Buddy Hall - 9-Ball Rules

9 ball rules

9 ball on break spots at the end of players turn at table
alternate break
no jump cues allowed
call pocket for 9 ball
Texas express rules apply in all other situations

IMO if the luck factor is reduced to a minimum the best player on a given day will be the winner the vast majority of the time and not the luckiest player. Watching a player string racks is always exciting but if this is indeed what is desired then why not play 14:1 where one person is expected to do all the shooting. If football employed similar rules the team that scored a touchdown would keep receiving the kickoff until they failed to score. Think that would drive TV ratings or maintain interest for four quarters? Each player should get equal turns at the table IMO for it to be a viable contest. Eliminating the jump cue would bring artistic creativity back to the forefront of the game. Is it more exciting to watch someone jump over a ball(s) (many low skills players can do this quite well) or see Efren escape a well executed safe by using his creative kicks? How many great matches have gone hill-hill only to see the match determined by the 9 ball going on the break? The person breaking , obviously, is gratified but IMO his victory is tarnished. These are my opinions that are offered only in a constructive way as I will remain a fan in any event.
 
There is a weekly tournament in my area that is loser breaks, and I must say that I think it takes something away from the game. I understand the logic behind it: 9-ball is too easy, everyone can run out, so eliminate the packages and even out the opportunities by allowing the loser to break. The problem I have with it is that it virtually eliminates the possibility of a player making a big comeback, which is the single most exciting thing that can happen in a match, at least from a spectator standpoint.

If a player gets off to a slow start, and allows his opponent to get to the hill while he still needs 5 games, then it's nearly impossible for him to win from there playing loser breaks. Even playing perfect pool probably won't get him there, because his opponent is getting every single break for the rest of the set (despite his big lead), and will eventually B&R.... because the game is too easy and everyone can run out. I just think that, if the goal is to eliminate packages and create more of an equal opportunity situation, alternating breaks is a better solution.

Imagine loser breaks at the pro level, where 9-ball B&R's are so common. You'd be pretty much guaranteed to never see a dramatic comeback in a match ever again. When a match is all about establishing an early lead, and not so much about playing well at the end, it will become anticlimactic for the audience... and they're already not paying any attention.

As always, JMHO,
Aaron
 
Last edited:
predator said:
Whatever the rule set, I think the biggest problem is that we have races that are simply too short.
Races to 7 in 9ball? To 9? Come on, those guys are pro's!
10 ball won't solve anything because races are still too short at the championship level.

We need longer races. Best of 3 sets races to 15. No need for double elimination, single elimination would be just fine. Winner breaks, always. World championships do not need 128 participants. 32 of the very best is quite enough. And yes, the final of the world pool championships should last for two days, just like the final of world snooker championships.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you on the single elimination and longer races. I know some people get mad when this comparison is made but Tennis has been pretty successful with their format. They have long matches which is why you always see the better players still in the tournament, even though it is single elimination.
 
Black-Balled said:
The balls are racked at the foot of the table.

Have you been playing pool upside down all along?!:eek:
Click to expand...

Ooops...well, don't put it past me. :)
 
s0lidz said:
I have to agree with you on the single elimination and longer races. I know some people get mad when this comparison is made but Tennis has been pretty successful with their format. They have long matches which is why you always see the better players still in the tournament, even though it is single elimination.
Click to expand...

I like the single-elim, long-race format, but I like it better for seeded events. Having the #1 and #2 players going at it in the first round of a single-elim tournament is something I think you'd want to try to avoid. There is a luck factor to be considered as well. If I'm not mistaken, professional snooker uses a similar format.

Aaron
 
sjm said:
These changes would make nine ball more of a shotmakers game, and would make defense, kicking and two way shots far less important. Further, these changes would reduce the penalty for position poorly played. To me, defense, kicking and two way shots are the most interesting thing about nine ball, and players who hook themselves should pay the full penalty of having to kick, jump or masse. All the shotmakers want to go back to the rules that favored shotmakers the most, but a return to that game would remove many of the most imaginative shots and tactics from the game.

I grew up on push out nine ball, and found it far less interesting than Texas Express, both to play and to watch. A return to the old rules would certainly spell the end of my attendance at nine ball tournaments.

As our one pocket posters often point out, much of the majesty in one pocket is brought about by the fact that one can play offense and defense together, often employing creative use of billiard knowledge in the process. Texas Express nine ball offers the player the same options, but the old way of playing nine ball rarely does.

Some feel that the shotmakers version of nine ball is a greater test of skill, but to me, Texas Express nine ball requires a far more rounded skill set.

Both versions of nine ball have merit, but I'll always prefer Texas Express.
Click to expand...

You must like luck I think there is way to mush luck in the game the way it is now. I liked the old rules because the better player would actually win (in most cases) and that's the way a skill game should be played. With skill not luck.
 
Neil said:
I don't watch tennis, but I don't see how you can miss a shot in tennis and get rewarded for it. You can in pool. That's why it should be dbl. elim.
Click to expand...

The longer race addresses the problem of being rewarded for a miss. You don't lose a race to twenty because your opponent missed one shot and hooked you, especially if it is loser breaks or alternate breaks.
 
Pii said:
You must like luck I think there is way to mush luck in the game the way it is now. I liked the old rules because the better player would actually win (in most cases) and that's the way a skill game should be played. With skill not luck.
Click to expand...

No, I hate the luck that a player playing pushout nineball has when he/she hooks himself. He/she is very lucky to not play as great a penalty as he/she would if they were playing Texas Express. Those who make the most position play errors are lucky indeed if they are playing push out nine ball, a game that is far more forgiving to poor position players than Teaxas Express.

Your statement that the better player will win in the push out style is, in my view, false. The better shotmaker will win, but I am not conceding the point that the better shotmaker is the better pool player. There's far more to pool than making balls and running out and the players that master all the skills, including defense, kicking and two way shots are, to me, the best players and the ones deserving the greatest respect.

You can litigate the skills out of nine ball all you want and make it a shotmakers game, but once you do, don't call it a greater test of skill.
 
Buddy Hall 9 Ball Rules

I would like to see 9 Ball or 10 Ball played with roll out rules with one modification.

The person shooting the shot after a roll out MUST MAKE A BALL or their opponent will get ball in hand. This will take alot of luck out of one foul ball in hand rules.

I think Buddy Hall would like this since it brings back great shotmaking skills and more excitement into the game. The person who pushes out will have to leave the cue ball in a position to make the ball without leaving their opponent to easy of a shot.
 
Pushing out just seems weird to me, to be able to do that any time during the rack without taking a foul, as many times as you want, as long as it's not after another push. Maybe if you limited it to 1 push per player per rack it could help to combine the favorable aspects of TE & Pushout.

I wonder what Buddy thinks about rack-your-own, spotting the money ball on the break, and playing 10-ball. To me those are the changes that the game needs the most, particularly is the absence of a neutral ref who can rack the balls consistently tight for both players.
 
my favoirte rules variation, would be to keep the rules similiar to the way they are just
-go to called pocket on every shot
-if the player slops a ball in, its your turn. if your hooked to have the option to give it back.
 
sjm said:
No, I hate the luck that a player playing pushout nineball has when he/she hooks himself. He/she is very lucky to not play as great a penalty as he/she would if they were playing Texas Express. Those who make the most position play errors are lucky indeed if they are playing push out nine ball, a game that is far more forgiving to poor position players than Teaxas Express.

Your statement that the better player will win in the push out style is, in my view, false. The better shotmaker will win, but I am not conceding the point that the better shotmaker is the better pool player. There's far more to pool than making balls and running out and the players that master all the skills, including defense, kicking and two way shots are, to me, the best players and the ones deserving the greatest respect.

You can litigate the skills out of nine ball all you want and make it a shotmakers game, but once you do, don't call it a greater test of skill.
Click to expand...

You can turn that around and say the guy that just dogged his ass off but got a roll and hooked you just got lucky. How is that a skill?

In push out at least the other player has the option to take the shot or not take the shot you push too. If you get to know your opponent you will learn what shots he can and can't make and use that to your advantage. (that goes for both player.) The luck is removed because you both have the chance to shoot or not shoot instead of being screwed by a roll.

All the shoots you talk about are still available in a push out game it isn't call shot and you can play two way, ride the balls, kick bank or what ever. the only difference is you won't be getting hosed simply because someone got a lucky or unlucky roll. It's equal for both of you. If you play two foul and lose to a player your speed you can bet it wasn't due to luck but you played bad that day.

As far as nine ball goes it is pretty much a shot makers game. It's 9 ball it isn't one pocket or straight pool. In 9 ball you shot to get out or control the game.

IMO you take nothing out of the game with push out except bad rolls. I've even played it were if the shooter hooks himself he can't push but if the other guy gets a luck roll you aren't screwed by his good luck and can push.

Perhaps a good compromise would be that if you called the safe and you hook the other player he can't push but if you just get lucky a push is allowed?

Oh well that's my story take it or leave it :grin-square:
 
Aaron_S said:
There is a weekly tournament in my area that is loser breaks, and I must say that I think it takes something away from the game. I understand the logic behind it: 9-ball is too easy, everyone can run out, so eliminate the packages and even out the opportunities by allowing the loser to break. The problem I have with it is that it virtually eliminates the possibility of a player making a big comeback, which is the single most exciting thing that can happen in a match, at least from a spectator standpoint.

If a player gets off to a slow start, and allows his opponent to get to the hill while he still needs 5 games, then it's nearly impossible for him to win from there playing loser breaks. Even playing perfect pool probably won't get him there, because his opponent is getting every single break for the rest of the set (despite his big lead), and will eventually B&R.... because the game is too easy and everyone can run out. I just think that, if the goal is to eliminate packages and create more of an equal opportunity situation, alternating breaks is a better solution.

Imagine loser breaks at the pro level, where 9-ball B&R's are so common. You'd be pretty much guaranteed to never see a dramatic comeback in a match ever again. When a match is all about establishing an early lead, and not so much about playing well at the end, it will become anticlimactic for the audience... and they're already not paying any attention.

As always, JMHO,
Aaron
Click to expand...

tap tap tap
 
travisw said:
my favoirte rules variation, would be to keep the rules similiar to the way they are just
-go to called pocket on every shot
-if the player slops a ball in, its your turn. if your hooked to have the option to give it back.
Click to expand...

The are far more likely to get a lucky roll than a slopped in shot.
If you ever play two foul you will quickly realize this fact.
 
Cuebacca said:
Pushing out just seems weird to me, to be able to do that any time during the rack without taking a foul, as many times as you want, as long as it's not after another push. Maybe if you limited it to 1 push per player per rack it could help to combine the favorable aspects of TE & Pushout.

I wonder what Buddy thinks about rack-your-own, spotting the money ball on the break, and playing 10-ball. To me those are the changes that the game needs the most, particularly is the absence of a neutral ref who can rack the balls consistently tight for both players.
Click to expand...

Why ? do you think their is only one lucky roll per game? with that rule the luckier you are the better since after one push your back to one foul. Heck I could even hook you just so you had to burn your one push out.

I don't like ;)
 
I don't like push-out rules.

I would prefer to see them as:

- if your opponent hooks you, a push out is allowed
- if you hook yourself, you must go for a good hit

I do like the cue ball in the kitchen on a break/foul as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top