8, 9, 10 ball racking & breaking conflict resolved

[TWOFORPOOL]

i personally don't like this idea at all. you have taken god knows how much practice time i've put into breaking over the years and made it meaningless. the break, just like any other shot, is a skill shot. a high percentage of matches are won by the player with the better break.

I would have to agree. SVB would never like this! There are alot of people who spend hours developing a good break. Most average players can't get 20 MPH out of their break and control the cue ball. It takes great deal of skill to break 25+ MPH and control the cue ball at the same time. "Slopping a ball in on the break is a lame excuse. Does your tournament play "Call shot" 9 & 10 Ball?

I do like your ramdom racking and the way you do it. Great Idea!

 

[Clark_the_Shark]

I think you forget... Even if you hit the rack at 40mph and squat the cue ball directly in the center of the table, or soft break, a ball going in on the break still constitutes luck. His methods just remove the "luck" portion from the break and focus more on the skill of controlling the 1 ball position relative to the cue ball.

Also, you wouldn't believe how many people at first say "Man I wouldn't like that at all!" and they they play it and find that it's not so bad, just takes some getting used to. I know personally because I've asked many many people about it both before and after they played.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I ... Same with the wing ball going in. It also can be rigged to go every time.

If the rack is tight, the wing ball will go in over 90% of the time. Making the rack tight is not "rigging" it.

 

[enzo]

If the first break is decided by a lag, then the winner of the lag DID end up playing better.

{But this is why I dislike alternating breaks--a story for another day}

good point. my point really is though that this issue is not resolved, and never will never be. but these are definite improvements if you ask me-- that being said, we are pool players, and they will never catch on. or, maybe they will in 50 years or so.

 

[D-Rock]

the break shot is luck.....however, a good player with a good break knows how to increase their odds. They have learned to hit the rack hard to increase their luck while maintaining cb control. cb control on the break is easy, hitting it hard and maintaining it is not. good players also know when something isn't working to change it until it does, not just keep doing the same thing hopping for a different result.

i don't like the rule

 

[smoooothstroke]

It is fairly easy to rack in such a way that the 9 ball will head toward one of the corner pockets.The reason that people don't do this is that it may be thier oponent who gets to carom or combo the hanger after the break.With this format a player with rack knowledge but not a lot of runnout potential may be making a lot of early 9balls.

I thought that we solved the racking/breaking problem?Just don't play 9-ball.

 

[Celtic]

These rules would be the end of the hard break forever. The pros would soft break exclusively and the game would become far more controlled, and boring.

There is little wrong with the break in 8-ball and 10-ball to begin with. The whole issue with the break shot exists pretty much solely within 9-ball and with 10-ball being such a similar game yet with the majority of the existing issues of 9-ball removed I don't see the need for this new rule set to further muddy the waters of our already muddy as hell sport.

Want to fix the breaking issues? Play 10-ball, there, problem solved. People in the USBTC this week were racking their own and playing hard breaks and having the exact success/failure rate this sport should strive for and I saw no pattern racking or soft breaking at all. The same goes for 8-ball, even Thorsten mentioned in the chat how he is not aiming to make any specific ball and instead aims to make solid contact and control the cueball and let fate decide what takes place from there.

Thus, it is not broken so why the heck try to fix it with something like this that will just create gimmick breaks which I guarentee will happen with the breaker not requiring to pot a ball on the break anymore. A break designed to control the 1-ball and cueball will be figured out in the first week and every single pro will be doing it in no time.

 

[Celtic]

I wasn't going to say anything, but I feel I must. First, I'm really surprised that John likes this format. I really don't. The break shot is a learned shot just like any other shot. The push after the break is also a learned shot. Learned shots should be rewarded.

Getting a free shot after the break when nothing drops totally changes the game. I can break to make a ball, or I can break to just get a wide open spread, TOTALLY controlling the one and the cueball. For a run out player like John S., that means set is over. So, now, you have to go to alternate break. Now your skill at running out is penalized so the other guy that isn't as good as you gets to play too. Doesn't make any sense to me.

I agree with Neil on this topic. I just thought I would mention that since it is a rare spawn.

 

[Neil]

................

 

[Paul Schofield]

Eight-Ball, Ten Ball

Celtic said: "There is little wrong with the break in 8-ball and 10-ball to begin with."

I am of the opinion that break issue looms largest in Eight-Ball. Here we have a called shot game and the breaker is required to slop a ball in order to get his first shot. This just defies all logic and is not in keeping with intent of the overall rules of the game. Alternate breaks and remove the ball on the break requirement.

Where Ten-Ball is concerned: The game is young. Give it time. The same problems that we have with Nine-Ball are already beginning to emerge in Ten-Ball. Alternate breaks and remove the ball on the break requirement.

 

[Celtic]

I am of the opinion that break issue looms largest in Eight-Ball. Here we have a called shot game and the breaker is required to slop a ball in order to get his first shot. This just defies all logic and is not in keeping with intent of the overall rules of the game.

It is perfectly in keeping with the rules of the game. The rules of the game state that the break is wild.

I am not sure how it is any more logical that a person shoots a shot in an 8-ball game, makes NO ball, and continues shooting. How is it that is any more "keeping with the intent of the overall rules"?

Where Ten-Ball is concerned: The game is young. Give it time. The same problems that we have with Nine-Ball are already beginning to emerge in Ten-Ball. Alternate breaks and remove the ball on the break requirement.

Umm, claiming something to be the case does not make it so. I have seen none of the same problems that we have in 9-ball emerging in 10-ball. I see the complete opposite, while rack mechanics continue to micromanage the 9-ball rack and try to work soft breaks 10-ball is seeing an increase in popularity as a tournament and money game amoungst the big breaking top players in the game like SVB, Orcullo, Pagulayan, Hatch, ect...

As I said, it is not broken, and you are trying to "fix" it. That usually results in screwing a good thing up.

And again, I don't see how shooting again after a dry break is somehow more in keeping with the overall rules of any pool game, you shoot and don't make a ball your opponent is now shooting. That is a very basic principle of any game of American pool.

 

[real bartram]

ive been saying this for 10 years. this is exactly how the games should be played in my opinion . nuff said

both players play the ghost like bowling.
you both play 11 games with the ghost.
thats a fair way to play.

 

[Celtic]

both players play the ghost like bowling.
you both play 11 games with the ghost.
thats a fair way to play.

Boring way to play though, there is zero safety play, no missing. It becomes a game of pure 100% offense and removes virtually all of the "thinking" aspects of the game. You destroy the balance between knowledge and skill. You reward those that fire at everything and you remove the ability for people who move well, such as an Oscar D type of player who uses his head and safety play to win many of his matches.

You don't even need to be in the same room as your opponent, just get TAR to set up two video cameras in two seperate cities and now Donny M can play against SVB while Donny is in Florida and SVB is in South Dakota, maybe they can trash talk each other on the chat, sounds thrilling.

 

[TSW]

Just throwing this out there:

What about removing the ball on the break requirement but also using the three balls past the center string requirement? That way the breaker still has to play a power break while controlling the 1 and the cue ball. If pros could soft break and not have to make a ball, the runouts would be too easy. Requiring a hard break at least makes them use the whole table to run out.

I'm of the "ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality but wanted to see what people think of this.

 

[MitchAlsup]

I am of the opinion that break issue looms largest in Eight-Ball. Here we have a called shot game and the breaker is required to slop a ball in order to get his first shot.

When I work on my 8-ball break, I can call the head ball and pot it in the side pocket 50%-odd of the time. About 80% of the time the head ball is rolling towards the pocket and gets deflected by some crap balls from the back of the rack.

So, what I would propose, is "breakers choice":
A: If the breaker calls a ball and pots it he gets to continue.
B: If the breaker does not call a ball, 4* object balls have to contact any of the rails and it automaticaly becomes the opponents turn after the break--even if a uncalled ball gets potted.
This returns the break to the same rules as the rest of the game are played under.

(*) maybe only 2 or 3 balls need to hit rails. The objective is to make inning continuance be determined only by the potting of a called ball in the called pocket.

 

[Celtic]

I'm of the "ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality but wanted to see what people think of this.

Just more rules to muddy up the waters even more. IMO this game needs to attempt to make/keep things simple if it is ever going to attract more of the general publics attention and "X balls past the headstring" or "8 balls must hit a rail" or other odd rules like that are too be avoided at all costs.

 

[patscue]

Three Elements Considered

Some comments from Pat Fleming:

With all due respect to those who oppose and those who embrace Paul Schofield’s new rules concept, allow me to make these comments about three of the most significant rules: the break shot, alternating the break, and racking the balls:

A player who has spent countless hours practicing his break shot probably will not like this format. If I had a great break, I wouldn’t either.

A promoter who has had great success with the traditional rules probably would not try this format. If I was that promoter, I wouldn’t either.

But I do think that we can all agree that after spending countless hours practicing, and a painful amount of money for entry fees, lodging, travel, and food, all that a contestant wants is a fair chance to show his skills.

Who hasn’t heard these complaints, even if they aren’t entirely true?
“Every time he made a ball on the break, he was dead out and every time I made a ball on the break, I was hooked.”
OR
“Every time I missed, he had an easy out, and every time he missed, I never had anything.”

The breaker shooting after the break and alternating the break can make that expensive trip more palatable.

A common complaint by nearly everyone is that it takes too long to rack the balls in 9-ball. Allowing the breaker to rack speeds up that process.

Nearly everyone likes close matches. Alternating the break promotes close matches.

Schofield’s format is merely an option. It’s does not have to replace the traditional rules of 9-ball. It is another option. In time, there will be adequate trials to determine if this format is viable. If Schofield’s format is embraced by some promoters, trust me, it will get sorted out very quickly, and only the strong (formats) will survive. Time will provide all of the answers.

In closing, personally, I think Paul’s new rules are in the game’s best interest. Given a chance, I think his format will bring more players into the tournament arena. Time will tell, but I’m betting on it.

Pat Fleming
Accu-Stats Video Productions

 

[Celtic]

Nearly everyone likes close matches. Alternating the break promotes close matches.

The most critical thing to me is for the match resuts to reflect the skill of the two players.

Roger Federer SHOULD beat Joe the plumber 6-0 6-0 6-0.

Roger Federer and Nadal? Those guys should be in a tight close match.

The last thing pool should aim to do is make Joe the Plumber and Thorsten Hohmann suddenly have a close match. This is one of the key problems this sport has had for as long as I have been playing it, the relative ease of the game not allowing the cream to properly rise to the top. Any one of the top 50 players in the world are almost an equal threat to beat each other in the traditional race to 9 or race to 11 and thus this sport never has a chance to see the rise of it's Tiger Woods who dominates the sport and grabs the attention of some of the general public who had previously not paid much attention to pool.

The #1 player in the world SHOULD beat the #50 player in the world and the match should truly NOT be that close. It does not help this sport that the way the tournaments are run and matches are decided the best player in the tournament has a small chance of beating the field. When Orcullo is playing Yang yes the match should be a close one. When either of those guys is playing a shortstop, no we should not be aiming to make it a close match and give the lesser skilled player a better chance to win the match despite their lower skill level.

I cannot say enough how much the above has hurt, not helped this sport in the entire time I have played it. This sport needs to make very clear that the Efren's and SVB's of this sport are a step above the second teir and the matches and way the winner in this sport is determined needs to clearly show this. The LAST thing you want to do is go towards the opposite.

 

[cuetechasaurus]

Or you just switch to Ten Ball and you don't have to worry about making these stupid rules in the first place.

 

[timseal]

I'm with those that say "forget 9-ball, play 10-ball instead".

That doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon, at least until the US Open switches to 10-ball. These rules look a bit weird, but a lot better than the idiocy that requires three balls past the head string or in a pocket. You can make a ball off the break and not get to shoot?!? WTF?

Winning by two clear racks is probably a decent idea, with or without these rules. It even makes for a more exciting finish than hill-hill, in my opinion.

Oh by the way, Paul, one minor point: what would you do on tables with a ball return?