Why doesn't pool have a breaking format like tennis?

Push&Pool

Push&Pool

Professional Banger
Silver Member
By that I mean alternate breaking and the requirement to have at least 2 game advantage to win a match. That way neither player can be victorious until they win at least one rack their opponent broke. It appears to be the most fair option, as we wouldn't have to deal with matches where one of the players never got up from his/her chair.
 
Push&Pool said:
By that I mean alternate breaking and the requirement to have at least 2 game advantage to win a match. That way neither player can be victorious until they win at least one rack their opponent broke. It appears to be the most fair option, as we wouldn't have to deal with matches where one of the players never got up from his/her chair.
Click to expand...

When was the last time you saw a match where a guy broke and ran the set out? I know I've heard about it, but I've never seen in a match I've watched. Also, there have been many tournaments contested with alternate break. I tend to like winner break because I like the potential for comebacks. As for the win by 2 thing I'm sure it's been done, but one problem I can see is it resulting in really really long matches without some sort of tie break system which doesn't really lend itself well to pool. I do like the idea of multi-set matches and single elimination.
 
StraightPoolIU said:
When was the last time you saw a match where a guy broke and ran the set out? I know I've heard about it, but I've never seen in a match I've watched. Also, there have been many tournaments contested with alternate break. I tend to like winner break because I like the potential for comebacks. As for the win by 2 thing I'm sure it's been done, but one problem I can see is it resulting in really really long matches without some sort of tie break system which doesn't really lend itself well to pool. I do like the idea of multi-set matches and single elimination.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really aiming for multiple sets (the idea seems interesting though), but for the alternate breaks and either win by 2 or some tie break system. Now when I think about it, lag could be used to determine who's breaking the last rack if the result is tied.
 
I have seen matches where you would have to win by two. I actually like that. But I have to agree with the guy that you hardly ever see someone run a whole set out and besides that , for the pros, I like it better when they can string some games together while the other guy has to sit and watch. I think alternating break is a better game when it is an amatuer tournament especially ones where the ladies are playing too.
 
Amazing how the OP can go from asking about screw on tips to this thread. Kinda makes you think he is intentionally trolling. Can't be.....
 
Many tournaments now are alternate break, and a few even had the win by 2 rule. Same goes for gambling matches, but those go even further past that and play ahead sets where you only win if you get so many games ahead of the other guy. If you play 5 ahead you can end up with a score of 70-75 in games.
 
My brain is hurting... I cannot believe that Pushers has actually made a valid question here.

I'm not even going to post a picture of a huge ship. Well done, P&P.

Edit. And in fact I do agree. The best format that I know of for 8-9-10-ball is alternate break, two frames ahead needed.
 
Last edited:
StraightPoolIU said:
When was the last time you saw a match where a guy broke and ran the set out? I know I've heard about it, but I've never seen in a match I've watched. Also, there have been many tournaments contested with alternate break. I tend to like winner break because I like the potential for comebacks. As for the win by 2 thing I'm sure it's been done, but one problem I can see is it resulting in really really long matches without some sort of tie break system which doesn't really lend itself well to pool. I do like the idea of multi-set matches and single elimination.
Click to expand...
Win by 2 has been done and it works great. You can set a max of games the match can go to. I saw one with Hall and Sigel. They went to like 22 to 20 for a winner. The place was on the edge of their seats as the lead kept changing. It was one of the most exciting finishes I have even seen. By the way it was just the final set that was win by 2.
It is nice to have a real winner, not just some guy who makes the 9 on the break in a hill hill game.

It also works good in a single elimination tournament. Each round cuts the field by half anyway so the length of the matches doesn't really matter much.

My ideal tournament,
Race to 11, 2 out of three sets, single elimination, winner breaks.
 
Rasputin said:
I'm not even going to post a picture of a huge ship. Well done, P&P.
Click to expand...

Maybe just a tiny one though.
Spongebob%20in%20Boat.png
 
Last edited:
Push&Pool said:
By that I mean alternate breaking and the requirement to have at least 2 game advantage to win a match. That way neither player can be victorious until they win at least one rack their opponent broke. It appears to be the most fair option, as we wouldn't have to deal with matches where one of the players never got up from his/her chair.
Click to expand...

Probably for the same reason pool doesn't have a net between the side pockets and is played with cues instead of rackets - it's a different game.:rolleyes:
 
The biggest issue with win by 2 as stated by another poster is time. All it takes is one match to throw off the entire tournament. I've personally been involved in a match that was win by 2, I lost 19 - 21. By the time it was over, I didn't care if I won or lost.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
Probably for the same reason pool doesn't have a net between the side pockets and is played with cues instead of rackets - it's a different game.:roslleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes and SVB would be one of the best tennis players in the world if he trained for a week. Dogs, P&P actually asked a valid question for once, don't bring him down now.

dardusm said:
The biggest issue with win by 2 as stated by another poster is time.
Click to expand...
This is true. But the same applies for any game of 1p, and still there are 1p tourneys.
 
dardusm said:
The biggest issue with win by 2 as stated by another poster is time. All it takes is one match to throw off the entire tournament. I've personally been involved in a match that was win by 2, I lost 19 - 21. By the time it was over, I didn't care if I won or lost.
Click to expand...

That's where the "tie break" would come in handy, with the breaker simply determined by lag.
 
MahnaMahna said:
Amazing how the OP can go from asking about screw on tips to this thread. Kinda makes you think he is intentionally trolling. Can't be.....
Click to expand...

Nevertheless. I have been saying pool should go to this type of format here on AZB for years.
 
Push&Pool said:
By that I mean alternate breaking and the requirement to have at least 2 game advantage to win a match. That way neither player can be victorious until they win at least one rack their opponent broke. It appears to be the most fair option, as we wouldn't have to deal with matches where one of the players never got up from his/her chair.
Click to expand...


Well done sir. A legitimate topic!

I actually like this idea.
 
Rasputin said:
Yes and SVB would be one of the best tennis players in the world if he trained for a week. Dogs, P&P actually asked a valid question for once, don't bring him down now.
Click to expand...

Fact is that it is a different game though. First off, pool is not one game, it is many different games. In games like one pocket or straight pool where the break is perceived to be particularly important, they are usually play alternate break or lag for break. In games such as 9 Ball, winner break has been the most dominant mainly because of the culture that developed; the winner of a game also wins the break. Consider it might be interesting if in tennis you kept serving until your opponent broke your serve, then he got to keep it until you broke him.

I'm not married to the winner break format, and in fact run my little annual tournament alternate break. But let's just discuss it for it's own merits as they relate to the game of pool and not why aren't we more like some other sport? In short races I think alternate break is better. But now we an argue on what is considered a short race.

As for win by two, tennis is the only major sport that does that so why don't they fall in line with all the others and get rid of that requirement?

In horse shoes a leaner is worth something so let's make the ball that rattles or hangs worth something in pool.

Tennis is also single elimination. Let's do that too. Never mind that few (particularly dead money) will travel to a pool tournament to go one and out. Some other sport does is so we should too.

Face it, pool is fractured. Until that changes it will be unlikely for one set way of doing things to develop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top