Running Balls Old School vs New School

Dan White

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So I read Lou's Dallas West report, in which West talked about not blasting the balls open, but to chip away at them instead. Of course with that style of play you have 3 phases - getting the new rack opened up and solving the initial problem areas, running them off, and getting set up for the next break shot (or something to that effect). Then there's Thorston Hohmann - smash 'em apart and run 'em all off.

At the risk of opening a tired discussion, I wanted to mention this in light of the several people who are currently taking lessons with an old school master.

Is one style better than another? Is one more difficult to master than the other? How do you know which style suits your individual play better?

Just asking...
 
I wouldn't say one style is necessarily better than the other, but some of us "purists" prefer the classic way. It might just be me, but "smash 'em and run 'em" seems to be the "European" style of playing.
 
Honestly i wouldn't say that one is better than the other. it is good to know and have a feel for both. this way you have it in your arsenal for when you are playing in a room where the conditions make you play to a certain style !!!

just my $0.02 !
-Steve
 
I would say I'm a new-skoo guy. I may be different in a few ways (I play with an old schon elite, have a zinzola on order/build).. I dont pay attention to any new hype about chalk or whatnot..

Most of this came from an old school master who is teaching me to play & play better. He taught me that I dont *have to* knock holes into the cue ball and showed me that i can play 'soft' (read: Irving Crane).

During that time, I met an old school road hustler who has taught me a few things but with information coming in from two clearly different types of players ..both of them seemingly dont smash the cue ball around the table.

They seemingly play with slow-grace (does that make sense?). In a crude way, it's elegant (well as much as some old men could be) game to watch.

So for a new guy - I'm leaning towards a softer / calculated style. Seems like a dance with a cue ball :-)
 
Thumbs Up

stevekur1 said:
Honestly i wouldn't say that one is better than the other. it is good to know and have a feel for both. this way you have it in your arsenal for when you are playing in a room where the conditions make you play to a certain style !!!

just my $0.02 !
-Steve
Click to expand...


Steve you are 100% correct. Even if conditions are great and the racks are opening up nicely. Sometimes it depends on the angle of your break shot.
If you only can hit the end of the rack, then you must chip away at it.
It comes with reaching different levels of play.
 
Old School vs New School

I remember reading somewhere that the Europeans score 14.1 a bit differently than here in the US. I read that they consider balls per inning a very important measure. That could account for their more aggressive style of play. Anyway, just another two cents.
Harry
 
As it has been proven that you can run over 400 balls with either style. I think it comes more down to the matter of preference and what style suits your own stroke better. Jmho.
 
Though this may appear to be a matter of playing philosophy, I think a lot of the debate comes down to the kind of cloth in use.

On the old, nappy cloth, the balls just didn't spread very well on the breakshot. This left a player with two ways to go, 1) hit the break shot very hard, accepting that there will be a few more missed break shots and a few more scratches, but spreadng the balls very well, 2) hit the break shot at a speed where you were fairly certain of pocketing the ball and avoiding a scratch. Back in the day, this meant that even after your break shot, there might be a little more work to do to run out the table, but the great ones were usually up to the task. The undisputed king of Approach 1 was Luther Lassiter, but, as we know, he may have been the greatest ball pocketer in pool history. As Dallas West has corrrectly observed, most players were stuck with Approach 2, and some of the purists believed that most players that used Approach 1 would have been better off with Approach 2.

Today, even if the break shot is cinched, the fast cloth usually casues the balls to spread reasonably well, so the gap between Approach 1 and Approach 2 has narrowed greatly, and the great straight poolers of today have clearly demonstrated that you can be very successful with either approach.

In conclusion, I think the debate is almost moot on Simonis 860 cloth.
 
Last edited:
Slow Cloth & Approach

sjm said:
Though this may appear to be a matter of playing philosophy, I think a lot of the debate comes down to the kind of cloth in use.

On the old, nappy cloth, the balls just didn't spread very well on the breakshot. This left a player with two ways to go, 1) hit the break shot very hard, accepting that there will be a few more missed break shots and a few more scratches, but spreadng the balls very well, 2) hit the break shot at a speed where you were fairly certain to pocket the ball. Back in the day, this meant that even after your break shot, there might be a little more work to do to run out the table, but the great ones were usually up to the task. The undisputed king of Approach 1 was Luther Lassiter, but, as we know, he may have been the greatest ball pocketer in pool history. As Dallas West has corrrectly observed, most players were stuck with Approach 2, and some of the purists believed that most players that used Approach 1 would have been better off with Approach 2.

Today, even if the break shot is cinched, the fast cloth usually casues the balls to spread reasonably well, so the gap between Approach 1 and Approach 2 has narrowed greatly, and the great straight poolers of today have clearly demonstrated that you can be very successful with either approach.

In conclusion, I think the debate is almost moot on Simonis 860 cloth.
Click to expand...


Really a good point. The old nappy cloth would turn a player into the type that just picked off balls from the rack, the way all the old great players played.
Thanks for the comment.
 
sjm said:
In conclusion, I think the debate is almost moot on Simonis 860 cloth.
Click to expand...

I think that's a good point.

I also think it is more difficult to pick the balls apart because you will more often run into a situation where you have to get perfect position on a specific ball, or your run is over. With balls spread all over the place this is less of a problem.
 
as posted above, i like mixing the styles. i prefer to open the rack with a crack, then pick the balls apart with precise, minimal cue-ball movement. i call it, "little position". nothing gives me more pleasure than shooting in a rack of balls with precise control of the rock, without having to shoot a single difficult shot.
 
I like chipping away because I get tired of shooting after awhile and want to slow play for a few innings. Monotony makes some games boring.
 
Agree

Dan White said:
I think that's a good point.

I also think it is more difficult to pick the balls apart because you will more often run into a situation where you have to get perfect position on a specific ball, or your run is over. With balls spread all over the place this is less of a problem.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this, Dan. The more often a player has to have a secondary break ball and get position on it the more opportunities there are to a.) miss position on it, b.) scratch on the break shot, or c.) miss the shot since you have much more on your mind when shooting a break shot. When possible I prefer to open the rack hard and then deal with clusters.

Ron F
 
justnum said:
I like chipping away because I get tired of shooting after awhile and want to slow play for a few innings. Monotony makes some games boring.
Click to expand...

I'd like to be good enough to get bored by running rack after rack after rack... boy how dull! ;)
 
The harder you stroke a ball, the more accuracy suffers. (at least for us mere mortals) I think style has a lot to do with how comfortable the player is in being accurate with a rock crushing stroke. Both OB and CB direction.
 
I think it comes down to knowing when to do what.

I've gone for the bust em wide open and they did, only with terrible results like balls on rail, clusters, CB stuck in the rack, and so on. So basiclly, I created more problems.

The first time I really saw someone pick a rack apart, I was in awe. There were a few times where I would have gone for the break open, but he would just nudge a few balls out, but kept going. He was in total control. Not a good feeling when I was in the chair, but, at that time, that was the best seat in house to be learning from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top