From the title, you can see I loathe alternate break format.
Here's why:
1. I'm of the ideology that you're entitled to NOTHING. Alternate break entitles players to chances at the table they DID NOT EARN. Pool should have no hand outs.
In pool, you have two rights only: You have the right to lag. You have the right to remain at the table so long as you don't miss or lose the lag (or you play safe obviously).
Pool does have equal opportunity - at the lag. After that, you determine your opportunities. Everything is earned.
That's it.
The rest is tough cookies.
Every complaint about winner breaks is a poor excuse. Excuses that can be answered very easily with "next time" + "don't miss or F-up"
Alternate Break is in substance barely any more exciting than a postal match between two people playing the ghost.
2. It's awful for the fans / less exciting.
The big lie is that it's better for fans in that they can see their favorite super-stars play. This presumes of course that they are trying to avoid them getting blown out in winner breaks and not getting much table time for the fans. This is all about table time and appearances.
This is ludicrous and unsubstantiated.
Alternate break is like trench warfare. Grinding. It is slower and more tedious. Winner breaks is more exciting and generates more suspense.
In a race to 9, with the score 7-3 , with Alternate Break it's a done deal the vast majority of the time. Winner breaks it is not. A player can put up a 4, 5 or maybe even a 6 pack. This has happened. Keeping the outcome uncertain until the absolute very end. Alternate break is boring. Either one player pulls ahead at which point the outcome is almost completely certain, or they are neck and neck which is idiotic because that can also happen in winner breaks (see below) except you've removed the excitement of consecutive rack wins from the format.
3. Alternate Break supposedly produces closer races and results. The idea being without any one player stringing racks together without an answer -the score is closer and the match appears more competitive and therefore more interesting to fans.
Winner breaks has many hill-hill matches. Some go tit for tat the whole way. Other matches are blow outs. Others one player strings many racks, and the other answers with many racks.
This diversity in game flow is interesting. In a winner breaks tournament, you get it all. In Alternate Break, you get a grinding struggle all the time with the possibilities of: one player pulling ahead leading to an inevitable win, a tight match, and the much, much more rare one pulling a head, then the other player catching up.
4. Pool's natural structure accommodates winner breaks more than alternate break.
I've heard it argued that winning a rack in no way, shape or form implies or suggests a benefit or a bonus to the winner of the previous rack to allow them to break the next rack.
This is ridiculous and ignorant. Since forever, the competitive spirit, structure and nature of pool has been one that recognizes CONTINUITY. From 14.1 aka Straight Pool which was for decades and decades the game.
Conversely, using this argument's logic against itself - what favor, benefit or bonus to break should a LOSER of a rack get? To argue a winner of a previous rack has no merit to break the next, how can one argue that losing merits it?
Of course, they say it has nothing to do with merit, instead it's just setup so each player will get equal opportunity to play. Going back to #1 that there's no inherent equality in pool. Imagine 14.1 being played like that. Should each player get equal opportunity to run balls? They do, ONLY at the lag. Why then do the other games 8,9,10 ball have alternate break formats sometimes?
This suggests that because those games have a termination point which is the game-ball, that a natural breaking point in the game occurs where, simply because there's a reset to re-rack ALL the balls, there's an opening to give an opportunity to someone else to continue the inning. Allowing the other player to break. See #6
5. The break has a component of luck and randomness.
This is NOT Chess where the first move does come with a verifiable advantage. While in pool the break is advantageous - because of randomness and luck factor, it isn't treated as a guaranteed benefit to the breaker. Therefore, meriting the break after winning the previous rack isn't considered a lop-sided advantage, or unfair control given to the winner of the previous break.
A Chess player playing White cannot make the first move and come up dry, leaving Black full and instant advantage.
In Tennis, the serve is a clear advantage.
6. Pool is a turn based game, thought of as played in innings.
While "innings" technically don't matter by rule in games like 9-ball and have no meaning or significance, it is understood in pool that your turn ends only after you miss. In Alternate Break, your turn ends without you missing a shot or playing safe.
Some argue that doesn't matter. Your turn ended because the game ended. By that logic, why should another player's turn BEGIN because a new game begins?
Anyway - that's enough for now. I'd rather watch paint dry than watch Euro-style alternate break pool. Especially with all the slow pokes in the game. Beyond boring.
Here's why:
1. I'm of the ideology that you're entitled to NOTHING. Alternate break entitles players to chances at the table they DID NOT EARN. Pool should have no hand outs.
In pool, you have two rights only: You have the right to lag. You have the right to remain at the table so long as you don't miss or lose the lag (or you play safe obviously).
Pool does have equal opportunity - at the lag. After that, you determine your opportunities. Everything is earned.
That's it.
The rest is tough cookies.
Every complaint about winner breaks is a poor excuse. Excuses that can be answered very easily with "next time" + "don't miss or F-up"
Alternate Break is in substance barely any more exciting than a postal match between two people playing the ghost.
2. It's awful for the fans / less exciting.
The big lie is that it's better for fans in that they can see their favorite super-stars play. This presumes of course that they are trying to avoid them getting blown out in winner breaks and not getting much table time for the fans. This is all about table time and appearances.
This is ludicrous and unsubstantiated.
Alternate break is like trench warfare. Grinding. It is slower and more tedious. Winner breaks is more exciting and generates more suspense.
In a race to 9, with the score 7-3 , with Alternate Break it's a done deal the vast majority of the time. Winner breaks it is not. A player can put up a 4, 5 or maybe even a 6 pack. This has happened. Keeping the outcome uncertain until the absolute very end. Alternate break is boring. Either one player pulls ahead at which point the outcome is almost completely certain, or they are neck and neck which is idiotic because that can also happen in winner breaks (see below) except you've removed the excitement of consecutive rack wins from the format.
3. Alternate Break supposedly produces closer races and results. The idea being without any one player stringing racks together without an answer -the score is closer and the match appears more competitive and therefore more interesting to fans.
Winner breaks has many hill-hill matches. Some go tit for tat the whole way. Other matches are blow outs. Others one player strings many racks, and the other answers with many racks.
This diversity in game flow is interesting. In a winner breaks tournament, you get it all. In Alternate Break, you get a grinding struggle all the time with the possibilities of: one player pulling ahead leading to an inevitable win, a tight match, and the much, much more rare one pulling a head, then the other player catching up.
4. Pool's natural structure accommodates winner breaks more than alternate break.
I've heard it argued that winning a rack in no way, shape or form implies or suggests a benefit or a bonus to the winner of the previous rack to allow them to break the next rack.
This is ridiculous and ignorant. Since forever, the competitive spirit, structure and nature of pool has been one that recognizes CONTINUITY. From 14.1 aka Straight Pool which was for decades and decades the game.
Conversely, using this argument's logic against itself - what favor, benefit or bonus to break should a LOSER of a rack get? To argue a winner of a previous rack has no merit to break the next, how can one argue that losing merits it?
Of course, they say it has nothing to do with merit, instead it's just setup so each player will get equal opportunity to play. Going back to #1 that there's no inherent equality in pool. Imagine 14.1 being played like that. Should each player get equal opportunity to run balls? They do, ONLY at the lag. Why then do the other games 8,9,10 ball have alternate break formats sometimes?
This suggests that because those games have a termination point which is the game-ball, that a natural breaking point in the game occurs where, simply because there's a reset to re-rack ALL the balls, there's an opening to give an opportunity to someone else to continue the inning. Allowing the other player to break. See #6
5. The break has a component of luck and randomness.
This is NOT Chess where the first move does come with a verifiable advantage. While in pool the break is advantageous - because of randomness and luck factor, it isn't treated as a guaranteed benefit to the breaker. Therefore, meriting the break after winning the previous rack isn't considered a lop-sided advantage, or unfair control given to the winner of the previous break.
A Chess player playing White cannot make the first move and come up dry, leaving Black full and instant advantage.
In Tennis, the serve is a clear advantage.
6. Pool is a turn based game, thought of as played in innings.
While "innings" technically don't matter by rule in games like 9-ball and have no meaning or significance, it is understood in pool that your turn ends only after you miss. In Alternate Break, your turn ends without you missing a shot or playing safe.
Some argue that doesn't matter. Your turn ended because the game ended. By that logic, why should another player's turn BEGIN because a new game begins?
Anyway - that's enough for now. I'd rather watch paint dry than watch Euro-style alternate break pool. Especially with all the slow pokes in the game. Beyond boring.
