Alternate break is ruining pool

King T said:
Well Jay the problem with what your saying is this. In Bowling each player gets a turn no matter what the other Bowler does. In Bowling we can both shoot the same score its not a race.

Nobody should spend their Money and Time to come from over seas or across country to sit and watch Shane, Dennis, Lee Van, Shaw or whoever run out the set.

Winner break in a regional tournament yes, in a national tournament no!
Click to expand...

I've been following pro pool for fifty years and so far I've heard of two times that a set has been run out without the other player shooting or coming to the table; once it was a Race to Seven (Wade Crane vs. Buddy Hall at Resorts in Atlantic City) and Bob Vanover ran nine racks in the finals of the Texas State championships.
 
Grilled Cheese said:
Pool was bigger in the winner breaks days.

First of all, let's not turn winner breaks into an automatic blanking of opponents. This is the exception, not the rule. For decades with winner breaks, there were tons of close games, and lots of counter-play in matches. It is rare to actually see someone get locked out.

The problem is, at least on occasion you get to see something exciting or great. Like a string of racks, or a huge comeback. With alternate break, everything is homogenized. Attrition pool is what it should be called. Boring.


Alternate break is one step away from being worthy of postal matches or long distance matches. Just create another arbitrary rule that any safety or miss is the end of the rack entirely. Two players can then compete on a break and run percentage contest.


Next, Football is NOT turn-based!!! When one team is on offense, the other is actively playing defense and has the ability to score at any time on any play. Pool is not played simultaneously by both players at the same time. When Efren plays a safe, Earl cannot jump to the table real fast, shoot the cue ball before it stops rolling and make a ball to then take over.

When one team in football scores, they technically still have possession of the ball for the extra point or conversion, and they STILL have possession of the ball on the kick off. It's technically their ball.

The rules state they have to kick it toward the opponent a minimum of 10 yards. It says NOTHING about the opponent being guaranteed an opportunity to possess the ball. The purpose of a kick-off is NOT to ensure the other team gets a turn, it's to put the ball back into play. Albeit, with a very strong chance the other team will get the ball back to create offensive counter play. But it's not a guarantee. Most teams kick it deep to play the percentages, not because the intent is to ensure they opponent has a turn too.

They can do an onside kick. They can fumble it.

If football were like alternate breaks. They would remove the kick off entirely, and after a score, the other team gets the ball at the 25 yard line every time. That would be awful, as thanks to clock management - there would be an end to many exciting games. Or, keep the kick off, but institute punt rules. You cannot take possession on an untouched ball.

Yet, with alternate break, players are guaranteed opportunities at table that are completely unearned through MERIT.
Click to expand...

Bingo, the crowd (and it was crowded at many big tournaments) loved to see a player string racks. Bottom line, it's exciting!
 
Tony_in_MD said:
Earl Strickland vs Nick Manneo for a cool million.



What do I win?

;)
Click to expand...

It was actually a Race to Thirteen and Earl ran eleven racks, then Nick got to shoot. He did win one or two games before the match was over.
 
Last edited:
I've been watching pro pool for what seems like a million years and I will only say this, that no matter how long the races are and what the rules you play by, in the end it's always the best players who win and finish in the top positions. Yes, there are rare exceptions, but it is these exceptions that make the rule even more valid. If you ask why this is the case when playing races to seven 9-Ball (the old DCC) where all luck counts and there is no call shot, I will tell you. You would think that a few shortstops would get lucky and win this event or finish in the top three or four but that never happened. It's all about HEART and the ability to perform under pressure when all the marbles are on the line. The great players have tons of heart and can come with a big shot when necessary. The rest of the guys dog it in the clutch. This harks back to my argument regarding our ineptitude in the MC. Our guys keep getting weak under the pressure and make critical errors and miss shots they should make in their sleep.
 
jay helfert said:
... You would think that a few shortstops would get lucky and win this event or finish in the top three or four but that never happened. ...
Click to expand...

These guys probably finished quite a bit higher than expected, given the fields:

2002 -- Tommy Stephenson, 3rd
2005 -- Jamie Baraks, 2nd
2008 -- Ryan Stone, 4th
2009 -- Adam Smith, 3rd
2017 -- Ramon Mistica, 3rd
 
Dead Money.


realkingcobra said:
The funny thing is, ANY amature can pay an entry fee to play in most ANY pool tournament in thus country without ever having to hear the words, "No, you're not allowed to play, you're a Pro" and yet, what are the chances a Pro is denied entry to a lot of the same events? And before anyone gets dumb, I'm not say the Pro is rejected at ALL tournaments, but at some time WILL be denied, whereas the amateurs will NEVER be denied!
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know Nick got a few games.

It is still an impressive run 11 racks. Would have loved to see it.

jay helfert said:
It was actually a Race to Thirteen and Earl ran eleven racks, then Nick got to shoot. He did win one or two games before the match was over.
Click to expand...
 
jay helfert said:
I've been following pro pool for fifty years and so far I've heard of two times that a set has been run out without the other player shooting or coming to the table; once it was a Race to Seven (Wade Crane vs. Buddy Hall at Resorts in Atlantic City) and Bob Vanover ran nine racks in the finals of the Texas State championships.
Click to expand...

In other words, Buddy didn't throw the match vs Crane like he did vs Lebron. :thumbup:
 
jasonlaus said:
And it was winner break, straight pool, or 3 cushion, where you could run out the set.

Once again, thank you for proving our point
Jason
Click to expand...

The popularity of pool 100 years ago can't be simplified to "winner breaks," so I doubt any point was proven one way or the other.

I was born at night, but not last night.



Jeff Livingston
 
realkingcobra said:
The funny thing is, ANY amature can pay an entry fee to play in most ANY pool tournament in thus country without ever having to hear the words, "No, you're not allowed to play, you're a Pro" and yet, what are the chances a Pro is denied entry to a lot of the same events? And before anyone gets dumb, I'm not say the Pro is rejected at ALL tournaments, but at some time WILL be denied, whereas the amateurs will NEVER be denied!
Click to expand...

This happens in all sports. Pros are not allowed to enter amateur events. Probably something to do with them being pros and therefore, by definition. not allowed to enter amateur events. It's the difference between being a pro and being an amateur.

What they need is more pro events, run professionally with referees and rules conducive to professional play. Alternate break would clearly be one of those conducivish things that would make it professionalish and therefore likely to get some kind of sponsorship and some interest from those that are interested in the game beyond hooting and hollering about a once on a lifetime x-pack that omg we haven't seen since the last time.
 
Swighey said:
This happens in all sports. Pros are not allowed to enter amateur events. Probably something to do with them being pros and therefore, by definition. not allowed to enter amateur events. It's the difference between being a pro and being an amateur.

What they need is more pro events, run professionally with referees and rules conducive to professional play. Alternate break would clearly be one of those conducivish things that would make it professionalish and therefore likely to get some kind of sponsorship and some interest from those that are interested in the game beyond hooting and hollering about a once on a lifetime x-pack that omg we haven't seen since the last time.
Click to expand...
Alternating breaks has no place in pool other than in playing one pocket!
 
AtLarge said:
These guys probably finished quite a bit higher than expected, given the fields:

2002 -- Tommy Stephenson, 3rd
2005 -- Jamie Baraks, 2nd
2008 -- Ryan Stone, 4th
2009 -- Adam Smith, 3rd
2017 -- Ramon Mistica, 3rd
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, but once again it's the exception (above names) that proves the rule. Jamie Baraks can play even with some of the top players by the way.
 
realkingcobra said:
The funny thing is, ANY amature can pay an entry fee to play in most ANY pool tournament in thus country without ever having to hear the words, "No, you're not allowed to play, you're a Pro" and yet, what are the chances a Pro is denied entry to a lot of the same events? And before anyone gets dumb, I'm not say the Pro is rejected at ALL tournaments, but at some time WILL be denied, whereas the amateurs will NEVER be denied!
Click to expand...

Come to Phoenix, if you can draw your ball they won't let you play in 90% of the tournaments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top