little hope of catching up. Pool is the only sport I can think of where it is literally possible for someone to lose a match without ever getting to play.

This rule seems to rob many matches of a true spirit of competition. I also think that it can make matches uninteresting, especially to casual watchers. I'm wondering why this rule exists and how tournament organizers justify it instead of an alternating break format. What say you all?
Click to expand...

Obviously you are a B leaguer at best then. That is the whole reason for playing winner break. If you miss or make a mistake, you may NEVER come back to the table. That is what good play is all about. Mistakes are much larger when there is a high quality of play. The goal is to minimize those mistakes and more often you will come out on top.

I get sick of the loser or alternate break format that has plagued amateur pool forever. It gets old. The weak level of players have no idea what it is like to miss a ball because they figure at most, they can lose 1 game in loser breaks or 2 games in alternate before they get back to the table. This is not what pool is about.

Winner breaks is the only way to play and that emphasizes the best/top quality pool there. You will never have an idea of when you will come back to the table in this format when you lose your turn. That is what pool is all about.

Someday, if your game develops, you may understand this concept.
 
So you could lose a coin flip, race to five or so, and not shoot. Yea, that sounds fair to me.
 
Tom In Cincy said:
Sadly the format is up to the Promoters. The players don't have much say in the breaking format.

IMO, you never give up the table unless you miss or scratch. Yes, I am somewhat OLD School.

But, IMO, rotation games are not the game for Championships. But, then again, these games are chosen by the promoters.

What game do you think the Players would chose if they were running the show?

Players that have the same skill level would rather play winner break. If they do fall behind because of a bad break, error or tough rolls, they still have a chance to 'string' games together. Alternate break reduces the chances for player trying to play catchup.
Click to expand...

Exactly, you are never out of it. You get down 5 games in an alternate break set and you are done for sure. In straight pool you can be down 130 to 5 and come back and win in a 150 point game. That is one of the great things about pool. I once won a 2 out of three set losing my first set 11 to 3 and down the second set 9 to nothing. I came back to win the second set and won the third set on a double hill. It was 3 am and not one person had left the pool room. That is what makes pool exciting. Lord knows pool is not that exciting a sport to watch. The running out of a set people will talk about for weeks.
 
macguy said:
Exactly, you are never out of it. You get down 5 games in an alternate break set and you are done for sure. In straight pool you can be down 130 to 5 and come back and win in a 150 point game. That is one of the great things about pool. I once won a 2 out of three set losing my first set 11 to 3 and down the second set 9 to nothing. I came back to win the second set and won the third set on a double hill. It was 3 am and not one person had left the pool room. That is what makes pool exciting. Lord knows pool is not that exciting a sport to watch. The running out of a set people will talk about for weeks.
Click to expand...


That's what makes winner breaks so great. Some of my best personal pool memories are matches where I came back from big deficits, which wouldn't have really been possible in an alternate break format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top