Just read "New Break Rules A Success", WTH??

Roger Long said:
CreeDo,

I somewhat agree with you, but aren't we also violating a "fundamental rule of pool" when we allow a player to keep shooting after pocketing an uncalled ball, as we do with the open break? The APA gets blasted all the time for allowing their players to keep shooting after pocketing uncalled balls. Why should it be okay in one case, but not the other?

Roger
Click to expand...

I guess the only defense I have to this is one that a lot of debaters say isn't valid: the appeal to tradition.

...It's always been this way. Making an uncalled ball on a smash break doesn't feel like a violation of anything because we have a long history of doing it in 8b and 9b. It's been around longer than we've been alive.

I can appreciate someone challenging accepted norms with wild ideas. Some stuff we just take for granted and when it gets changed we can sort of say "you know, why didn't anyone ever think of that before?" ...if the change is not such a hot idea, that question gets quickly answered by top players who find a way to abuse it.

Let's say the break were a called shot. The breaker will just call the wing ball on every break. So it doesn't exactly "feel" wrong for him to keep shooting after his "uncalled" shot. Everyone in the room knows he didn't get lucky or slop a ball in. He saw a shot in the rack, played it, and made it.
 
Roger Long said:
Yes, Corey perfected a controlled soft break with the Sardo rack that put the 1-ball in the side every time. But other than that, it took a lot of skill for him to run out as it left a lot of clusters. It drove the monster breakers (particularly Strickland) nuts because they were used to locking up matches off their breaks.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Corey was doing.. if you make a ball EVERY time you break.. your opponent will only be able to shoot from the spots you put him in.. he never gets a free chance at the table. that makes it very difficult to wrestle control of the table away from a guy who never breaks dry.

he has to flat out miss for you to even have an opportunity at all..

it broke the game..
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Actually, I think this is fascinating. I know a lot of people are upset by it but how ridiculous is this rule when you consider all the other things that people have been doing to try to keep it fair? ...
Click to expand...
It seems that most of the readers here don't realize that nine ball is broken.

"Breaker shoots" would change the game a little, but not much. I think it would make it better by taking out most of the problems with racking.

Of course, it would probably have to be alternate break. That would make it more like tennis, in which the advantage of the serve is recognized and breaking someones serve is a big accomplishment.
 
Paul...I've been in your room, and I like your no-conflict rules. I've been promoting and teaching your blue quote for the past 30+ years!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Paul Schofield said:
I posted this last night in the applicable thread. I copied and pasted it here because it is relevant

The purpose of the break in Eight, Nine, and Ten-Ball should be to get a good spread on the balls and to control the cue ball and the 1-ball in rotation games. That is good enough. Our games would be more fun and would be better off. The smash shot should have no place in pool.


All things being equal, he who has a better "control break" has the upper hand.
Click to expand...
 
Try it.

Neil, you should not discard this so quickly. Play 500 or a 1000 racks against players of your own caliber under these rules. Remember that 2 balls must pass through the center string on the break. The strategies and skills are very different than what you are used to playing and what you might imagine. It will make you a better player and you will find the game more enjoyable. It solves many long standing problems.

I did not put this out there to see what people think. After three years and a quarter million racks by 400 players, the experimenting is finished and the verdict is in. It is a winner. I am very confident that if given a fair chance, you will prefer it.

Untill you play it, you won't realy know what it is. Everyone here is speculating as to what it means to the pros. I already know and it is all good.
 
Last edited:
To some extent I agree with neil. But at the highest levels, even a 3-pack is a bit unfair when a typical big tournament race is to, say, 11. When the other guy only gets 5 chances in an entire race for 5-digit sums... sucks to be him.

---
On the one hand I can't take 9b seriously except at pro level where someone has the skill to run racks. It doesn't feel like the best player wins when two lower level players go at it and have lots of 3 inning games. One guy is always leaving the other rough from missing a routine shot, or he cleans up a simple 3 ball out when the shooter's focus wavers after the first 6 balls.

Yet at the pro level it's broken at the other extreme, too many 1-inning games mean you must play races to ABSURD lengths to determine who is truly better. I mean, I've heard it seriously suggested that even a race to 100 isn't sufficient between two top tier pros.

Basically 9 ball is a game you play for fun, and at scrub level it definitely can be. Making balls reliably on the break is part of that. Think of it as a 2-player version of other noob games like poker pool and cutthroat :)
 
Here are the rules as I think they should be.

Alternate break
Break from the box
Hard break
9 on the break spots
Call shot
No early 9 balls. 9 made early spots, play continues
Foul on break is in the kitchen
One shot shoot out with ball in hand for other fouls
Race to 13

Chuck
 
It is about..

The "No Conflict Rules" are about making our games smoother, better, more competetive and at the same time less contentious.
 
The idea that you get to keep shooting without making a ball on the break seems like too drastic of a change to actually be accepted on a bigger stage, like pro tournaments, national league systems, etc. Now that isn't to say that there already aren't a bunch of weird rules in place, especially on a local level, but this one does seem to go against the fundamental rules of almost all pool/billiard games. Sure, 9-ball has a lot of chaos and luck in it, but isn't that part of the allure? If you want to play where the best player (almost) always wins, you should probably be playing straight pool or one pocket, or even do a 180 and switch to billiards.

Also, for those that get frustrated by breaking, not making a ball and then leaving their opponent out, well, with this rule, you would never get the advantage that comes when your opponent does the same thing, i.e. they don't make a ball on the break, and you get to shoot first. This would also probably make it much less interesting for spectators and confuse the heck out of the small TV public that pool is trying to hang on to. It's always cool to see people thinking up ways to make the games more interesting, fairer and more popular, but this idea just doesn't seem like one of them.
 
I don't agree with this rule................a player will run a rack every break. With alternating breaks the match is determined at the coin flip.

9-ball is good for TV right? HA what TV............... 10-ball lets add a ball and make it harder...............break box, sardo, ARGHHHH......

The answer is crystal clear!!!!

The time has come for the Championship Game to be the game the pros play PERIOD! 14.1 let the tourneys begin!!! Standardize the pockets.................and get to it!!

Mike
 
Double Standard

The Eight, Nine, and Ten-Ball world holds the slopped-ball on-the-break in the highest esteem and regard. At the same time, a slopped-ball during the game is held in abject dusgust and anger. This is the best example of a double standard in pool (equal to, at one time, allowing men and excluding women from open tournaments). Times and traditions change.

Make the ball-on-the-break moot and alternate breaks. Our games will be better as a result.
 
Last edited:
Paul Schofield said:
The Eight, Nine, and Ten-Ball world holds the slopped-ball on-the-break in the highest esteem and regard. At the same time, a slopped-ball during the game is held in abject dusgust and anger. This is the best example of a double standard in pool (equal to keeping women out of open tournaments).

Make the ball-on-the-break moot. Our games will be better as a result.
Click to expand...

Whoo there, who keeps women out of "open tournaments"? Every tour I have seen has been either open or Women Only. I know the US Open has been men only, what else? Every exclusive thing I have seen in the last 20 years has been to keep the men out. Was the PBT men only? Camel? I don't think I have ever seen women play on those, but was that because they could not or would not?

The break, by it's nature, depends partialy on luck but also on how well you hit the balls to give them a good chance of falling in. You hit soft, less balls bounce around and don't reach the pocket so you hit hard to give them more chances to fall in. Or you hit soft WITH SKILL and aim for a ball to go in. Or you can develop the break where you can hit hard and aim for a ball to go in. 1 ball in side in 9-ball, 2nd ball in in 10 ball and 8 ball, corner ball in 8 ball and 10 ball, corner ball in 9 ball. Not a lot of slop there. Sure there is some, but it's not like craping in a ball during the game or getting an accidental safe after a miss.

Soon as I see pros run out their sets with the other guy sitting, then I'd agree that we need some break rules changes. Heck, I bet there are way more instances in straight pool, which has one of the most non-luck break of all games, where you can win the game without the other guy shooting.
 
Last edited:
Paul Schofield said:
Remember that 2 balls must pass through the center string on the break. The strategies and skills are very different than what you are used to playing and what you might imagine.

changing the strategies and skills changes the game. Why not just call the game 'Schofield' and leave the rest of the pool world alone?

It will make you a better player and you will find the game more enjoyable. It solves many long standing problems.

Your opinion may be shared by a lot of your regulars. but why should anyone here on AZ Billiards automatically accept your opinion without a little debate? do you really expect that your observations mean more than anyone else's?

I did not put this out there to see what people think.
You just want everyone to accept it, right?


After three years and a quarter million racks by 400 players, the experimenting is finished and the verdict is in. It is a winner. I am very confident that if given a fair chance, you will prefer it.

congrats. you have a winner, can you please accept that there are players that are kinda skeptical and would like to see for themselves? don't you think that is just being fair?


Until you play it, you won't really know what it is. Everyone here is speculating as to what it means to the pros. I already know and it is all good.

Speculation, debate and discussion is healthy. Expecting everyone to bow to your experience is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Pocket Billiards is in need of a 'shot in the arm'. If this is going to help the popularity of this game, I don't see how. Not now. What pool needs is more customers and a leaning base of players.

IMO making it a 'no conflict' game is just eliminating the action. Where is the fun of that?
 
Tom In Cincy said:
Pocket Billiards is in need of a 'shot in the arm'. If this is going to help the popularity of this game, I don't see how. Not now. What pool needs is more customers and a leaning base of players.

IMO making it a 'no conflict' game is just eliminating the action. Where is the fun of that?
Click to expand...

Tom,

Absolutely no disrespect intended, but aren't you contradicting yourself here? Pool definitely does need more customers and a lea(r)ning (?sp) base of players, but I've always thought that the conflicts over racks were one of the things that confused and discouraged new participants. They don't understand what all the hubbub is about, and we don't do much to help them understand. Unfortunately, our whole industry really hasn't done much to try and stay competitive in the recreational marketplace in this respect.

If we don't want to change the breaking rules, what is it that we should change?

Roger
 
Roger Long said:
Tom,

They don't understand what all the hubbub is about, and we don't do much to help them understand.

Roger
Click to expand...

I don't understand what all the hubbub is about either? I mean, I don't understand what is so wrong about having a little mystery about how the game begins, and how each player reacts to that random beginning.

Since I don't play 9-ball much, I have no perspective. I play 8-ball. I don't understand why "slop" determining who plays which balls is such a bad thing. I suppose before we start, we could flip a coin to see who shoots first. Then we could flip a coin to see who shoots solids, and who shoots stripes. Then we could flip a coin to see who racks, etc etc etc...

I haven't been playing this as long as many of you. Nor at nearly as high a level. So whatever is so "wrong" must be beyond me.

Carry on folks. It's certainly interesting reading, following this thread. Maybe I'll learn what I'm missing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top