Poll: Winner Break, Loser Break, Alternate Break?

[spartan]

Due to some remarks made recently about "fairness" in competition, I've made up this poll for breaks in rotation games, mainly 9 ball and 10 ball.
A remark was made about how the US Open is a "dinosaur" for playing winner breaks. Not bad, for a dino that will enter it's fortieth year next year. Since then, I've discovered that Derby City 9 ball is also winner break. I haven't checked on what other "major" tournament formats are. I've personally never talked to a pro or pro caliber player who favored alternate breaks. I don't myself, personally.

Edit: Since someone asked, let's make it from a player's point of view.

Obviously asking what players prefer is irrelevant. If you ask the awesome breaker he will say he prefers winner breaks and if you ask the poor breaker he will say he prefers alternate break. The governing body/ tournament authorities decide what is fair. I mean if you asked soccer players their preference of goal size they would say they want it huge and stretch all round the stadium so that they never miss the goal LOLOLOL

 

[Joe T]

Most of us have never seen a highly competitive match with players trading break and runs and its much better than many would think, tons more pressure.

 

[StraightPoolIU]

I voted winner break since this is from a players perspective. From a viewers perspective I like alternate break I think. It somewhat reduces the chance for comebacks, but it also produces a ton of close matches normally which I like. That's part of what make this year's world 9 ball so good.

 

[SakuJack]

It appeases weaker players because it CHANGED THE GAME FROM THE WAY IT HAD ALWAYS BEEN PLAYED.

Yeah this makes no sense whatsoever.

Imagine if boxers had to stand back after landing a punch.
Imagine if runners had to wait if they got too far ahead,
Imagine if straight pool and snooker players had to stop at 30 points.

Winner breaks is fair...nothing stopping YOU being the breaker.

None of these analogies work.

Imagine if the boxer who landed the first punch got to keep on punching (with his opponent not allowed to hit back) until he missed a punch.
Imagine if the quickest runner out of the blocks got to run alone (with the others having to wait at the start line) until he got too tired and had to stop.
Imagine if snooker players played alternate break... oh wait, they do.



Also, I find it hilarious that somebody has mentioned political correctness in this thread.

 

[Pushout]

Yeah this makes no sense whatsoever.


Also, I find it hilarious that somebody has mentioned political correctness in this thread.

As a matter of fact, it does make sense. The game has been changed many times in the last 30 years or so and not always for the better. You do know that it has changed, right? Some here are not old enough to know that.
I'm glad you found my comment about political correctness humorous

 

[SakuJack]

As a matter of fact, it does make sense. The game has been changed many times in the last 30 years or so and not always for the better. You do know that it has changed, right? Some here are not old enough to know that.
I'm glad you found my comment about political correctness humorous

The game changing has nothing to do with penalising the stronger players.

 

[Colonel]

The game changing has nothing to do with penalising the stronger players.

I disagree, you think it makes it more fair, I think it penalizes stronger players, the game didn't need the changes, it needed people to spend more time working on their game to be more competitive instead of whining about getting blown out.

 

[Pushout]

The game changing has nothing to do with penalising the stronger players.

I'm not about to get in a pissing contest about it but you're wrong, maybe you haven't played enough to see it.

 

[leto1776]

As a weaker player, I like winner breaks. I win a game, I get a chance.

From a PPV buyer's perspective, I like alternating breaks. Sorry, but after three straight break and runs, I get bored and tune out.

I think the truly great players, while they prefer being in rythm, should not need that rythm to win. A truly great player brings it every game,period. This is why American players don't do well on the current world stage. They rely too much on getting a good rythm going. Shane shows it in his playing,also. He's too used to winner breaks.

 

[SakuJack]

I disagree, you think it makes it more fair, I think it penalizes stronger players, the game didn't need the changes, it needed people to spend more time working on their game to be more competitive instead of whining about getting blown out.

I'm not about to get in a pissing contest about it but you're wrong, maybe you haven't played enough to see it.

Nobody has provided any real reasoning for how this penalises the stronger player. If anything, it gives the weaker player a chance to get lucky, string a few racks together an build a lead.

Case in point: at their peaks, Roger Federer tortured Andy Roddick and beat him in several grand slam finals. Why? Because he was the better tennis player. Now if we change the rules and make it winner serves, Roddick stands a much better chance in that game, particularly if he serves first.

Telling me I "haven't played enough to see it" just makes me think you have no real reasoning to your argument.

Just because it's always been done one way doesn't make it the right way. Especially with a game like pool.

 

[Colonel]

Nobody has provided any real reasoning for how this penalises the stronger player. If anything, it gives the weaker player a chance to get lucky, string a few racks together an build a lead.

Case in point: at their peaks, Roger Federer tortured Andy Roddick and beat him in several grand slam finals. Why? Because he was the better tennis player. Now if we change the rules and make it winner serves, Roddick stands a much better chance in that game, particularly if he serves first.

Telling me I "haven't played enough to see it" just makes me think you have no real reasoning to your argument.

Just because it's always been done one way doesn't make it the right way. Especially with a game like pool.

Your post says it all, "give the weaker player a chance to build a lead", Really? Seriously? It's clear you're from the everybody plays, everybody gets a trophy generation. I'm from the natural selection generation, the strong survive & the weak get trampled underfoot. If you can't compete then work to get better instead of expecting someone to change the rules to give you a chance.

 

[RiverCity]

Nobody has provided any real reasoning for how this penalises the stronger player. If anything, it gives the weaker player a chance to get lucky, string a few racks together an build a lead.

Case in point: at their peaks, Roger Federer tortured Andy Roddick and beat him in several grand slam finals. Why? Because he was the better tennis player. Now if we change the rules and make it winner serves, Roddick stands a much better chance in that game, particularly if he serves first.

Telling me I "haven't played enough to see it" just makes me think you have no real reasoning to your argument.

Just because it's always been done one way doesn't make it the right way. Especially with a game like pool.

Your comparisons to tennis, baseball, football and whatever other sport you want to bring up has no bearing on pool. The game is pocket billiards, not tennis, golf, frogger or pacman.
But since you like to reference other sports and games, heres some food for thought. By winning a game in a match of pocket billiards, the winner has historically and IMO should continue to have the right to keep on scoring until he misses or has to play safe. He has commited no foul, he has not missed or played safe, why should the player be forced to relinquish his run? What alternate break amounts to is what they call a mercy limit (such as 6 runs max per inning) in little league baseball. Its intention is to not let little kids lose too badly by helping out the weaker team. Keeps their spirits up, doesnt make baseball better.
Again, you can keep throwing other sports up as examples, but its not a valid comparison at all. Pool has its own rules and history. Changing it up to help the weaker players with rules like alternate break, handicaps, etc do nothing for the game other than weaken the playing field. The only purpose for stuff like that is to try and increase participation by giving into weaker players demands. All the stuff that has gone on in the last 5-10 years with magic racks, and sardo racks..... racking your own, and players becoming rack mechanics have weakened the field. It was done to appease the whiners, not better the game.
So in the end of it, bastardizing the game and changing rules for the weaker or whinier players is a nothing short of a disgrace to the purity of the game itself. And yes you having only been around the game for 3 years makes your opinion less informed. You didnt play for decades under what was always considered the norm only to have players who dont want to work on their game as hard push for BS rules to help them out.
You cant turn pool into tennis no matter how many times you reference Roger Federer.
Hope this helps.
Chuck

 

[SakuJack]

Your post says it all, "give the weaker player a chance to build a lead", Really? Seriously? It's clear you're from the everybody plays, everybody gets a trophy generation. I'm from the natural selection generation, the strong survive & the weak get trampled underfoot. If you can't compete then work to get better instead of expecting someone to change the rules to give you a chance.

lol, read my post again. I'm referring to a winner breaks format with that comment.

 

[Colonel]

lol, read my post again. I'm referring to a winner breaks format with that comment.

That's not clear, what is clear is you are diligently trying to defend your position using other sports as a template, especially tennis. As Chuck Fields states above this has no bearing on pool. Pool is a sport that ALWAYS let the player control the table until his inning is ended by a miss or a safety & it shouldn't be changed to suit those that can't compete based on the merit of their skills. It's been brought to my attention you've been at this for 3 years so it's clear you have no real understanding of the frustrations that a number of rule changes have on those that have spent their whole life in this game. Going to alternate breaks, $ ball in bottom 2 pockets on break gets spotted, magic racks, etc have all been changes that should have never been, they mollify the weaker players & handcuff the strong, it's watered down the game. Considering your constant reference to tennis & Roger Federer perhaps tennis would be a better choice for you. If you look at the history of pool as far as rotation games go the truth is only 2 players have ever really dominated the game for any period of time, Reyes & now Van Boening. Both players got to that level through hard work & dedication to the sport, that should be rewarded not punished by making rule changes so others can keep up

 

[SakuJack]

That's not clear, what is clear is you are diligently trying to defend your position using other sports as a template, especially tennis. As Chuck Fields states above this has no bearing on pool. Pool is a sport that ALWAYS let the player control the table until his inning is ended by a miss or a safety & it shouldn't be changed to suit those that can't compete based on the merit of their skills. It's been brought to my attention you've been at this for 3 years so it's clear you have no real understanding of the frustrations that a number of rule changes have on those that have spent their whole life in this game. Going to alternate breaks, $ ball in bottom 2 pockets on break gets spotted, magic racks, etc have all been changes that should have never been, they mollify the weaker players & handcuff the strong, it's watered down the game. Considering your constant reference to tennis & Roger Federer perhaps tennis would be a better choice for you. If you look at the history of pool as far as rotation games go the truth is only 2 players have ever really dominated the game for any period of time, Reyes & now Van Boening. Both players got to that level through hard work & dedication to the sport, that should be rewarded not punished by making rule changes so others can keep up

I've been playing American pool for 3 years, but I've been playing cue sports for almost my whole life. Regardless of that, some of the posts in this thread have shown me that more experience doesn't necessarily lead to greater knowledge.

How does alternate break allow lesser players to keep up? It may make final scores closer in some cases, but surely it will lead to the better player actually winning more of the time. If they both have equal chances to break and run out, the player who is better at that should win.

And you can talk all you want about the history of pool and what we have ALWAYS (capital letters totally unnecessary by the way) done, but that means nothing. We should be looking at the best way to play the game, and looking at actual professional, respected sports is probably a good place to start.

 

[Pidge]

The way I see it is a match is made up of games in a set. A set, as far as tournaments go, wins you the match. Unless you are playing 14.1 then there are no defined games. So, on that merit alternate breaks makes sense to give both players the equal chance at a shot of winning their breaking game. Not to benefit the weaker or better player, but to make it equal. If you get so hyped up about alternate breaks being bad, then it seems to me you would be afraid to play someone on a fair basis. Unless you are playing 14.1, the player shouldn't get a continuous run at the table. The players innings comes to an end when they have potted the money ball, that's what won them the game. After that the shot should go to the players who is next in line to break.

Regardless or the break format, the better player should come out on top the vast majority of the time when races are of a decent length, say a race to 15.

 

[buckshotshoey]

I got to go with Pidge on this one. Lets step back for a minute and take a breath. Think of how many tournaments you've played in in the course of your life. Many different games and many different rule sets. Now think how many times you could have played if you were open to different ways of playing the game. I, for one, prefer a little variety. Even played loser break formats and enjoyed every minute of it.

How good of a pool player are you if you cannot adapt. Colonel said it a while ago....."Natural selection generation? Natrual selection means a species has to adapt. Its adapt or die! Come on colonel.... is it really that hard for you to adapt yourself and your game to a new situation? Ok I'm not that great at it either, but God dammit, its not stopping me from trying! So what if I lose or can't cut it. Whatever doesnt kill ya makes you stronger.

Final point ill make. Ok all you old farts. Consider this....
What is the result if two top players are equal in skill and play an alternating break format? Little tougher to figure who has the advantage, isn't it? The number one thing to ask yourself is...."can I adapt my physical and mental game to come out on top in the end?". If not, sit in your old man rockin chair and ***** about pool all you want, .....I'm playing!

 

[Pushout]

I got to go with Pidge on this one. Lets step back for a minute and take a breath. Think of how many tournaments you've played in in the course of your life. Many different games and many different rule sets. Now think how many times you could have played if you were open to different ways of playing the game. I, for one, prefer a little variety. Even played loser break formats and enjoyed every minute of it.

How good of a pool player are you if you cannot adapt. Colonel said it a while ago....."Natural selection generation? Natrual selection means a species has to adapt. Its adapt or die! Come on colonel.... is it really that hard for you to adapt yourself and your game to a new situation? Ok I'm not that great at it either, but God dammit, its not stopping me from trying! So what if I lose or can't cut it. Whatever doesnt kill ya makes you stronger.

Final point ill make. Ok all you old farts. Consider this....
What is the result if two top players are equal in skill and play an alternating break format? Little tougher to figure who has the advantage, isn't it? The number one thing to ask yourself is...."can I adapt my physical and mental game to come out on top in the end?". If not, sit in your old man rockin chair and ***** about pool all you want, .....I'm playing!

I'm afraid I don't agree. If you choose to insult me, well, that's on you. I've probably played a hell of a lot more than you have so if I don't play that's ok by me. If we played, I can pretty much guarantee you wouldn't like it either way. Whoever said it was supposed to be fair, hmm? Until recently, I never heard anything about pool having to be fair.
When the rules changed in the late seventies/early eighties, I didn't like them and still don't but I adapted well enough to play the game for a long time. About 10 years ago, I pretty much gave up competitive 9 ball. Oh, you can't break from there any more, oh, you can't make the 9 in a corner pocket and win, oh, you can't "pattern rack" any more, oh, you have to put the 2 in the back of the rack, oh, what bullshit! I choose not to adapt, not because I can't.

 

[Colonel]

I got to go with Pidge on this one. Lets step back for a minute and take a breath. Think of how many tournaments you've played in in the course of your life. Many different games and many different rule sets. Now think how many times you could have played if you were open to different ways of playing the game. I, for one, prefer a little variety. Even played loser break formats and enjoyed every minute of it.

How good of a pool player are you if you cannot adapt. Colonel said it a while ago....."Natural selection generation? Natrual selection means a species has to adapt. Its adapt or die! Come on colonel.... is it really that hard for you to adapt yourself and your game to a new situation? Ok I'm not that great at it either, but God dammit, its not stopping me from trying! So what if I lose or can't cut it. Whatever doesnt kill ya makes you stronger.

Final point ill make. Ok all you old farts. Consider this....
What is the result if two top players are equal in skill and play an alternating break format? Little tougher to figure who has the advantage, isn't it? The number one thing to ask yourself is...."can I adapt my physical and mental game to come out on top in the end?". If not, sit in your old man rockin chair and ***** about pool all you want, .....I'm playing!

I'm afraid I don't agree. If you choose to insult me, well, that's on you. I've probably played a hell of a lot more than you have so if I don't play that's ok by me. If we played, I can pretty much guarantee you wouldn't like it either way. Whoever said it was supposed to be fair, hmm? Until recently, I never heard anything about pool having to be fair.
When the rules changed in the late seventies/early eighties, I didn't like them and still don't but I adapted well enough to play the game for a long time. About 10 years ago, I pretty much gave up competitive 9 ball. Oh, you can't break from there any more, oh, you can't make the 9 in a corner pocket and win, oh, you can't "pattern rack" any more, oh, you have to put the 2 in the back of the rack, oh, what bullshit! I choose not to adapt, not because I can't.

Well I don't agree either for a lot of reasons Pushout has noted. I'm not quite an old fart yet as you refer to Buckshot but I've spent my entire life playing this game as a gambler because of a lot of things mentioned in this thread. Like Pushout noted, this game took a dramatic change many years ago when it went from 2 Foul Pushout where you could Pushout every shot to 1 Foul 1 Pushout after the break only, it was referred to as Texas Express rules and was adopted to make it more TV friendly.

As Mr. Pushout noted he adapted to that huge change then, so did I, you had to as whether you were a gambler or a tournament player everybody started playing by those rules. It watered down the game, made it easier for lesser players but its what happened. As Mr. Pushout also noted the game has undergone a plethora of changes in the last 10-15 years, how balls have to be racked, Sardo racks, magic racks, break boxes, 9 on the break in bottom 2 pockets gets spotted, on & on. All of these changes have been to the advantage of weaker players & also different on a situation to situation basis on the whim of tournament promotors, one of the main reasons I chose to gamble vs tournament play because the bottom line is I adjusted when the game changed dramatically once. I won't adjust to constant changes that are made on a whim to cut advantage of stronger players & benefit weaker ones & because I gamble exclusively now I don't have to. I'll play 2 foul Pushout or 1 foul Texas Express but I won't alternate breaks, break from a box, if the nine drops my coins getting moved to the next diamond. Don't like the game, go stand in the corner with the other Nits & figure out another rule change so you might be competitive. Part of the psychological nature of the game of pool is applying pressure & a big part of that is keeping your opponent frying in a chair & if he does get up he's going to be trying to shoot out of jail. You want a chance to shoot more, raise the race to 21 or 50 or play 10 ahead, matches like that are wars that favor a better player because in a long race a weaker player can't fade the heat a better player applies. It's part of the game, just like rolls are. It's game you have to apply the work to compete, not change so you can compete, it cheapens it.

 

[SakuJack]

As Mr. Pushout also noted the game has undergone a plethora of changes in the last 10-15 years, how balls have to be racked, Sardo racks, magic racks, break boxes, 9 on the break in bottom 2 pockets gets spotted, on & on. All of these changes have been to the advantage of weaker players

How are these changes to the advantage of the weaker players?