Alternate break is ruining pool

Hobo

Banned
I'm glad at the derby they stick with winner breaks. Anyway, on that note...what happened to 5 and 6 packs...or even 3 and 4 packs? I think I saw one 2 pack in this match. Who are these guys? Is the Derby an open? I should be guaranteed in the money with that crowd. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL_LguXG1BY
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm glad at the derby they stick with winner breaks. Anyway, on that note...what happened to 5 and 6 packs...or even 3 and 4 packs? I think I saw one 2 pack in this match. Who are these guys? Is the Derby an open? I should be guaranteed in the money with that crowd. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL_LguXG1BY
Pick one you like and i'll stake 'em against you. Seriously, do you expect guys to put 5's and 6's together on pro-cut Diamonds??
 

Dimeball

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Seems that it has reduced focus. Players are getting used to short breaks and are having trouble putting long packages together. I did see SVB put together 3 or 4. Gambling matches aren’t what they used to be either.
 

Hobo

Banned
Seriously, do you expect guys to put 5's and 6's together on pro-cut Diamonds??

Ya...because even a B player can put together a 2 pack on occasion...and pretty common for an A player. What are the Derby tables...Pro Am 4 1/2 pro cut pockets or 4 1/4? Can anybody confirm?
 

Hobo

Banned
Seems that it has reduced focus. Players are getting used to short breaks and are having trouble putting long packages together. I did see SVB put together 3 or 4. Gambling matches aren’t what they used to be either.

Exactly! I think the alternate break has destroyed the players rhythm. Granted the 90's had buckets...but you would see 3 and 4 packs regularly.
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In shorter races, to 5 or so, I can see the merit of alternate breaks.

Winner breaks has its problems too. You will never make everyone happy. Somebody will always have a bi**h. I think it give a little variety to the game. There might be a tournament come along that has loser breaks.

We have local tournaments that has loser of rack breaks and it works well. But we only have races to 3 in that one. Nothing wrong with it. Just something a little different. A little spice added.
 

Hobo

Banned
In shorter races, to 5 or so, I can see the merit of alternate breaks.

Winner breaks has its problems too. You will never make everyone happy. Somebody will always have a bi**h. I think it give a little variety to the game. There might be a tournament come along that has loser breaks.

We have local tournaments that has loser of rack breaks and it works well. But we only have races to 3 in that one. Nothing wrong with it. Just something a little different. A little spice added.

The only argument against winner breaks...especially in shorter races is if the player runs out the set. Oh well...get better at the lag in that case...or the coin flip.
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
Exactly! I think the alternate break has destroyed the players rhythm. Granted the 90's had buckets...but you would see 3 and 4 packs regularly.

Contrary to popular opinion, the tournament tables in the 80's and 90's were not "buckets." We played the Sands Regency event on Rebco tables that had 4.5" pockets with deep shelves. The toughest tournament tables ever seen were the Peter Vitalie tables used at the Biltmore hotel in Los Angeles in 1987; 4" pockets with very deep shelves. Today's players would be crying if they had to play on them!

Like others here, I'm a proponent of winner breaks. It is exciting to see a player get on a roll and run some racks. That's what made Earl so hard to beat. He was constantly hitting people with five and six rack runs. What was equally as exciting was seeing a player come back from a large deficit with a few racks of their own strung together. That's when pro Pool was a real shootout. Kind of like bowlers needing to string strikes to win. And it's a lot harder to break and run a rack of 9-Ball then it is to make a strike.

There is no reason not to play winner breaks in Ten Ball! It's not easy to put racks together at this game, unless your name is Shane. :D
 

Swighey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The only argument against winner breaks...especially in shorter races is if the player runs out the set. Oh well...get better at the lag in that case...or the coin flip.

If you win the lag in the alternate break format then you can still run out the set.....by winning every time you break. This strengthens the aforementioned "only argument" against winner breaks by making it redundant.
 

Hobo

Banned
Contrary to popular opinion, the tournament tables in the 80's and 90's were not "buckets." We played the Sands Regency event on Rebco tables that had 4.5" pockets with deep shelves. The toughest tournament tables ever seen were the Peter Vitalie tables used at the Biltmore hotel in Los Angeles in 1987; 4" pockets with very deep shelves. Today's players would be crying if they had to play on them!

Ya I'll agree with you there...I used to play in a pool hall that had gold crowns...even with 5" inch pockets they were terrible to play on...I much prefer Diamond tables. All the pool halls around here are Diamonds now...and all the tournaments and leagues are on Diamonds...and rightly so. I probably wouldn't even enter a tournament that wasn't on Diamond tables now...well maybe Hard Times because I hear they have great food.
 
Last edited:

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Exactly! I think the alternate break has destroyed the players rhythm. Granted the 90's had buckets...but you would see 3 and 4 packs regularly.
Exactly. Most events in 80's-90's used tables with 4.75" corner pockets. B&R's of 4+ were fairly common. OP talks about 5's&6's(or more), well those have always kinda hard to come by regardless of pocket size. I saw ScottyTownsend come with a 7 on a GC(4.75") and watched Earl's video of the 10(11 actually) at CJ's. Earl also put a 10 on Danny Medina in Wichita back in the day. I didn't witness it but i had a couple of good friends that sweated that deal. Danny never got to hit the cueball. They flipped, Earl won and BAM, a 10pack.
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
Contrary to popular opinion, the tournament tables in the 80's and 90's were not "buckets." We played the Sands Regency event on Rebco tables that had 4.5" pockets with deep shelves. The toughest tournament tables ever seen were the Peter Vitalie tables used at the Biltmore hotel in Los Angeles in 1987; 4" pockets with very deep shelves. Today's players would be crying if they had to play on them!

Like others here, I'm a proponent of winner breaks. It is exciting to see a player get on a roll and run some racks. That's what made Earl so hard to beat. He was constantly hitting people with five and six rack runs. What was equally as exciting was seeing a player come back from a large deficit with a few racks of their own strung together. That's when pro Pool was a real shootout. Kind of like bowlers needing to string strikes to win. And it's a lot harder to break and run a rack of 9-Ball then it is to make a strike.

There is no reason not to play winner breaks in Ten Ball! It's not easy to put racks together at this game, unless your name is Shane. :D

I agree wholeheartedly with winner break...alternate break is a snowflake rule.

But I disagree vehemently with deep shelves....they are a disgrace.
I had a two-ball hanging on the jaw of a side pocket once...cue-ball was frozen on the
same long rail about a foot away....I could only see about an eight of an inch of the ball.
....that’s ridiculous.
And I’m not being whiny...I won the match easy....snooker background helped.
But when I play 9-ball, I want to play it on a pool table, not some wannabe snooker table.
 

Hobo

Banned
I agree wholeheartedly with winner break...alternate break is a snowflake rule.

But I disagree vehemently with deep shelves....they are a disgrace.
I had a two-ball hanging on the jaw of a side pocket once...cue-ball was frozen on the
same long rail about a foot away....I could only see about an eight of an inch of the ball.
....that’s ridiculous.
And I’m not being whiny...I won the match easy....snooker background helped.
But when I play 9-ball, I want to play it on a pool table, not some wannabe snooker table.


Ya that's ridiculous...Diamond has it figured out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG9CqK95U2E
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
If you win the lag in the alternate break format then you can still run out the set.....by winning every time you break. This strengthens the aforementioned "only argument" against winner breaks by making it redundant.

Instead of Willie Mosconi running 526, would you prefer that he has to give up the table
after running 50?
If I don’t miss at 9-ball, why should I have to give up the table?
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks! But it doesn't happen to mention pocket size.
Pro-cuts are 4.5". Did you watch Greg's video? Have you ever played on one? Pro-cut combined with the longer shelf makes for one tough table. Lot of balls jaw-up on them.
 

Hobo

Banned
If you win the lag in the alternate break format then you can still run out the set.....by winning every time you break. This strengthens the aforementioned "only argument" against winner breaks by making it redundant.

This isn't tennis where it boils down to holding serve...that's so boring. Pool is about stacking racks together.

The last thing I feel like doing after running a rack is handing over the break and taking a seat. You'd have to rip the cueball out of my hands. :)
Breaking is a privilege not a right.
 
Last edited:
Top