Alternate Break or Winner Break

[Cameron Smith]

I don't see any merit to alternate breaks. It is boring to watch and come backs are next to impossible. For example Ronnie Alcano had World 9 ball Championship won by his 10th rack, there was no way Ralf would get back into it, regardless of how well he played. And yes I know Efren Reyes came back from 10-0 down, but just because it happens from time to time it doesn't mean it is not rare.

From a spectators stand point, alternate breaks removes the possibility of something truly awsome happening. A player breaking and running every one of their breaks in alternates break just isn't interesting enough. Winner breaks provides the possibility of 11 racks and out or something great like that.

I have seen very few matches where a player didn't get any chances. Usually regardless of what happens each player has an opportunity to do something.

Finally I would like to ask everyone, and I have asked this many times without anyone ever answering, how many times have you seen a player run out a match without the other having an opportunity?

 

[arsenius]

I used to play a weekly handicapped tournament where instead of 'loser breaks' it was 'losing player breaks.' Whoever was down got the break. If it was tied, the winner of the last rack got the break (because he had been loosing most recently). It was great for a handicapped tournament, because you always got a chance to shoot against a much better player and if you were way down, you could catch up.

 

[VIProfessor]

I strongly believe that winner breaks is the way to go, both for the player and the fans. Nine-ball, like straight pool, is a rhythm game, and not letting a player string racks together prevents a player from really getting in gear. There is no feeling like stringing a number of racks together under the heat of competition, and taking that out of the equation robs the game of much of its joy. The argument used by many, that winner breaks allows too much of an advantage to players with a strong break, just doesn't hold water for me. Isn't the break one of the components of the game? Nothing prevents players from developing a strong break, after all--it's not a matter of physical size or strength.

I also believe that winner breaks adds more pressure to the game and is a greater test of the players' ability to perform. In the winner breaks format, no lead is ever safe, and one is required to maintain concentration on every shot, because any mistake can potentially cost you the match against a strong player. As noted in an earlier post, the alternate break formats makes comebacks all but impossible in the later stages of the set unless one player practically falls down dead. How can that be good for the sport and for the fans?

I have never heard anyone complain that straight pool is unfair, although it is possible (in fact, more probable than in 9-ball), for a player to run out the entire match. What's next? Are we going to start limiting straight pool innings to 50 balls?

In the final analysis, winner breaks provides more opportunities for top players to really show their skills, it makes the game more pressure-packed, and it favors the stronger player. In my opinion, that's the way it should be.

 

[chefjeff]

My preference is not listed. Should be loser breakes.



"Writen by someone who loses to much."

I concur...just like almost every other game on planet earth.

Also written by someone who loses too much.

Jeff Livingston

 

[JimS]

I think it comes down to one simple principle: Whoever won the game earned the break. Period!

Every other aspect is arguable. This aspect is, in my view, not arguable.

 

[ScottW]

I'm a big fan of alternate break. Sure, it's neat to watch someone string rack after rack together - it's a beautiful thing to watch - but if the other guy has paid his money to play in a tournament, he should get a chance to PLAY.

 

[crosseyedjoe]

The reward to the winner and penalty to the loser of winner's break is very wide. This skews the competition (if there is a competition at all) to the person who won the lag.

Alternate break, is a truer race to the finish. Slow, but steady edging out your opponent.

But personally, I just don't want to see a player penalized without making any mistake. It just so happened his oppenent who won the lag strings rack after rack.

 

[rangoonkid]

For PRO events like the US Open.... Winner Breaks.
I love to see those guys string racks..... six packs are awesome.


For the weekend or monthly local tournaments.. I like the loser break format...

I always liked it when the 'losers' broke it wide open for the easy runout.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ditto...

 

[CaptainJR]

I think it comes down to one simple principle: Whoever won the game earned the break. Period!

Every other aspect is arguable. This aspect is, in my view, not arguable.

Certainly it is arguable. The winner won the money. He only wins the break if we agreed to play winner breaks. Who breaks has to do with the original arrangement not who won.

 

[CaptainJR]

There are several games where it is traditional to give the loser some sort of advantage in the next game. Checkers pops to mind right off. What are some others?

 

[Cameron Smith]

But personally, I just don't want to see a player penalized without making any mistake. It just so happened his oppenent who won the lag strings rack after rack.

Every sport is like that. One player gets on fire and the other just gets out played. Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick at the 2007 Australian Open comes to mind.

 

[CaptainJR]

Every sport is like that. One player gets on fire and the other just gets out played. Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick at the 2007 Australian Open comes to mind.

No Cameron, there are very few sports like that. I can't even think of one other than pool that a player can win and his opponent doesn't even get to play.

 

[01rkclassic]

About ten years ago in the PBT, races to 13, Roger Griffiths was behind 12-0, when he ran "12 racks back" and had weird scratch on the break of his 13th. His opponent ran the last rack!!! Most people still want to see the HOME RUNS when they go to the Ball Game.

good post's cbi1000 and ajrack,why should a player be penilized for playing great,i got beat by jeff futrell in a turney in myrtle beach,he ran five racks in a race to 7 miseed one shot then i ran the rack out and didn't make a ball on the break,i never got to the table again.i wasn't mad about losing,he played great and i shouldn't have missed.

 

[crosseyedjoe]

Every sport is like that. One player gets on fire and the other just gets out played. Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick at the 2007 Australian Open comes to mind.

But even Andy Roddick got to served.

 

[crosseyedjoe]

good post's cbi1000 and ajrack,why should a player be penilized for playing great,i got beat by jeff futrell in a turney in myrtle beach,he ran five racks in a race to 7 miseed one shot then i ran the rack out and didn't make a ball on the break,i never got to the table again.i wasn't mad about losing,he played great and i shouldn't have missed.

Alternate break doesn't penalized anyone, and noone is also rewarded.

Winner's break rewards one player and could very well penalize the other without making a mistake.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

I think i've stated it before.

9ball and 10ball are momentum games. In an alternate format, some players don't have the opportunity to "HEAT UP" and play to their best potential where in winners break formats, they can.

For those that don't like having the set run out on them, i propose a CAP of how many rack can be won in a row on someones break.

So for races to 11 or 13, maybe 5 racks and in shorter races like to 5 or 7, maybe 3.

Example would be Players A and B.

A wins the lag, and breaks and runs out 3 racks, before he/she comes up dry on the break. B steps up and runs out, and then breaks and runs 5 racks on top of that initial 1. Player B is then forced to give up the break to player A. Player A then breaks and runs 5 rack of his own, before he is forced to give the break back to player A...etc etc.

You can see where i'm going with this, but this might preserve the momentum/heating up factor, while still allowing the other player to have their turn figuring out the break mystery, before they get steamrolled.

 

[Scottster]

I think i've stated it before.

9ball and 10ball are momentum games. In an alternate format, some players don't have the opportunity to "HEAT UP" and play to their best potential where in winners break formats, they can.

For those that don't like having the set run out on them, i propose a CAP of how many rack can be won in a row on someones break.

So for races to 11 or 13, maybe 5 racks and in shorter races like to 5 or 7, maybe 3.

Example would be Players A and B.

A wins the lag, and breaks and runs out 3 racks, before he/she comes up dry on the break. B steps up and runs out, and then breaks and runs 5 racks on top of that initial 1. Player B is then forced to give up the break to player A. Player A then breaks and runs 5 rack of his own, before he is forced to give the break back to player A...etc etc.

You can see where i'm going with this, but this might preserve the momentum/heating up factor, while still allowing the other player to have their turn figuring out the break mystery, before they get steamrolled.

Ummm..... Do my replies show up when I post? I am not sure, because what you said sounds pretty familiar as to what I posted earlier in this topic.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Ummm..... Do my replies show up when I post? I am not sure, because what you said sounds pretty familiar as to what I posted earlier in this topic.

My bad

I didn't bother to read the posts early in the thread, and only read the last page when i posted. I didn't think anyone else would have that idea as the last time i posted it up, i was the lone voice.

I've had that notion in my head for 7 years or so, since they started favoring alternate break.

Oh well. It's still the best idea out there, regardless.

 

[Cameron Smith]

No Cameron, there are very few sports like that. I can't even think of one other than pool that a player can win and his opponent doesn't even get to play.

I didn't mean that in every sport a person can win without some one not getting any chance to actually play. What I meant was that in every sport it can happen that some one plays so well that the other gets completely out classed and beaten without ever making mistakes.

My reference to the Andy Roddick Roger Federer match, was to illustrate how Andy Roddick didn't play very bad at all, Roger Federer was just unbeatable at that point in time.

Again, yes there is the possibilty that someone can run out an entire match but HOW OFTEN DOES THAT HAPPEN. No one seems to want to answer this question.

If everyone is so worried about that possibility why don't tournaments officials make the matches too long for someone to run out, races to 11 are a good number. Its not an unatainable number but it'll be rare to see it run.

Why not a best two out of three sets?

If someone runs out an entire set, I would think that they deserve to win. Furthermore I don't understand why people are so interested in giving weaker players opportunities to beat better players.

 

[crosseyedjoe]

I didn't mean that in every sport a person can win without some one not getting any chance to actually play. What I meant was that in every sport it can happen that some one plays so well that the other gets completely out classed and beaten without ever making mistakes.

My reference to the Andy Roddick Roger Federer match, was to illustrate how Andy Roddick didn't play very bad at all, Roger Federer was just unbeatable at that point in time.

But the point is that even Andy Roddick gets to serve.

At least he has a chance to return the ball when Federrer is serving. In pool, all you can do is watch and pray that your opponent will miss.

If someone runs out an entire set, I would think that they deserve to win. Furthermore I don't understand why people are so interested in giving weaker players opportunities to beat better players.

Alternating break has nothing to do with giving a weaker player opportunities to win [it's actually the contrary, since we are talking about mostly top players]. It has something to do with giving both players an equal opportunity to play.