I was interviewing Allen Hopkins for a magazine years ago and he said that winner breaks was terrible. I tell this so JAM wont criticize me because Allen said it and I didnt.
Allen's example he gave me is imagine a football game where a team scores and then they get the ball again....silly isnt it?
I tell what loser breaks does, it almost guarantees that the scores will be closer.
I think I would love it as a fan and hate it if I was a player......
Ken
Ask Allen how much he liked it when Lou Butera ran 150 and out on him in 21 minutes. He didn't get to shoot much that match either! :thumbup:
Straight Pool has been played that way forever. You can lose a match just sitting in your chair. Same way with 9-Ball. This makes Pool unique among sports. There is more pressure each time you get a chance at the table because it may be your last chance. This is why Pool may be the toughest game of all.
Nothing is more exciting imo then seeing a top player string racks and his opponent come to that table and do the same thing to climb back into the match. The second highlight of this year's Open (after Shane's dramatic victory #5) was Jayson winning the last seven games in a row to come back from 10-4 down to win 11-10. The crowd was going crazy!
There are just as many if not more hill-hill matches with winner breaks as there are with alternate breaks. Let the rules guys figure that out and explain it to us.
I don't think Allen was complaining too much about 'winner breaks' when he won a lag on
The Miz in Florida once....finals of a tournament....race to nine.
Allen ran the set out.
If that match was alternate break, I don't think I would even remember that contest.
Don't like fast games?....Don't play fast games.