Breaking hard vs breaking well

[softshot]

I have asked on this forum many times for anyone to give me a legitimate explanation for the Johnny Archer style "smash them so hard you have to jump 3 feet into the air" break.

If a player as accurate as I am (I am not world class, not even close) can get huge spreads and consistently falling balls. at a fraction of the power and effort all while using my standard stroke.

what reason short of showing off does breaking hard do to improve the spread for anyone?

That is not intended as an insult to anyone. I would love it if one of the science nuts (Bob Jewett, Dr Dave, ect..) gave me concrete evidence that harder breaks have an advantage over an accurate break shot at half the speed.

For the purpose of my question only include 8,9,10 ball breaks, safety breaks don't count.

If I achieve 90% of my cue ball energy transfered to the rack, and a plastic tipped break cue at a zillion miles an hour sends 40% to the rack, 40% to making the cue ball jump to orbit and 20% wasted on the absurd body language. how much harder does one have to work to get the same energy to the rack compared with how much is wasted on "Flash"

The pro's must do it for a reason they put so much thought into every part of their game... is this simply tradition hampering their game .. or is their something I am just missing??

Why is the huge monster break given more respect than a more effective break that isn't as visually impressive?

 

[Masayoshi]

I have asked on this forum many times for anyone to give me a legitimate explanation for the Johnny Archer style "smash them so hard you have to jump 3 feet into the air" break.

If a player as accurate as I am (I am not world class, not even close) can get huge spreads and consistently falling balls. at a fraction of the power and effort all while using my standard stroke.

what reason short of showing off does breaking hard do to improve the spread for anyone?

That is not intended as an insult to anyone. I would love it if one of the science nuts (Bob Jewett, Dr Dave, ect..) gave me concrete evidence that harder breaks have an advantage over an accurate break shot at half the speed.

For the purpose of my question only include 8,9,10 ball breaks, safety breaks don't count.

If I achieve 90% of my cue ball energy transfered to the rack, and a plastic tipped break cue at a zillion miles an hour sends 40% to the rack, 40% to making the cue ball jump to orbit and 20% wasted on the absurd body language. how much harder does one have to work to get the same energy to the rack compared with how much is wasted on "Flash"

The pro's must do it for a reason they put to much thought into every part of their game... is this simply tradition hampering their game .. or is their something I am just missing??

Why is the huge monster break given more respect than a more effective break that isn't as visually impressive?

ideally youd want a hard and accurate break. given equal accuracy, a harder break should pocket more balls. most of the top pros have this hard break and a soft break, and a cut break, and maybe more so they can adjust to whatever situation arises.

 

[Snapshot9]

Basically

there is a tradeoff between speed and accuracy, but, for the most part, it is because:

1) Hard breaks have more excitement value, especially with the ballls flying all over the table and sinking into the pockets. Now, did you enjoy Alcano's soft break in the WPC more than, say, Jeff DeLuna's break in the WPC?

2) Hard breaks are 'tension relievers'.

3) With hard breaks, there is action, lots of action, and most hardcore players are 'action junkies' in one way or another, so
in a way, when they hard break, they get a 'little fix'.

 

[softshot]

given equal accuracy, a harder break should pocket more balls.

Why? because the balls bounce off each other more? increasing the number of random events in a series makes the final outcome less predictable, therefore less consistent.

To my mind the "perfect break" would be hard enough to send each ball to a nice small island on the table drop one or two and leave a nice easy runout. any speed above that reduces your chances of the optimal result. Due to unnecessary collisions.

 

[Drew]

Nobody has ever said that harder is better. Just look at Shane's break which isn't very hard at all but everyone agrees that it's one of the best breaks in the world.

 

[ShootingArts]

varies

As has already been said, the "best" break varies. Listening to Sigel and KT knock Karen Corr's softer break, while she was consistently pocketing a ball on the break and beating a man that wasn't, is a fine example of when harder wasn't better. However, if there isn't a slower shot that is consistently pocketing balls, if the table pockets accept balls hit hard, and if you aren't breaking safe, there is the simple advantage of a hard break that the more times balls hit the borders of the table, the more likely the spot that they randomly hit is going to be one of the six pockets.

I usually have to back way off on a bar table or the first balls to a pocket simply pop back out, costing me pocketed balls. The same medium hard break is rarely an issue on a nine foot table. There are days when having a hard break in your arsenal wins matches, there are days that it is counter productive. It is never bad to have one more option.

Hu

 

[ceebee]

I really can't say why folks think a smashing break is the answer to the most difficult shot in the game. Every shot in the game requires some position, to continue shooting, including the Break Shot.

I think a good ACCURATE 20-22 mph Break Shot (30+ feet per second), with control after impact, is sufficient. JMHO

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Masayosh:i
given equal accuracy, a harder break should pocket more balls.

softshot:
Why? because the balls bounce off each other more?

Yes, and because they bounce off more rails and travel farther, which means more will travel far enough to reach a pocket.

increasing the number of random events in a series makes the final outcome less predictable, therefore less consistent.

Not if the "final outcome" you're hoping for (a ball finding a pocket) can occur with any random event in the series - then you want as many random events as possible. If you want the best chance of a coin coming up heads once, you don't reduce the number of flips; you increase them.

pj
chgo

 

[softshot]

Yes, and because they bounce off more rails and travel farther, which means more will travel far enough to reach a pocket.



Not if the "final outcome" you're hoping for (a ball finding a pocket) can occur with any random event in the series - then you want as many random events as possible. If you want the best chance of a coin coming up heads once, you don't reduce the number of flips; you increase them.

pj
chgo

I see things a little differently. but hey you might be right... how do we find out?

To do it properly we would need a rig capable of hitting at hard break speed consistently, and the ability to hit at half that speed. I don't know exactly how that could be done, but I am working on a couple of Ideas.... suppose it could be done... what then are the criteria to determine a good break vs a bad break.. avg distance between balls? number of clusters? balls dropped would have to be factored in. how can this be tested? whats a fair measure?

 

[softshot]

--------------------

 

[PoolSponge]

I would say that players like Archer have simply been doing it for so long that is where they are most comfortable. These players have been doing that well before the Sardo and any other option which creates a rack conducive to a softer break. Plus, when you play the average events on average tables many times the rack can be tough (even with Joe Tuckers help) and the harder break can be what is required.

Besides, Archer still parks the CB in the dead centre more than most while crushing the pack. For over a decade he was toted as having the best break on the planet.

Breaking is a personal choice that needs to fit your comfort level. To each their own.

 

[Only ERO's]

I really can't say why folks think a smashing break is the answer to the most difficult shot in the game. Every shot in the game requires some position, to continue shooting, including the Break Shot.

I think a good ACCURATE 20-22 mph Break Shot (30+ feet per second), with control after impact, is sufficient. JMHO

I would agree. I think a 20-22 mph Break is a good speed because it is not overpowering. I have always had a powerful break and have used it. I agree with some of the other posts and that it is a quick "fix" and it pumps you up fast. I am guessing I am hitting my break at about 25-26 mph pretty consistently and making balls and having easy tables quite often.

 

[thefonz]

i don't think that having a REALLY hard break is the most important thing, but there is an advantage when you're playing on tables that aren't breaking easy. there are guys that hit them so rediculously hard (and well) they're always at least pocketing a ball. it sure does make life easier stringing racks together when you only have 6 balls to shoot(in 9 ball at least). and kind of demoralizing when you're on the other end of the rope....

 

[Cornerman]

I have asked on this forum many times for anyone to give me a legitimate explanation for the Johnny Archer style "smash them so hard you have to jump 3 feet into the air" break.

You have? Funny, it gets asked and answered a couple times a year. You'd think your questions would have been answered as well.

what reason short of showing off does breaking hard do to improve the spread for anyone?

It's important to be able to break them hard as well as break them accurately. Some tables and conditions will pocket more balls on a softer break. Some need a harder break. IMO, it's better to have all speeds and be able to adjust down, rather than to not have all the speeds when you need to adjust up.

That is not intended as an insult to anyone. I would love it if one of the science nuts (Bob Jewett, Dr Dave, ect..) gave me concrete evidence that harder breaks have an advantage over an accurate break shot at half the speed.

It's been answered over and over. An accurate break gives the highest energy transfer. But, high energy transfer doesn't in of itself make for a "good break."

The pro's must do it for a reason they put so much thought into every part of their game... is this simply tradition hampering their game .. or is their something I am just missing??

See paragraph #2.

Why is the huge monster break given more respect than a more effective break that isn't as visually impressive?

I also think what you've failed to see in using Johnny Archer's break as an example is that Johnny Archer is one of the most accurate breakers in the world. That coupled with the fact that he hits them very hard gives him the title of the best breaker in the 90's. He certainly knows how to slow his break down. Most of the top players do this. I think you're not giving them enough credit.



Fred

 

[Cornerman]

Nobody has ever said that harder is better. Just look at Shane's break which isn't very hard at all but everyone agrees that it's one of the best breaks in the world.

Shane is the current best studier of the game and has break speeds from slow to very powerful. He adjusts his break for the table conditions better than anyone.

Fred <~~~ thinks Shane's is the best ,not one of the best.

 

[Cornerman]

Some days its as easy as connect the dots... and some days it's trigonometry

Maybe on those days that it's like trigonometry, you needed to break the balls harder. Much harder.

Fred <~~~ IMO

 

[bigskyjake]

Breaking hard is cool, breaking harder is cooler. I'm talking breaking so hard that you leave a monster skidmark in your shorts, making a gutteral, manly noise when you contact the cue ball is cool too. Also, keeping it old school and breaking with your playing cue is the nuts too

 

[Scott Lee]

ceebee...I agree wholeheartedly with your post, with the exception of the 20-22 mph figure. You can break quite effectively with a 16-18 mph break. I give students the opportunity to have their break speed clocked with my radar gun, and RARELY has anyone (even the expert players) exceeded 20 mph.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I really can't say why folks think a smashing break is the answer to the most difficult shot in the game. Every shot in the game requires some position, to continue shooting, including the Break Shot.

I think a good ACCURATE 20-22 mph Break Shot (30+ feet per second), with control after impact, is sufficient. JMHO

 

[BVal]

ceebee...I agree wholeheartedly with your post, with the exception of the 20-22 mph figure. You can break quite effectively with a 16-18 mph break. I give students the opportunity to have their break speed clocked with my radar gun, and RARELY has anyone (even the expert players) exceeded 20 mph.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I broke at 15 to 16 mph and did just fine. When I tried to hit them as hard as I could my fastest its was 18mph. I think some people think they are hitting it harder/faster than they really are.

BVal

 

[Banks]

The better my breaks have gotten by hitting harder and more accurately, the tables have been easier to finish. When you're a ball or two speed behind someone else, that extra ball or two can make a huge difference, not to mention more 9s on the break. We don't all play on the best of equipment either.