How do you feel about it?

[woody_968]

I am not sure, but I believe most tourneys make the loser bracket win 2 sets. The TV coverage is edited and I believe if the loser bracket guy wins the match they ONLY show the second match, because that was FINAL match and since they edit it out anyway... well thats all the time the allot...

Most tourneys do make the loser bracket winner win two sets. But TV tourneys often change this setup (unless something has changed) and only have one race.

I brought it up because there is a tourney that I am wanting to go to that is using this format. Its not a TV event so I didnt really understand why they are doing it and didnt know if I was the only one that didnt like the format.

 

[pooltchr]

If you're down 6-0 in a race to 7 you only need your opponent to come up dry or make a mistake once in a winner breaks format. However, in the alternate break format you need them to come up dry or make a mistake 3 or 4 times (depending on who won the lag).

Correct...but my point is that if player A managed to win 5 in a row in a match, what is to prevent player B from being able to do the same thing???

 

[Snapshot9]

formats

Under any format if you are down 3 or 4 games, you have
to find a way to shift the momentum over to you, sometimes
it is simply getting out, sometimes it is freezing up the cue
on a safety, and sometimes it is not taking that shitty lagout
your opponent did. You have to use your head and your skill
to win. A good pro has an idea of how to beat whatever opponent.
Sometimes you have to jar an opponent off his game, like playing
3-5 good safeties where he can not make a ball, and you get
ball in hand and run out.

Gambling, I like winner break with Opponent racking.
Tournaments, I like alternate break with opponent racking.
(trying playing handicap tournaments with loser breaking,
that really gets tough - mostly local weekly tournaments though).

A breaker can call for a rerack if he doesn't like the rack.
(but how many times do you see a breaker racking and his
opponent calls for a rerack - not hardly at all for me).
Do you really want to play Cory Deuel and have him rack
his own?

 

[zeeder]

Correct...but my point is that if player A managed to win 5 in a row in a match, what is to prevent player B from being able to do the same thing???

Player A's mistakes, or lack thereof...lol.

In alternate break, when you get behind, the other player has to give you chances in order for you to win. Just because you gave player A chances doesn't mean that player A is going to give you chances. If they are breaking well and not making any mistakes, you have virtually no chance of winning if you fall behind. Everyone makes mistakes and if someone is in dead stroke, it is possible that he will give up a chance or two in a set but having to get several chances from the other player makes it much more difficult. That is the difference!

 

[OldHasBeen]

Zeeder - I agree 100%

If you're down 6-0 in a race to 7 you only need your opponent to come up dry or make a mistake once in a winner breaks format. However, in the alternate break format you need them to come up dry or make a mistake 3 or 4 times (depending on who won the lag).

IMO - Playing alternate breaks is changing the whole concept of 9 Ball. It was and should remain an offensive game. The tournament directors are changing it to just get more weak entries (and it is working).
In a race to 7 or 9 - I don't care who is standing there holding a stick and waiting to shoot - If I catch a gear - I CAN run out the set. Playing alternate or looser breaks - I'M TOTALLY SCREWED if I fall behind more than 2 or 3 games.
Case in point - I was playing Mark Wilson in a race to 9 & I was up 8 to 5. I didn't make a ball on the break and Mark ran out the set. That's 9-Ball and the way it should be.
But what is happening to the directors that just want more entries - It Is Starting To Backfire. - WHY? - Because the True Champions (the ones who draw the spectators that buy beer, sodas, sticks, food, etc. are not going to the alternate/looser break tournaments. The house isn't making the spectator $ and the Calcutta’s are almost non-existent anymore.
(JMHO)

TY & GL

 

[9balldiva]

Alternate break is fundamentally fairer, but the better player will still always win.

Not necisarily though. Say for instance that Archer and Reyes are playing...we all know that Archer has the upper hand but let's say Reyes wins the toss/lag. Reyes breaks and runs...then Archer breaks and runs...so on and so forth! In this case Reyes will hit the end of the race first. Players at this skill level will ultimately break and run 5 out of 5 racks as long as a ball is made on the break. If they can't make the 1, a good safe is played...I don't feel like the better player will always win. By taking winner breaks out of the equation, you set someone up to get their rythym broken...and in turn, someone who is not as likely to mess up...may mess up!

I watched Johnny play in the Predator Open here in Jacksonville...WOW! It is nothing like watching him on tv! I don't think I ever saw him miss a shot, a kick shot, or a jump shot...how do you hook a guy like that????!!!

 

[landshark77]

In this case Reyes will hit the end of the race first.

Thus the importance of perfecting the lag......it's not just a coin toss, LOL.

 

[SlimShafty]

I like the alternating break format, But I also like stringing racks together as well, it gives you momentum to keep going.

What if there was a limit of 3 breaks in a row? If you win 3 in a row the next break goes to the loser, then at least the other guy has his chance but you also have a chance to string a few racks together if your on a roll.

 

[christyd]

I believe winner breaks is the only way to play the game. Why should the winner of a game be penalized by the alternate break format? If a player gets frustrated by the their opponent possibly running out the set, there's one solution.......PRACTICE HARDER!!

Christyd

 

[Travis Bickle]

It's been said you can't come back in alternate-break, but Feijen won from 0-4 and 0-6 in that format Sunday at the Big Apple in races to 10 and 13, respectively. Hell of an accomplishment.

Still, as a fan, I'd rather see winner breaks. That way you get to see players hit their high gear more often, and more of an ebb and flow in the matches. It's kind of herky-jerky watching them take turns, seems nobody really gets going ... lots of pushouts, etc.

But I don't think I buy this need for a double elimination final. If you've won the extra matches it takes to get there from the loser's side, I think you've earned your spot in the final. One extended set should be fair enough.

 

[Jersey]

Tourny's

Double Elimination, Winner Breaks, Rack Your Own. Now for the Winner vs Loser Bracket...we have to make this fair to the guy who hasn't lost all day...there needs to be tables available were a Player can stay warm and, the Match between The Winner and Loss Side [Winner] should be a long race, (10 games), or two sets, (race to 5 or 7), tie results in a Lag and 1 Game for the overall win...

 

[onepocketchump]

I prefer winner breaks as it makes pool the only sport where one player can win without the other guy getting a chance to shoot. I prefer the rhythm of breaking when I win.

I also hate being on the other side sitting in my chair as a guy just runs out on me.

I rarely win alternate break tournaments.

I like pool to be winner breaks. One of the things that makes pool unique.

John

 

[sjm]

I prefer winner breaks as it makes pool the only sport where one player can win without the other guy getting a chance to shoot. I prefer the rhythm of breaking when I win.

I also hate being on the other side sitting in my chair as a guy just runs out on me.

I rarely win alternate break tournaments.

I like pool to be winner breaks. One of the things that makes pool unique.

John

Well said, John. I agree 100%. In pool, the break is earned, and as long as the players lag, each player has equal access to the first break.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Do you think this gives you more, less, or no change in your chance of winning? When playing a tough draw it gives you more chances at the table, but also means you have to turn the table back over to the tough player every other rack.

True, there is a chance that your though draw could get control and not give you a chance at the table. But a player of your calibur could do the same thing to him. It would seem to me that the underdog might have more of a chance of pulling off the upset in a winner breaks format.

This is an honest question and would love to hear the input from some of the tournament players here.

It depends on whom I'm playing. As a general rule, more opportunities is better for the weaker player so alternating breaks would be good for me if I'm the underdog (which is frequently the case for me in pro events). It is a momentum killer and no player really enjoys that, considering the way people casually play BUT you cannot ignore the fact that if you're breaking well, you can respond to your opponent's run-outs.

Another format that most people don't consider very often is to break-up the set into two short races and have one player break in one race and the other player break in the latter. That way, you can have your packages yet still provide both players a decent number of opportunities at the table.

 

[Shawn Putnam]

Some of the tournaments now have implemented the alternating break format. Personally, I think that takes away from seeing a players full capabilities. If I am playing Archer, I already feel like I have no shot of winning, but if he breaks and runs 6 racks, in a race to 7...I believe that is a much better earned win!!

What's your take?

I agree 100%.
Even though I won back to back this year , I still hate alternate breaks.
Atleast I'm not a hipocrit........

 

[Travis Bickle]

I agree 100%.
Even though I won back to back this year , I still hate alternate breaks.
Atleast I'm not a hipocrit........

Shawn, do you know of any pros who like alternate break?

I think the only time it might be interesting to use that format would be when a set goes hill-hill. I'd like to see a tourney try out something like tennis scoring, in which they'd go to alternate breaks at, say, 10-10 and then you've got to win by 2 games. In other words, each guy's got the chance to hold serve, and you don't win until you get a game against the break. No way it can go as long as a tennis match -- where on a fast court a big server might win 90% of his service games -- but you could get a little extra drama.

 

[unknownpro]

Shawn, do you know of any pros who like alternate break?

I think the only time it might be interesting to use that format would be when a set goes hill-hill. I'd like to see a tourney try out something like tennis scoring, in which they'd go to alternate breaks at, say, 10-10 and then you've got to win by 2 games. In other words, each guy's got the chance to hold serve, and you don't win until you get a game against the break. No way it can go as long as a tennis match -- where on a fast court a big server might win 90% of his service games -- but you could get a little extra drama.

I'm not Shawn but I don't know any pro's who like alternate break. They tried making pool like tennis on the Billiard Channel Tour. It sucked. The hill-hill game IS the exciting part of a pro tournament. If you got to 10 first you had your chance to break and runout for the win already.

unknownpro

 

[Travis Bickle]

I'm not Shawn but I don't know any pro's who like alternate break. They tried making pool like tennis on the Billiard Channel Tour. It sucked. The hill-hill game IS the exciting part of a pro tournament. If you got to 10 first you had your chance to break and runout for the win already.

unknownpro

Can't argue with that. Tennis scoring for pool probably makes about as much sense as football scoring for baseball.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Some of the greatest 9 ball i have ever been witness to, and some of my own greatest personal accomplishments, came at the hands of a winner breaks format.

I have seen players string them together and completely dominate the game.
To me, 9 ball is and always will be a momentum game, that got chopped up and ripped apart because of TV. The alternate format while giving the underdog more chances, is just not the way the game was meant to be played.

My whole mission in a match, was to figure out the break mystery, and then exploit it before my opponent did.
If i failed at that, then i had no right to complain if i ended up losing.

and while i have been dealt the DONUT/BLOWOUT many times by opponents who had 2 or 3 inning sets, when i managed to pull off the same feat, the feeling was exquisite. It is only in a winner breaks format, that i ever felt good about playing a great match and losing.
I have NEVER felt good about playing good in an alternate break format and losing, because i never really felt that i could open up, and i know that winner breaks format, is the only way i can hit high gear.
Plus, how do you feel, when you are trailing, and you make this huge comback, only to have your opponent break hill hill, and he snaps the 9 in...craps the 9 in, or just breaks and runs out.

Where is the justice in that?

To do well in an alternate break format, you never get that chance to really hit your top gear.
the only way to come close to hitting top gear is if you opponent stinks at the break, and keeps leaving you a wide open shot on the 1 after pocketing nothing. but it's totally dependant on the opponent, and not yourself.

If i had driven all night, and had a tough draw, so what.
I would want to demolish them regardless of who they were.
After all, it is really you VS the table you are presented with right.

I was always thinking, how is THIS guy gonna like it when i string some together and humiliate him in front of this crowd.

The ONLY way i can see a legitimate way to have an alternate break system, is if it is a little of both.

If you win a game, you can break and run out to some CAP on the number of racks.
For instance. In a race to 7, you implement the 3 rack rule (just an example, as you can pick the right number for your game)
so that if you win, you can win a maximum of 3 racks, before your opponent gets a chance to break and run out. 3 being the limit to your possible package (where your opponent doesn't shoot), whether it starts off of on his failed break or miss, or from your break at the start of the game, or after he runs a 3.

Say for instance that your in a tournament with this format, you win the lag, and you break and run a 3. Then it would be his turn to break.
So suppose that on his turn, he breaks and runs 1 rack and then comes up dry on the break...or misses during the rack. You then have a saftey battle which you win, and you run out and then come up dry on your break.
Score now being 4 (you) - 1 (opponent) He runs 1 rack, breaks and runs to the 5 in the next rack and misses. Score now being 4-2.
So NOW, you can see the finish line as you can potentially run out the set from there, and every chance you get from that point on is a chance to win because to win, you need 3 racks, which is within the CAP you have limiting your match.

Everybody understand?

THAT is the ONLY way i might not mind the alternate break format.
If it was something like what i mentioned, and i could catch a small gear during the match, i would be more satisfied that i am with that crap-alternate-break-killing-9-ball-as-we-speak format that they now use.

 

[sniper]

You also have to consider what your racing to, look at the World Pool Masters, their playing a race to 8 winner breaks, IMO a race to 8 is way to short for a winner breaks format...last year Marlon Manalo made a mistake at 2-2 and had to watch Hohmann run out the rest of the match. If your playing a race to 9 or more than winner breaks is the way to go but if it's less alternating breaks works best.