Alternate break is ruining pool
- Thread starter Hobo
- Start date
The most excitng match is when loser breaks and each player runs out.
Then you get to see TWO 6 packs or whatever with a close score that makes spectating fun!
Maybe making spectating fun might draw in more money for pool?
Jeff Livingston
Perhaps you like to watch boxing matches where they have to take turns throwing punches.
Not a good comparison. Boxers don't sit while their opponent does his thing, until he misses a punch and then gets to be punched.
Look at ANY POPULAR sporting match in games other than pool. Is there any of this "scorer (or winner of a game in a match) shoots again"? No. For a reason. It's boring as hell to at least half of the spectators, if there would many spectators....wait, you don't suppose that pool with almost zero spectators....nah...couldn't be....
Jeff Livingston
Looks like you're more interested in watching an exhibition rather than a competition.
If you want to see your favorite player shoot that is.
Notice the premise here - "favorite player"
We all have favorites, but I love the game, not necessarily players.
If my favorite player lost the lag and sat the entire game, I'd LOVE That.
Because that means I got to watch his opponent play an amazing, world-class performance of total excellence. I want to see amazing play, pool at its finest. Played the way its meant to played. To see something beautiful, awesome, powerful.
Are there boxing matches where once one boxer has thrown a punch he gets to throw as many as he likes until he misses with no return from his opponent?
Winner breaks has its supporters and it also has its advantages. That doesn't make it the best thing for pool. I've played winner breaks and I will play it again and it has its place but, in my opinion, alternate break is the only valid option in tournament pool. It's also backed up by solid reasoning. I'm yet to hear an argument for winner breaks that has any kind of internal logic. "I prefer winner breaks so I will construct some half baked argument to support it" just doesn't fly.
Yeah, nothing more exciting than watching ONE Person play in a TWO Person match.
If it was football, for example that had scorer gets the ball again:
Hey, New England made a touchdown....I can't wait to see them do it again and make it a 6-pack! Who were they playing? I dunno
Jeff Livingston
You must hate straight pool then
Usually your logic is flawless, but it is not here. Bad analogy
Think more along the lines of volleyball - if every point alternated serve.....it would be harder to tell who the better team was
Then watch the best player in the world practice. There ya go, beauty and awesomness. No charge, either. No competition for lurkers' seating, either.
I cannot imagine a more boring afternoon than watching someone in a "match" not play. I'd certainly never return to buy another ticket.
In high skool, our football team lost 98 - 6 to the best team in the State. But at least after every touchdown by the opponent, our team got a chance with the ball, too, so that made it a game, not an exhibition. Imagine how exciting it would be if the better team got the ball for the whole game and the score was 200 - 0. ooooooo, excitement and awsomeness...NOT.
Until pool gets out of this mystical universe, it ain't goin' nowhere.
Jeff Livingston
Yes.... every boxing match ever
Alternate break would be like......once you land a solid left hook, you have to stop and allow your opponent time to recover....you can't beat them into submission
alternate breaks ruins the flow of watching a pool match imho. it was amazing to me to watch Efren, archer, and earl to run 4-6 packs and it would be done in 20 minutes or even way less. each rack being run was just mesmerizing to watch.
matches where a guy like say earl is running a 5 6, 7, etc packs. sure proponents of alternate breaks would say this sucks as the opponent has no chance. 2 things:
1) when a high ranked pro is running that many packs, that is akin to mike trout hitting home runs in a game. does not happen as one might think.
2) a lot of times top pros with great breaks will play during the whole entire day when they make no balls on the break or make 1 or 2 and have a crappy leave. so what does someone who is alternate break supporter say to this?
if a pro is playing someone who is below his level my a smidge, for gambling purposes then yeah alt breaks. tournaments hell no..
matches where a guy like say earl is running a 5 6, 7, etc packs. sure proponents of alternate breaks would say this sucks as the opponent has no chance. 2 things:
1) when a high ranked pro is running that many packs, that is akin to mike trout hitting home runs in a game. does not happen as one might think.
2) a lot of times top pros with great breaks will play during the whole entire day when they make no balls on the break or make 1 or 2 and have a crappy leave. so what does someone who is alternate break supporter say to this?
if a pro is playing someone who is below his level my a smidge, for gambling purposes then yeah alt breaks. tournaments hell no..
Maybe your favorite player should get better at the lag then. Anyway...how often does a player run out the whole set...especially without the soft break...eventually he will get an unlucky kick or something and give up the table. Now your player has his chance, and no excuses if he can't make good with it.
These comparisons to other sports or games are flawed.
Pool is a turn based game. Only one player plays at a time.
The other player plays when the other guy's turn is over due only to the actions of that player. A turn is over when you miss or play safe.
Somehow, thanks to pool socialists - winning a rack became the end of a person's turn? Why? That isn't a voluntary. That isn't a result of what that player did.
It is extremely illogical to attribute winning the rack, with a forced ending of a turn. That means the goal of the game also becomes a negative!!!!
This is a contradiction.
Making the 9-ball, is in effect, the same as missing a shot. You cannot continue your rightfully earned inning.
It just ends for you, and the other player gets a chance...why? They didn't earn it.
It was manufactured out of thin air. It's just the rules say so. Completely arbitrary. Based on nothing.
NOTICE that in pool ...there is only 1 time ever there is simultaneous play ---
The LAG.
That's everyone's 100% equal chance. That is fair. That is earned. After that, you deal with the consequences. You get a chance only if the other player misses or plays safe because they could not continue at the table.
Pool is a turn based game. Only one player plays at a time.
The other player plays when the other guy's turn is over due only to the actions of that player. A turn is over when you miss or play safe.
Somehow, thanks to pool socialists - winning a rack became the end of a person's turn? Why? That isn't a voluntary. That isn't a result of what that player did.
It is extremely illogical to attribute winning the rack, with a forced ending of a turn. That means the goal of the game also becomes a negative!!!!
This is a contradiction.
Making the 9-ball, is in effect, the same as missing a shot. You cannot continue your rightfully earned inning.
It just ends for you, and the other player gets a chance...why? They didn't earn it.
It was manufactured out of thin air. It's just the rules say so. Completely arbitrary. Based on nothing.
NOTICE that in pool ...there is only 1 time ever there is simultaneous play ---
The LAG.
That's everyone's 100% equal chance. That is fair. That is earned. After that, you deal with the consequences. You get a chance only if the other player misses or plays safe because they could not continue at the table.
Thanks for the compliment.
I don't ask for alternate breaks as that is as stupid as winner breaks, imho; I'm asking for loser breaks as that guarantees a match is played, not just an awesome exhibition. I like awesome exhibitions, too, but when I watch a match, I wanna see a match.
As for straight pool, perhaps its nature is why it is no longer a spectator sport. Really now, who wants to sit and watch only ONE player in a match? No one who watches matches for the match's sake, that's for sure.
I like to play straight pool for a while, but even then that gets boring, but not as boring as watching ONE player in a TWO player match.
All Im saying here, folks, is to see the majority's (those paying customers) opinions on such things and maybe, just maybe, pool could tap into that and make it a real sport again.
Jeff Livingston
Makes absolute sense!
Excellent analogy...it would be like in the ufc when you knock a guy down and are going in for some ground and pound and the ref stands you both up again.
Last edited:
You're starting to sound ridiculous. Must be nice to be a rack-runnin' winner break monster. Seriously, we get that you like winner break pool. Is your goal to change the minds of those on here that don't? Sounds like you've got the $$$$ so just go hunt down these rack-runners you admire and match-up. I'm out, later, gone with the wind.......................................................................
You've just ruined the lame argument for the "winner breaks" folks.
Now, imagine the first player running a rack, thus inspiring the opponent to do the same. repeat up til near the end of the race. Now THAT would be exciting!!!! People would pay to see that and would come back and pay again. Sure it is rare, but that's why it would be exciting, too.
Jeff Livingston
For me it's the other way round. A big pack is indeed impressive but I'd rather see two players slugging it out. For me that's more interesting and more intense. It's also fairer, purer and how games should be played.
I have one.
Bullshit, mikey.