U.S. Open rules discussion

[Colonel]

Where the magnifying glass should be these days is on the WPA. Who cares about WPA ranking points? They don't mean squat anymore, and neither does the WPA. Their members enjoy the benefits of traveling the globe on tournament promoter's dimes, and what good do they do? Every time I'm reading about them, they're stuffing their beaks at some banquet in places like Qatar.

It's about time somebody said this, good on you Jennie. I also think the WPA can take a flying, flaming leap & take your rules with you. 1 on the spot, winner breaks, rack your own, bring your game and leave the whine at home & when the dust settles the winner will be standing there having won an event the way it should be played.

 

[Johnnyt]

9 ball was made into a crap shoot many years ago when they changed it to Texas Express and jump cues. Johnnyt

 

[SakuJack]

when the dust settles the winner will be standing there having won an event the way it should be played.

Why is that "the way it should be played"?

 

[Colonel]

Why is that "the way it should be played"?

Because when you change the way the balls are racked you've changed the game. Can you name any game where the head ball is not racked on the foot spot, no you can't because there isn't one & there shouldn't be. The rule changes surrounding the break IE moving the rack, alternate breaks, 9 in bottom 2 holes gets spotted are all bad rules invented for those with weak breaks that can't keep up in what used to be a standard format. Pool has always been a sport where you stay at the table until your inning is over which is when you miss, foul or play a safety & it always should be. It's also a game where the balls are racked on the foot spot and always should be. 9 on the snap was always a win, then that was changed eliminating the bottom 2 pockets, why? It's at the center point of the rack & it's natural travel is always going to be towards the pockets at the foot end of the table unless its kicked up table by another ball so why was it changed. All these rule changes have transpired over the last 15 years or so & have not improved the game except for those that have weaker breaks & to people like you with 5 or so years in the game maybe it isn't a big deal as it serves you. To those that have been in it a lot longer before all this foolishness started its an annoyance. You adjust to the game, you don't keep changing the game to adjust to you. If the format of winner breaks, 1 on the spot & 9 on the snap is a win leaves you getting buried in a match then you need to work on your game, not adjust the game to where you can become competitive.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Because when you change the way the balls are racked you've changed the game. Can you name any game where the head ball is not racked on the foot spot, no you can't because there isn't one & there shouldn't be. The rule changes surrounding the break IE moving the rack, alternate breaks, 9 in bottom 2 holes gets spotted are all bad rules invented for those with weak breaks that can't keep up in what used to be a standard format. Pool has always been a sport where you stay at the table until your inning is over which is when you miss, foul or play a safety & it always should be. It's also a game where the balls are racked on the foot spot and always should be. 9 on the snap was always a win, then that was changed eliminating the bottom 2 pockets, why? It's at the center point of the rack & it's natural travel is always going to be towards the pockets at the foot end of the table unless its kicked up table by another ball so why was it changed. All these rule changes have transpired over the last 15 years or so & have not improved the game except for those that have weaker breaks & to people like you with 5 or so years in the game maybe it isn't a big deal as it serves you. To those that have been in it a lot longer before all this foolishness started its an annoyance. You adjust to the game, you don't keep changing the game to adjust to you. If the format of winner breaks, 1 on the spot & 9 on the snap is a win leaves you getting buried in a match then you need to work on your game, not adjust the game to where you can become competitive.

Exactly, there is absolutely no reason to increase competitiveness through any setup, that should be done only through hard work, in favor of it and in favor of talent in all parts of the game, not against them.

 

[itsfroze]

I think that Jay made a big mistake letting himself get lured back. He has an impeccable reputation which could suffer from collateral damage by getting involved in 11th hour changes and discussions like these. You should have stayed true to yourself, my friend. You could have made your pronouncements from afar instead of taking a Bullet for Barry

:boring2: :boring2: :boring2: :boring2: :boring2:

 

[itsfroze]

I think a lot of people have similar misgivings about Shane's win last year.

So your trying to tell me that Mika and Appleton won back to back Opens fair and square, but Shane's back to back wins were not. Care to explain that.

Were there "misgivings" on Shane's third Open title also. What about Nick Varner's back to back wins, "misgivings " there too, or only with Shane's wins.

Just say no !

 

[sjm]

Where the magnifying glass should be these days is on the WPA. Who cares about WPA ranking points? They don't mean squat anymore, and neither does the WPA. Their members enjoy the benefits of traveling the globe on tournament promoter's dimes, and what good do they do? Every time I'm reading about them, stuffing their beaks at some banquet in places like Qatar.

The BCA once tried, and failed, to make pool a sport that would be partially funded by America's Olympic Committee. In countries where pool has earned this distinction, the top players get government funding when they participate in WPA sanctioned events, and WPA ranking points often determine who gets invited to these events.

Hence, WPA ranking points are very important, but far less so in countries like America, where the national Olympic committee doesn't help finance the costs of the players. It's hard to blame the WPA for America's failure to give pool the national profile it has in countries like Germany and the Netherlands.

 

[smashmouth]

thankfully winner breaks, i'm pretty much done watching any tourneys that have the alternate format, it's death to momentum and high runs

breakbox absolutely SUCKS

 

[SakuJack]

All these rule changes have transpired over the last 15 years or so & have not improved the game except for those that have weaker breaks

This is completely false. Moving the 9-ball to the spot favours those with stronger breaks. With the 1-ball on the spot the wing ball is practically wired, and almost anyone can step up and make a ball on the break. The 9-ball on the spot makes the break a more skillful shot, favouring the better players.

In my experience, whenever your argument is along the lines of, "because that's how it's always been"... you've already lost.

 

[TATE]

I like the added 2 ball racked in the back. It doesn't sound like much, but it does make pattern racking a bit harder. Johnnyt

It makes a soft cut break less predictable and hopefully less attractive.

 

[SakuJack]

So your trying to tell me that Mika and Appleton won back to back Opens fair and square, but Shane's back to back wins were not. Care to explain that.

Were there "misgivings" on Shane's third Open title also. What about Nick Varner's back to back wins, "misgivings " there too, or only with Shane's wins.

Just say no !

A lot of people have misgivings about how Shane was racking the balls last year to make the wing ball almost every time. Alex questioned it during their match and there was a lot of discussion about it afterwards.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

This is completely false. Moving the 9-ball to the spot favours those with stronger breaks. With the 1-ball on the spot the wing ball is practically wired, and almost anyone can step up and make a ball on the break. The 9-ball on the spot makes the break a more skillful shot, favouring the better players.

In my experience, whenever your argument is along the lines of, "because that's how it's always been"... you've already lost.

Not without a box and dry break rules, with 9 on the spot the 1 becomes fixed to the side for any lesser player who can make a ball now by breaking with soft speed, which is much less difficult than breaking with higher speed and requires less practice.
With too small box doesn't make a difference anyway, most breaks don't make a ball and he who has practiced the break is the "fool" while the one who hasn't practiced the break is the "clever" one...
Let's be honest: all these things started a while ago in Europe when a generation of the same players used to win most tournaments, and the next generation after them that had less will to practice hard enough in order to run out more stopped going to tournaments.
Directors changed the rules in order to increase participations again and for a while that was the case, but in the long run it has hurt the game.
I'll state it again, there is no other sport worldwide where a player which deficits in any part of the game is supposed to win (by altering setup) against a player which is better in all parts of the game, and the break is a part of the game no matter if we like it or not.
So if a player is afraid of his pro opponent to run out the set on him, he only has to practice his soul out to do it before him.
That is what competitive pool excellence is about, not giving the 5 miles/hour breaker equal chances of winning because he doesn't have the necessary talent for a big break and he's not willing to work hard to improve it, along with his consistency in position and running out.
That's the truth.

 

[JAM]

The BCA once tried, and failed, to make pool a sport that would be partially funded by America's Olympic Committee. In countries where pool has earned this distinction, the top players get government funding when they participate in WPA sanctioned events, and WPA ranking points often determine who gets invited to these events.

Hence, WPA ranking points are very important, but far less so in countries like America, where the national Olympic committee doesn't help finance the costs of the players. It's hard to blame the WPA for America's failure to give pool the national profile it has in countries like Germany and the Netherlands.

If that's the case, then American tournaments sanctioned by WPA should charge the European players a higher entry fee. Why should American tournament promoters have to pay WPA money to give *their* precious ranking points to European players on American soil? Americans do not benefit from WPA ranking points and, therefore, should pay a lower entry fee than their European counterparts in WPA-sanctioned events.

 

[SakuJack]

with 9 on the spot the 1 becomes fixed to the side for any lesser player who can make a ball now by breaking with soft speed

This isn't true at all. If it is, then let's use the Mosconi cup as an example (in years where they racked the nine on the spot and used no break box). If any lesser player could make a ball, why did we see Europe's best and to an even greater extent America's best consistently fail to make a ball breaking with soft speed.

It's more of a skill shot than a wired wing ball, and doesn't guarantee a shot on the next ball (as you're making the one and are unable to control the two-ball as easily).

I'll state it again, there is no other sport worldwide where a player which deficits in any part of the game is supposed to win (by altering setup) against a player which is better in all parts of the game, and the break is a part of the game no matter if we like it or not.

I'll name one: nine-ball pool racking the one on the spot and playing winner breaks.

You can be lacking in safety, kicking, even positional play. So long as you can break the balls to make the wing ball and keep shape on the one (hardly the tallest task), you can beat a player superior to you in all other areas.

 

[itsfroze]

A lot of people have misgivings about how Shane was racking the balls last year to make the wing ball almost every time. Alex questioned it during their match and there was a lot of discussion about it afterwards.

You and your "misgivings", give me a break. So you are saying no one questioned the way Mika or Appleton
racked in their back to back wins, I'm sure whoever was losing did, and whined a little just as you're doing now.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

This isn't true at all. If it is, then let's use the Mosconi cup as an example (in years where they racked the nine on the spot and used no break box). If any lesser player could make a ball, why did we see Europe's best and to an even greater extent America's best consistently fail to make a ball breaking with soft speed.

It's more of a skill shot than a wired wing ball, and doesn't guarantee a shot on the next ball (as you're making the one and are unable to control the two-ball as easily).



I'll name one: nine-ball pool racking the one on the spot and playing winner breaks.

You can be lacking in safety, kicking, even positional play. So long as you can break the balls to make the wing ball and keep shape on the one (hardly the tallest task), you can beat a player superior to you in all other areas.

As far as the Mosconi cup, it's not only about the setup but also about the racking method that gives certain results, and the racker.
As far as the shape on the one part, again the better breakers make this better.
The break setup was not changed because better breakers and better players lost more often, it was changed because of the exact opposite...

 

[SakuJack]

You and your "misgivings", give me a break. So you are saying no one questioned the way Mika or Appleton
racked in their back to back wins, I'm sure whoever was losing did, and whined a little just as you're doing now.

I'm not quite sure why you're being so hostile (nor why you're accusing me of whining).

They aren't my misgivings. Go back and look at the discussion following Shane's win last year; a lot of people were questioning how he was getting that wing ball to go. And I don't think there was anywhere near that level of debate following either Darren's or Mika's wins.

 

[dnschmidt]

I'm not a fan of Shane. Typically, I root against him. However, I don't think this Einstein of pool ball physics has figured out a way to rack that guarantees him a ball on the break especially when his opponents inspect every rack. Could it just possibly be that he has the best break in the game. His break in 10-ball is even better than his break in 9-ball. His break when they use the magic rack is better than anybody else's break. Give the damn guy a break. He's just a great breaker of the balls.

 

[itsfroze]

I'm not quite sure why you're being so hostile (nor why you're accusing me of whining).

They aren't my misgivings. Go back and look at the discussion following Shane's win last year; a lot of people were questioning how he was getting that wing ball to go. And I don't think there was anywhere near that level of debate following either Darren's or Mika's wins.

Not getting hostile just pointing out the facts. First off the fact that people were questioning how Shane was getting the wing ball to go means nothing.

Why because they weren't questioning how everyone else was getting the wing ball to ball, that's number one. Number two is, because people question everything Shane does, if he wins they question it, if he doesn't win they question it, why can't he win they question it.

So what does it mean that people were questioning it, if he was doing something illegal the tournament director would have put a stop to it. It's not illegal to have practiced your ass off and have the best break in the world is it ?

That's right no one should have any advantage even if they worked hard to attain it. Everybody get's a trophy while pool slides further in to the abyss.
Don't penalize everyone who doesn't want to put it the hard work, that's just not fair.:thumbup: