International 9-Ball Open changes. WHY?

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
Would you go for a five-pack with an asterisk?
*************

All because of a failed safety by Kuo. I bet he still thinks of that shot from time to time. I don't think Kuo has ever won a major tournament since then either. He's not that old, maybe mid 30's now.
I noticed the place was packed in Taiwan, not an empty seat to be seen.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
All because of a failed safety by Kuo. I bet he still thinks of that shot from time to time. I don't think Kuo has ever won a major tournament since then either. He's not that old, maybe mid 30's now.
I noticed the place was packed in Taiwan, not an empty seat to be seen.
Kuo is 41 now. How time flies.
 

Frankenstroke

2 Gus Szamboti cues
Silver Member
Some people like winner breaks, some like alternate breaks. Lets pattern pool like
tennis, a hugely popular sport, where the serve is as advantageous as the break.

SINGLE elimination.
Best of 3 sets.
A set is a race to 6.
Winner of lag breaks the whole first set. Loser breaks the 2nd set.
Alternate breaks in 3rd set.

There, everyone is happy.

Top players are seeded into brackets, beginning in the 2nd round. The Joe Schmos
have a good chance of winning the first round. All players in the 3rd and succeeding
rounds are in the prize money.

What do you think?
 

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Some people like winner breaks, some like alternate breaks.

What do you think?

Let's make a distinction between the "some" and the "some".

I've played pool for more than 50 years and all around the world.

In almost EVERY case, the people I've met who have the ability to break and run packages OVERWHELMINGLY prefer winner break.

And, in reverse, the people who CAN RARELY break and run packages prefer alternate break.

I'm in the WINNER BREAK court.

Which "some" are you?
 

Swighey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In almost EVERY case, the people I've met who have the ability to break and run packages OVERWHELMINGLY prefer winner break.

And, in reverse, the people who CAN RARELY break and run packages prefer alternate break

So most people you’ve met prefer alternate break?
 

RADAR

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Not a fan of alternate break as as player and especially as a spectator. Winner break adds to the flare of the game.I will not be watching this event at all, like a boring tennis serve.Will say the cost for entry fee,rooms,vendor spots being reduced will be the key getting more spectators. Cost has been issue for years at pool events.In fact i watch less than ever online since 95 with so many events going to alternate break. Just my input no offense.
 

Swighey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Not a fan of alternate break as as player and especially as a spectator. Winner break adds to the flare of the game.I will not be watching this event at all, like a boring tennis serve.Will say the cost for entry fee,rooms,vendor spots being reduced will be the key getting more spectators. Cost has been issue for years at pool events.In fact i watch less than ever online since 95 with so many events going to alternate break. Just my input no offense.

I’m trying hard here to understand why you are so wired to winner breaks to the extent that you won’t watch alternate breaks. I’m in favor of alternate break for the reasons that I’ve stated again and again (and they are reasons based on logic rather than “I prefer xyxyxyxyx breaks so I’ll think of an argument to support it”) but will still watch and enjoy a winner breaks tournament. Solid reasons for why winner breaks might better would add to the discussion. “I don’t watch that” and “I’m good” (not you, someone else) don’t add much.
 
Last edited:

realkingcobra

Well-known member
Silver Member
So most people you’ve met prefer alternate break?

No, what he's trying to say is that those who can't win are demanding the rules be changed to give them more chances at the table or they won't pay their entry fees to the bigger events, which is NEEDED in order for the better players to earn some kind of money to buy something to eat, because they can't earn a living off the added money.

Those same lesser players are the same ones that restrict the pros from playing, or handicap the hell out of them from competing in their smaller local tournaments.
 

Maniac

2manyQ's
Silver Member
I decided to lower the entry fee to $500, increase the field, and announce alternate breaks. The purpose is to draw more players, which will draw more spectators, reserve more hotel rooms, and bring more traffic to our vendors.

If there were 96 good players at the tournament, I don't see how 32 more will add a significant amount of spectators. There are only a handful (or two) of players that people come to see anyway. The rest are just there so the players they come to watch will have an opponent to play.

I would venture that around half the field nobody cares about, not to mention the ones that no one has ever even heard of.

Spectator pool died many years ago. It's going to take something revolutionary to bring the masses back....not 32 extra players.

JMHO.

Maniac
 

realkingcobra

Well-known member
Silver Member
If there were 96 good players at the tournament, I don't see how 32 more will add a significant amount of spectators. There are only a handful (or two) of players that people come to see anyway. The rest are just there so the players they come to watch will have an opponent to play.

I would venture that around half the field nobody cares about, not to mention the ones that no one has ever even heard of.

Spectator pool died many years ago. It's going to take something revolutionary to bring the masses back....not 32 extra players.

JMHO.

Maniac

But.....32 more players throws another $16,000 into the prize fund, and that's the real morel of the story.
 

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
No, what he's trying to say is that those who can't win are demanding the rules be changed to give them more chances at the table or they won't pay their entry fees to the bigger events, which is NEEDED in order for the better players to earn some kind of money to buy something to eat, because they can't earn a living off the added money.

Those same lesser players are the same ones that restrict the pros from playing, or handicap the hell out of them from competing in their smaller local tournaments.

The appeal of winner breaks is seeing packages ran.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, because the best players will still end up at the top.

Below are some of this year's events that were alternate break and the top 3.



WPA World 10-Ball

1. Ko Ping Chung
2. Joshua Filler
3. Ko Pin Yi


China Open

1. Wu Jia-Qing
2. Anton Raga
3. Shane Van Boening


WPA Players Championship

1. Kevin Cheng
2. Carlo Biado
3. Chang Yu Lung
 
Last edited:

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Dear Pat:

The just concluded All Japan Championship had a really good racking concept. Check it out on youtube.

I think the balls should all be random, including the 2. What they did is super easy, quick, and random.

Time stamp is 43.29 if the link doesn't take you there (or the beginning of every rack)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHGHYm1pTM

Edit, they took the video down:(
Anyway, what the players did, is scoop all the balls with their arms tight to the end rail, in a straight line. While they did this, they were looking forward, and not at the balls. Now, the balls are in a straight line against the end rail, and in a random order. They pick the 1 out, put it on the spot. Then from the outside, they take the outer ball on each end in each hand, and place them on the second row. Then put the 10 on the spot. Then take the outer balls from the row in each hand and place on their respective side on the 10. Now, 4 balls remain on the end rail, and they shove them all forward in the same order into the back row.
 
Last edited:

Maniac

2manyQ's
Silver Member
But.....32 more players throws another $16,000 into the prize fund, and that's the real morel of the story.


"I decided to lower the entry fee to $500, increase the field, and announce alternate breaks. The purpose is to draw more players, which will draw more spectators"

He specifically stated on his post quoted above that the purpose was to draw more players which, in turn, will draw more spectators. Did you not read that part, John? My post was about the probability of getting more spectators. It had ZERO to do with prize funds.

And....where do mushrooms fit into all of this???

Geez Louise X 3

Maniac (done here)
 
Last edited:

realkingcobra

Well-known member
Silver Member
"I decided to lower the entry fee to $500, increase the field, and announce alternate breaks. The purpose is to draw more players, which will draw more spectators"

He specifically stated on his post quoted above that the purpose was to draw more players which, in turn, will draw more spectators. Did you not read that part, John? My post was about the probability of getting more spectators. It had ZERO to do with prize funds.

And....where do mushrooms fit into all of this???

Geez Louise X 3

Maniac (done here)

What is the value of spectators VS the value of players?
 
Top