Which one? Neutral racker, breaker racks, or loser racks?

[JAM]

Funny how two rack boy's/men could rack for a 10 or more table room, back in the day. It's not that hard. Johnnyt

Jackie Gleason was a rackboy in New York City where he grew up, which is what cultivated his interest initially in pool.

In the '80s, I went on the road with a player down South. North Carolina was rich with places to play pool in just about every town. It was so much different from where we lived. Pool was really thriving in North Carolina. There was a pool room in Winson-Salem that had one door going in and one door going out. They had three tables. The front table was the action table, and anybody could challenge it. They always had a ring game going on. This place had a rackboy with an apron. When the game was finished, the breaker would yell "Rack," and the kid would come up an rack the balls, pocketing a 25 cent tip.:grin-square:

 

[Johnnyt]

Jackie Gleason was a rackboy in New York City where he grew up, which is what cultivated his interest initially in pool.

In the '80s, I went on the road with a player down South. North Carolina was rich with places to play pool in just about every town. It was so much different from where we lived. Pool was really thriving in North Carolina. There was a pool room in Winson-Salem that had one door going in and one door going out. They had three tables. The front table was the action table, and anybody could challenge it. They always had a ring game going on. This place had a rackboy with an apron. When the game was finished, the breaker would yell "Rack," and the kid would come up an rack the balls, pocketing a 25 cent tip.:grin-square:

Bakers in Tampa, FL still had rack boy's in 1981. I think you could pay by the hour or by the rack. I use to go there with Steve Cook for a few months. Not my kind of place. There was always murder's row in there.

 

[pt109]

Funny how two rack boy's/men could rack for a 10 or more table room, back in the day. It's not that hard. Johnnyt

I played 9-ball in Hopkinsville Kentucky in '79....they had a racker....marked the games you
owed on the wire.....payed at the end.

The room was managed by a good player known to road players as The Hillbilly...
...the guy I was with asked him for 8-5 at one-hole....and the break.
The Hillbilly said " If a man needs 8-5 and the break...HE DON'T NEED TO PLAY THE GAME !"

I liked that guy...

 

[hang-the-9]

They all have issues, if you rack your own, your opponent may feel like you are trying to make sure you make a ball rather than just get a good rack. If you rack for the opponent, then the breaker will think you are not giving a good rack. If a third party racks, well they may be a good neutral party where they don't care if either player makes a ball, but then it may not be a good rack.

Best is probably a neutral racker, if they know what they are doing, or rack your own with no game ball counted on the break.

Actually the template racks are great since they tighten the balls on their own without too much messing around.

 

[BRussell]

They all have issues, if you rack your own, your opponent may feel like you are trying to make sure you make a ball rather than just get a good rack. If you rack for the opponent, then the breaker will think you are not giving a good rack. If a third party racks, well they may be a good neutral party where they don't care if either player makes a ball, but then it may not be a good rack.

Best is probably a neutral racker, if they know what they are doing, or rack your own with no game ball counted on the break.

Actually the template racks are great since they tighten the balls on their own without too much messing around.

I think the cons of racking for your opponent are so much worse than racking for yourself. We saw at Turning Stone what happens when you rack for your opponent: Taking forever, fighting words, etc. The worst that happens when you rack for yourself is that you get the rack you want. I think too much is made of the idea of "rack rigging" as a type of cheating where people put in gaps. For the most part people just want a tight rack.

 

[MD1108]

+1 Neutral racker with template

+1 Neutral Racker, with a template. ( I forgot to vote in earlier post)

And apologies to JAM if it seemed like I moved off topic in your thread. Certainly meant no disrespect.
I posed a question in post #28 about changing position of the 1 ball in a traditional 9 ball rack and asked for feedback on what effects that may have on the rack or game outcome. Always read your posts JAM, sorry for jumping subjects.

 

[7forlife]

I didn't read all the comments like I normally do, to be honest I forgot about this and now it's 4 pages in not to mention it's been talked about before so I have an idea of some of the things said. So this is my first time I think mentioning this here.

Winner break, you get 3 tries, no fiddling with the balls, slide'em back and forth all you want but you have 3 tries and you have to pick one cause the last one stays. So you decide and you decide quick, is this one gonna be better than the next one or is the next one gonna be better? Those have always been my terms, the winner racks his own so he's responsible for how it's comes out, you have a problem with it then it's alternate break so the other guy gets a change to work his magic but he has 3 tries to get it right.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Sadly, loser racks will never work any more because of the lack of integrity of today's players. In the match I posted earlier of Strickland vs. McCready, Keith spends all of like 4 seconds from the time the balls are inside the rack to the time he lifts the rack. Earl only gives a brief look at the rack while walking to the kitchen, and he broke them really good, so there was no slugging going on by Keither.

This is probably just one of the reasons why Keith has no burning interest in coming out of retirement, and why Earl seems to be done with the sport, even though he obviously still has plenty of gas in his tank. Who would want to play in today's environment when you once were willing to give up the nuts just to prove how great you really are?

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

I didn't read all the comments like I normally do, to be honest I forgot about this and now it's 4 pages in not to mention it's been talked about before so I have an idea of some of the things said. So this is my first time I think mentioning this here.

Winner break, you get 3 tries, no fiddling with the balls, slide'em back and forth all you want but you have 3 tries and you have to pick one cause the last one stays. So you decide and you decide quick, is this one gonna be better than the next one or is the next one gonna be better? Those have always been my terms, the winner racks his own so he's responsible for how it's comes out, you have a problem with it then it's alternate break so the other guy gets a change to work his magic but he has 3 tries to get it right.

Yes, that's what I was saying earlier in this thread. Winner racks, 3 tries max. Quickly toss the balls in the triangle and spin it around a few times to eliminate pattern racking. One ball replaces the ball in the front, then the nine replaces the middle ball. Slide the one to the spot, firm them up, and lift the rack. Absolutely no touching balls once the rack is lifted. You get three times to get them tight, but you can't rearrange the order of the balls. You better get them tight the first time, because you don't want to get stuck going for more and getting stuck with the third one.

You don't really need a clock, but about 30 seconds to get the rack right should be mentioned at the players meeting, with the threat of a clock being used if you start pushing it. It will be pretty obvious to everybody if you are.

I would love to hear Zuglan's thoughts on this. He runs the best 9-ball tourney in the country now, and I'm sure he's just about done with the kind of shenanigans he's been seeing at TS the past few years. I really think this is a viable solution. Personally, I despise racking templates. I would hate TS if he went that route in the future.

 

[Kid Dynomite]

Breaking balls well is definitely a strength when shooting pool competitively, but it shouldn't be about breaking balls based on cracks in the rack, especially when cracks in the rack are placed there by the competitors themselves.

At the players meeting of the Skins Billiard Championship, all competitors were told that there would be a neutral racker, and nobody was allowed to question the rack or ask for a re-rack -- no ifs, ands, or buts. The competitors were allowed to look at the rack, but they couldn't question it or ask for a re-rack. This is the way it should be for all professional competitions, in my opinion. This event, of course, was on TV on ESPN. How would it look to have a never-ending examination of the rack on TV like happens at most pro events today?

If a pro player is benefiting with wins due to rack rigging, there is something wrong with this. It needs to be addressed.

At the pro event at the Super Billiards Expo in Valley Forge one year, I was standing outside in the "smoking lounge." One of the players came outside for a smoke break in the middle of his match. He said: I know So-and-So is rigging the rack on me, and when it's my turn to rack for him, I'm doing the same thing to him.

Racking-rigging is rampant, more so today than 10 years ago. It's like a nighmare, and it's getting worse and worse, isn't it?

I like the neutral racker. Only thing I don't like is "ALLOWING" players to examine the rack. I think a neutral racker and preventing inspecting the rack is the way to go. Makes the break outcome the most random, Give the players the least amount of information and limit the neutral rackers ability to manipulate the rack. They put them up there and get 10 to 15 seconds to rack with a real rack. Return luck to the game and randomness. No templates! seen to much stuff with them!

KD