Winner Break, Loser Break, Alternating Break...

[Farhan]

I think this was an idea brought up by John Schmidt during one of the TAR previews -- pool should incorporate the tennis format. I think it's a great idea and incorporates the best of both worlds (winner/alternate break).

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

How about if you get a set ran out on you then you get 1/2 your entry fee back and the player that ran the sets autograph?

Or we could go the other way and do it like when I gamble at cribbage or pinochle--you pay double for a skunk (cribbage) or taking a hard set (pinochle, playing out a hand and not making the bid). :smile:

 

[pt109]

I think the only thing Grady ( God rest him ) and I ever disagreed about was 9-ball.
I would tell him that 9-ball is a short form of rotation and was meant to be fast and furious.
Instead of trying to slow it down, just refuse to play it....
....stop trying to make it like other games.

I've been up 10-4 up in a race to 11...broke dry and had the set ran out on me...
....I can take it.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Winner breaks plus box format, maybe a bit longer races too.
More than enough to bring back the game where it should be, and both players will get their chances.
Alternate break has favored less good players against better players, you see results that would never take place in winner break format.
No need to punish talent and hard work, doesn't make sense, and there is no direct/complete analogy to other sports with alternate "serve", every sport is unique.
Bring back the game where it belongs, protect the best players, motivate young ones to reach them.
Now days there is no motive for young players to do so, since the best players are not protected, may lose virtually from anybody, and the myth "the cream will always rise to the top" simply does not apply.
In 3 cushion or Snooker you will never see an amateur beat a professional. This is one of the reasons 3 cushion still survives and does well even with less players around the world, and Snooker reaching real professional level which Pool will never do so.
Separate pros from the rest and you will get interest to the game increased again.

Petros

 

[Ak Guy]

I think.

Pro pool should be winner breaks on a 9 or 10 foot table. Races for the pro players should be to at least 13 in 8, 9 and 10 Ball. If a player strings some racks together all the better. A pro should be able to string some racks together and the threat of that happening should always be there.

If some one wins because they have a better break, then so be it. Breaking is part of the game and everyone has a chance to improve their break through long hours and hard work. Trying to change the winner break format is with us because some players break better then others.

Just my thoughts guys.

 

[Colonel]

I don't like alternating break, either, even in a short race.



I don't know if you read my second idea, but I think it would work well to satisfy most problems with alternating break while allowing for basically all of the benefits of winner breaks...because as I wrote it, it is feasible that one player breaks and runs every one of his games in the match.



This would have no effect on most matches. If the first breaker doesn't run racks all the way to hill, his opponent can run the match out, as both players have been to the table. It would only affect a match if the first person runs to hill and even then it would be unlikely that it would keep him from winning.



As I said, if I were playing and I broke and ran five in a race to 7, I would very likely play a safe on the sixth rack because this would keep me solidly in control of the match. So, basically, this would be a big incentive to have some defense in the match. As a viewer, I would find this much more interesting than a 7-pack. Maybe I'm the only one who likes to see defense in 9-ball.

Those that like "defense" generally lack an effective offensive game. You've also commented that perhaps winner breaks may be responsible for the declining interest in pool & someone else has commented alternating breaks was instituted to draw more dead money into tournaments.

Well I've been around this game my entire life, 9 ball isn't a "new" game. It survived & thrived for a very long time without any of the rule changes that now plague the game.
1. 9 ball doesn't count in the bottom 2 pockets to eliminate "luck". One of the most ponderous rules ever. Where it sits in the rack the only 2 pockets it should go in with a devastating break is the bottom 2 pockets. For it to go in the side or 2 up table corner pockets it has to be kicked there, that's luck & yet it was supposedly instituted to eliminate luck.
2. 9 ball doesn't count anywhere on the break translates to the"I break like I hit it with my purse" crowd.
3. Racking the 9 on the spot translates to I can't match up with a player with a devastating break so let's change the rule to slow down those with a devastating break.
4. Alternating break translates to "my break sucks but I have a great safe game".

The declining interest in pool started in the last 10-15 years, about the time the Europeans entered the professional arena of 9 ball & when all these "new rules" started to infiltrate the game. Prior to this time frame 9 ball and pool had been popular for quite sometime without any of these inane rule changes.

Pool has always been a sport where when you take the table it remains your inning until you foul, miss or play a safety, period. It brings an important dynamic to the game in that when you're at the table you need to control it & be able to bring the heat. It also tests your mettle in that if you have been sitting in the electric chair for 3-5 racks that when you get a chance can you respond? Can you bring the heat or do you fold. The game has always been that way & should always be.

I couldn't give a rats damn about what the do in tennis or table tennis, I don't play those games, I play pool. If you want a format as those 2 games have then take up those games, don't try to change another games rules to suit your weaknesses or shortcomings.

I hear people cry about the wingball being automatic, it always has been yet only in the last 10-15 years has there been all of the tear shedding over it. You want to keep up, practice your break, don't alternate it or rack the 9 somewhere else. Pool and 9 ball were just fine until those that couldn't keep up with those that had a devastating break & the ability to string packages came along whining how "unfair" it is, IE the Europeans. Play the game the way it was always played, practice & get better or take up a game where you can compete. If you like "defense" then play one pocket.

 

[RakRunr]

I agree with this post.
Alternate breaks cater to "everyone wins a prize" thinking.....
...the elite tournaments should not cater to mediocrity.

Can you imagine Ronnie the Rocket having a 30 cap put on his snooker runs?

I think it's closer to "everyone plays" than "everyone wins".

Imagine a race to 7: Player A wins the coin toss (or lag) and proceeds to break and run out a 7-pack. Match over, and Player B never leaves his chair.

How does that prove that Player A is better? We have no idea, because we never saw Player B play. In what other sport or game is that even possible? We see people dominate events in other sports all the time, and that's great, but at least everyone plays.

Overall, I think alternate break is the best option. I do think the "alternate set break" is an interesting idea, and serves the same basic purpose as alternate break.

In either case, everyone at least has a chance at the table. If they fail to make anything of it, so be it.

 

[RakRunr]

I wouldn't watch a boxing if they had to trade punches.......
....Tyson might not have won so many fights.

Trading punches implies that at the least each boxer gets to punch...

The analogy just doesn't fit. To be more accurate, it would have to be "Boxer A gets to punch Boxer B. Boxer B is not allowed to block or punch back. If Boxer A hits him well enough, then he gets to do it again. Repeat until Boxer B gets knocked out."

 

[Keith Jawahir]

I like this idea. Each player gets a 5-break frame, first person to win 3 frames wins (win by 2 if it goes hill-hill). since we know that pros can easily run 5-packs in 8, 9, and 10-ball, should be interesting.

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

Those that like "defense" generally lack an effective offensive game.

I stopped reading right there. I have no illusions about my skills, but I guarantee that my offensive game is okay.. I have run a 6-pack in a 9-ball tourney. Last week I lost two games in a 16-person 8-ball tourney. I missed 5 shots the entire night, breaking and running over half of my games.

 

[macguy]

To say there is no reason is absolutely false. You may disagree with the reason, but I have told the reason, and I'll lay it out clearly:

In short races of 9 or 10 ball it is feasible that one opponent will never see the table after the lag. If you have two people who are capable of running out the entire set, that means that the best player may have come down to the lag. I think that is a pretty poor decider for a short match.

In order to combat that while still allowing for some packages I've offered one solution.

So I'll offer another possible solution. Say in a race to 7 each opponent is guaranteed one turn at the table. Maybe a better way for this to happen is to not allow a full run-out of the match. So, if the first player breaks and runs 6, his opponent will break the seventh game. Then, if the opponent breaks and runs 6, the final game will be broken by the original breaker. This still gives the original breaker a chance at having a perfect match (i.e. breaking and running 7 games in a race to 7) while also including his opponent in the match.

I think I actually like this one better. I can foresee situations where two great players are matched up and the first player puts down a 5-pack and on the sixth game deliberately plays a safe instead of running out as this would protect his lead while fulfilling the requirement that his opponent gets to play.

The idea behind this isn't to level the playing field, it is to make a more competitive playing field. I don't actually see this as being anything more than every other game on the planet has--a single chance for both players to be in the game. I wouldn't advocate this for very short races, either, five probably being the fewest.

I know it would make watching more interesting for me to know that each person will get to the table.

There is no reason because the game is 9-ball with all the dynamics that go along with it.

Players may get behind and make comebacks, you are never out of the game with winner breaks. It is what makes the game what it is. If you want to invent a new game that is fine but when I play 9-ball I want to play 9-ball.

9-ball by the way is often played by altered rules. I have put on dozens of tournaments and I often experimented with rules a little. I many times did not have the 9 count on the break. I did a number of tournaments with Win by 2", no hill hill. I also did a few tournaments single elim playing 2 out of 3 sets.

I once played in a tournament in Germany single elim race to 7, 3 out of 5 sets. Each match lasted for hours. Not a tournament for the faint of heart. I don't mind messing with tournament formats, but not really the rules so much.

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

There is no reason because the game is 9-ball with all the dynamics that go along with it.

Players may get behind and make comebacks, you are never out of the game with winner breaks. It is what makes the game what it is. If you want to invent a new game that is fine but when I play 9-ball I want to play 9-ball.

9-ball by the way is often played by altered rules. I have put on dozens of tournaments and I often experimented with rules a little. I many times did not have the 9 count on the break. I did a number of tournaments with Win by 2", no hill hill. I also did a few tournaments single elim playing 2 out of 3 sets.

I once played in a tournament in Germany single elim race to 7, 3 out of 5 sets. Each match lasted for hours. Not a tournament for the faint of heart. I don't mind messing with tournament formats, but not really the rules so much.

I haven't suggested a single rules change to 9-ball. I have suggested formats which would ensure only that each player gets to actually play. The second idea would allow for everything that happens in 99% of winner break matches to be exactly the same. It would only ever make an altercation if the first breaker breaks and runs to the hill without his opponent ever getting to the table.

That is a format, not a change in 9-ball rules. It is only a breaking format.

This combined with a win-by-two, or something would allow shorter races to be played while still favoring the better player.

 

[BRussell]

The other method, ElCorazonFrio, is to make it a little harder to break and run out, thus making it more likely that both players get to play even if it's winner break.

I think this is one of the goals of the various breaking rules like "the three balls to the kitchen" rule used in Europe. It's interesting that they also use alternate breaks there. I think it would be interesting to try the three balls rule along with a winner breaks rule. Tighter pockets might also make runouts less common.

I prefer this because I don't think pool is at its best when it's like tennis, where it's a small miracle if the breaker loses. Mike Page from Fargo has said that pool is better when there's some back-and-forth between players. Changing the break rules is one way to accomplish that, but making it harder to break and run seems a better way to go. And of course that's one of the reasons behind the move to 10-ball.