A new 9-ball break format

DaWizard

DaWizard

Well-known member
There has been a lot of discussion about the 9-ball break. I got another wack from a windmill and came up with a idea and curious what y'all think of it.

We've got 2 players: player A and player B. Let's call them Alfred and Jim.

Step 1: rack balls in this shape, they can be racked randomly. Player A breaks in whatever way he likes, but at least 2 object balls must hit a rail, otherwise it's a re-rack. Any pocketed ball remains off the table.
Step 2: take the cue ball off the table, or from a pocket if the player scratched on the break.
d6d52.png


Step 3: player B can place the 9 anywhere on the table.
Step 4: player A can place the cue ball anywhere on the table.
Step 5: player B can take the shot or leave it to his opponent (like a push out)

I can't really wrap my hand around what will happen. Perhaps it will be a bit interesting when placing the balls, then 1 or 2 shots are made and it's business as usual?
 
dquarasr said:
Why? What problem is this idea trying to solve?
Click to expand...
Good question. It tries to solve "players figuring out the break". Before the break box 9-ball had gotten a little stale because players would break and get an easy lay out all most the time. With the break box this has gotten better, but it's seems like they're figuring it out again. Got to say it IS a skill and I would commend anyone who does get an edge doing just that. But the break has been and still is a little problematic, so that's why.
 
Cuedup said:
It's amusing to me that "they" are always trying to fix 9 ball , because its such a miserable game but the thought of abandoning altogether is somehow crazy.
Click to expand...
Abandoning 9-ball or the break?

Well to me.. I think pool is in the phase of boardgames in the 90's. We've got Monopoly, Risk, Scrabble... amazing classics. But at some point people started creating new games with new mechanisms, based on modern game principles. That resulted in boardgames being a nerdy niche hobby to a huge mainstream boom. There are differences, sure, like not needing to have a pool table or pool being a skill game/sport. Yet still I believe that innovation in pool has not been adequately explored.

Anyone who likes to do so (in a serious manner) is welcome to join me:

https://forums.azbilliards.com/forums/cuesports-rules-strategies.94/

I don't think I will be the one to come up with THE new game. But I welcome anyone to cocreate, inspire and test. Lets risk making a fun new poolgame!
 
Or with winner breaks, have the opponent rack.

Allow the racker to put the one ball above the spot and inch or below the spot an inch.

But I don't think anything's gonna change too much, other than maybe making the break box Smaller.
 
9 ball is 9 ball. I always say the "fix" to 9 ball issues is to play 10 ball. No fiddling with the rules has made 9 ball much better than it was since the 80s when they started to use the texas express rules with ball in hand and one push out after the break.

Every single idea has flaws. Winner breaks, not fair to the other guy but sure is fun to see multiple racks run and seeing a big possible comeback by the other guy. Alternate breaks, fair to both people but very punishing for a bad luck on a break where you are then trying to fight back by losing server, and hard to come back from being behind. 9 on the spot, 1 ball is easier to make and players still manage to make the corner ball. 1 on the spot, same thing, corner ball is easier to make and the 1 can still be aimed for the side.
 
hang-the-9 said:
No fiddling with the rules has made 9 ball
Click to expand...
will result in 9-ball being a better game.
hang-the-9 said:
much better than it was since the 80s when they started to use the texas express rules with ball in hand and one push out after the break.

Every single idea has flaws.
Click to expand...
But 9-ball is replete with flaws all of its own.
hang-the-9 said:
Winner breaks, not fair to the other guy but sure is fun to see multiple racks run and seeing a big possible comeback by the other guy. Alternate breaks, fair to both people but very punishing for a bad luck on a break where you are then trying to fight back by losing server, and hard to come back from being behind. 9 on the spot, 1 ball is easier to make and players still manage to make the corner ball. 1 on the spot, same thing, corner ball is easier to make and the 1 can still be aimed for the side.
Click to expand...
 
Mitch True.....

But MR see's this game from a perspective that we are not yet able too.
They understand the animal, they've proven it with snooker players who have a life and a wife and a house and a Benz.

Camel didn't work (could a, but cigarettes were in play.)
PCA didn't work, and the Don Mackey group also failed.
They were All devised with pool player minds, not businesspeople with a long-term plan.
MR figured out Snooker somewhat they said.... they figured out darts, and realized this 9 ball nich sport has something that might work.
The demographic world wide it's HUGE compared to Darts and Snooker.

I think it's better for us to offer Options and alternative Ideas than our Opinions.
They do hear us on AZ sometimes and their actions have proven that.

bm
 
MitchAlsup said:
will result in 9-ball being a better game.

But 9-ball is replete with flaws all of its own.
Click to expand...

Except that it hasn't gotten better, has it? How many rule changes have been gone through, mostly in the breaking area, in the past 10 years? A dozen? Every rule change has 50% complaining about it and 50% saying it's good. Really the judges should be the players that have to compete under those rules. The best way to play 9 ball on the pro stage is to play 10 ball. Or make it called shot, but that would take out the chatter and clapping from the un-educated.
 
Ten ball fixes nothing. The ten-ball break is just as broken. As a game, ten ball is a little harder but will remain less fan friendly as long as it remains call shot with golden breaks don't count. When it's ten-ball last, as it sometimes is, it's even less fan friendly. There is no evidence of any kind that ten ball produces worthier champions than nine ball.

What's needed now is consistency and if the current Matchroom break rule remains unchanged for an entire year, it will be grounds for celebration. The time for tweaking has past. At long last, players need not scramble to find out the break rule that will be in use in the next Matchroom event. That serves the interests of fans and players alike.
 
sjm said:
What's needed now is consistency and if the current Matchroom break rule remains unchanged for an entire year, it will be grounds for celebration. The time for tweaking has past. At long last, players need not scramble to find out the break rule that will be in use in the next Matchroom event. That serves the interests of fans and players alike.
Click to expand...
I agree, consistency is needed. We all have our preferences but I think the game at the elite pro level is fine now (although it is still healthy to have continuing discussions about the rules - this happens in all sports and there is actually far more controversy in badminton at the moment). With the number of events now on the world tour, any deficiencies in a race to only 9 winner breaks in the early rounds means that one of the best players also has to be one of the unluckiest ever if they never go deep in a major - and while everyone would trade in all their trophies for just one World Championship or US Open, there is now plenty of gold for everyone who has a shot at it. It also looks like a good move in the World Pool Masters to go back to 16 players and have races to 9, 11 and 13.
 
Swighey said:
I agree, consistency is needed. We all have our preferences but I think the game at the elite pro level is fine now (although it is still healthy to have continuing discussions about the rules - this happens in all sports and there is actually far more controversy in badminton at the moment). With the number of events now on the world tour, any deficiencies in a race to only 9 winner breaks in the early rounds means that one of the best players also has to be one of the unluckiest ever if they never go deep in a major - and while everyone would trade in all their trophies for just one World Championship or US Open, there is now plenty of gold for everyone who has a shot at it. It also looks like a good move in the World Pool Masters to go back to 16 players and have races to 9, 11 and 13.
Click to expand...
Very well said.
 
Why change the game? Learn how to break correctly and learn how to map out 3 shots ahead. If you can't break, we don't need to change the game because of it. Why do you think Shane does nothing but breaks for 2 hours at a time?
 
PoolIsScience said:
Why change the game? Learn how to break correctly and learn how to map out 3 shots ahead. If you can't break, we don't need to change the game because of it. Why do you think Shane does nothing but breaks for 2 hours at a time?
Click to expand...
This ignores the fact that the break rules have already been changed time and time again. With the development of the "soft break", rules were changed because a particular break gave a player who had mastered it a huge advantage. Rather than encouraging everyone to master it, tournament organisers instead chose to make the game "fairer". This is why we still see tournaments switching between triangles and templates, one or nine on the spot, break boxes, points rules or numbers of balls hitting the rail, etc. We would all like to seen some consistency but it's a reality that the rules are not quite where they should be yet. This is not just about pool, rules change in all sports over time to make those sports more balanced and to retain interest in them.

The "if you can't do it, too bad" kind of argument is akin to the one for winner breaks solely based on "the loser doesn't deserve to break" argument, which is a non-argument and also akin to being told in a bar that you aren't a pool player if you play a safety.

Yes, Shane breaks for 2 hours at a time to perfect his break. He would continue to do this if softer breaks were permitted and gave him an advantage, and will continue to do to it next time breaking rules change.
 
Anyone familiar with the game knows that the 9 ball game of today isn't the same 9 ball game of decades ago. It's been in a constant state of evolution and still hasn't settled on one rule set.
 
Swighey said:
This ignores the fact that the break rules have already been changed time and time again. With the development of the "soft break", rules were changed because a particular break gave a player who had mastered it a huge advantage. Rather than encouraging everyone to master it, tournament organisers instead chose to make the game "fairer". This is why we still see tournaments switching between triangles and templates, one or nine on the spot, break boxes, points rules or numbers of balls hitting the rail, etc. We would all like to seen some consistency but it's a reality that the rules are not quite where they should be yet. This is not just about pool, rules change in all sports over time to make those sports more balanced and to retain interest in them.

The "if you can't do it, too bad" kind of argument is akin to the one for winner breaks solely based on "the loser doesn't deserve to break" argument, which is a non-argument and also akin to being told in a bar that you aren't a pool player if you play a safety.

Yes, Shane breaks for 2 hours at a time to perfect his break. He would continue to do this if softer breaks were permitted and gave him an advantage, and will continue to do to it next time breaking rules change.
Click to expand...

Soft breaks, hard breaks, 9 on the spot, 3 past the head string...etc etc. You can change it all you want to, it will be figured out eventually, everytime. Everyone figured out how to break the 8 ball in consistently, yet that break from the side hitting the second ball is still allowed to this day. Hell the APA released a video promoting how to do so lol. RUN YOUR RACKS OUT AND STAY BREAKING. Or alternate breaks. Or change the game completely and the player with the higher percentage of balls made on break and balls made through the set is the winner.

Consistency pays off, and that's the biggest complaint of all players. "Billy keeps running out on me""Tommy 2 Fingers broke 4 balls in every rack and ran out on me""When can I shoot?" Not everyone should get a participation trophy. The whole reason to play is get better and stay consistent. If it's not, why play?
 
PoolIsScience said:
Not everyone should get a participation trophy. The whole reason to play is get better and stay consistent. If it's not, why play?
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. But I'm not sure how this is relevant to a discussion about whether or not the rules of the game, in this case related to the break, should stay the same or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top