They are going to complain with pure perfection.
Magic Rack
- Thread starter Jason Robichaud
- Start date
They are going to complain with pure perfection.
Here is the problem...... Ask Danny D. why he didn't win more 9ball tournaments...... He will tell you it was because of his break.... Danny will also tell you he like a lot of guys that grew up playing straights actually never really worked on it like the 9ball players from the south....
When Ralf was breaking better than anyone and making the 1 in the side almost every rack he was hard to beat. He went to making the 1 because the wing ball is not supposed to be consistent and usually isn't. I asked Ralf how much time he spent working on that break... He kind of laughed and said a month...... He had retooled his break and spent an entire MONTH working on it religiously.... So you want everyone to be able to do what it took Ralf a month of solid work to learn to do.. Make the same wing ball consistently in every rack and it's even better than Ralf's 1 ball because you get to play shape on the 1... All they have to do is buy or use a magic rack...
I like the concept... But it has some serious flaws imho... I would like for them to make a tournament edition that is designed around using brand new balls... The current design is made to where it puts enough load on the outside base of the balls that it will even freeze balls that are not all the same size.... On a new set of balls that is just too much loading of the rack which is one of the reasons we are seeing the magic wing ball in 9ball and the 2balls behind the 1 in 10ball going like magic...
There are several design changes that I would like to see.... Now where is my exacto knife and sheet protectors???
When Ralf was breaking better than anyone and making the 1 in the side almost every rack he was hard to beat. He went to making the 1 because the wing ball is not supposed to be consistent and usually isn't. I asked Ralf how much time he spent working on that break... He kind of laughed and said a month...... He had retooled his break and spent an entire MONTH working on it religiously.... So you want everyone to be able to do what it took Ralf a month of solid work to learn to do.. Make the same wing ball consistently in every rack and it's even better than Ralf's 1 ball because you get to play shape on the 1... All they have to do is buy or use a magic rack...
I like the concept... But it has some serious flaws imho... I would like for them to make a tournament edition that is designed around using brand new balls... The current design is made to where it puts enough load on the outside base of the balls that it will even freeze balls that are not all the same size.... On a new set of balls that is just too much loading of the rack which is one of the reasons we are seeing the magic wing ball in 9ball and the 2balls behind the 1 in 10ball going like magic...
There are several design changes that I would like to see.... Now where is my exacto knife and sheet protectors???
Last edited:
2 in the side and one up table with the cue ball straight in..u are right..patterns and magic rack..bad idea..
Magid Bal Rack
patterns and magic rack..bad idea
Pattern racking is BAD all the time.
All MBR is supposed to do is give a good, tight rack.
BTW, do you guys remember when Alcano won the World 9-Ball in the Phillipines? I think it was 2007??
He soft broke with a touch of draw - cue ball came back one or two rails - and he ended up shooting the 1 ball in the opposite side. It was after this event that people started calling 9-Ball a 'broken game'.
Now a few months ago in Qatar, the top players - using a Magic Ball Rack -were struggling to make a ball on the break. They also struggled on running out. Maybe just the pressure. (on Diamond pro cut tables).
The design of 9-ball rack is bad. You cannot blame a triangle (rack) for providing a tight rack and then blaming that for making the game too easy. It just does not make sense.
On a side note, I do not see that many players always make the wing ball, and I do not always see players run out. I think too much is being made about what a top player when everything is working just right.
So - at our US Open 10-Ball, Mike Dechaine ran 7.5 racks in 10-Ball. So is everyone gonna say the rack is ruining things? Every other top player had just as many opportunities to do the same thing. But they didn't!
Good luck will shine on all players at one time or another. And someone will run out a set. But that is what pro players are supposed to do.
But no Pattern racking!!! Just my thoughts. . . . . .
Mark Griffin
patterns and magic rack..bad idea
Pattern racking is BAD all the time.
All MBR is supposed to do is give a good, tight rack.
BTW, do you guys remember when Alcano won the World 9-Ball in the Phillipines? I think it was 2007??
He soft broke with a touch of draw - cue ball came back one or two rails - and he ended up shooting the 1 ball in the opposite side. It was after this event that people started calling 9-Ball a 'broken game'.
Now a few months ago in Qatar, the top players - using a Magic Ball Rack -were struggling to make a ball on the break. They also struggled on running out. Maybe just the pressure. (on Diamond pro cut tables).
The design of 9-ball rack is bad. You cannot blame a triangle (rack) for providing a tight rack and then blaming that for making the game too easy. It just does not make sense.
On a side note, I do not see that many players always make the wing ball, and I do not always see players run out. I think too much is being made about what a top player when everything is working just right.
So - at our US Open 10-Ball, Mike Dechaine ran 7.5 racks in 10-Ball. So is everyone gonna say the rack is ruining things? Every other top player had just as many opportunities to do the same thing. But they didn't!
Good luck will shine on all players at one time or another. And someone will run out a set. But that is what pro players are supposed to do.
But no Pattern racking!!! Just my thoughts. . . . . .
Mark Griffin
This is a nice post.
Here's the unsaid problem as far as i'm concerned:
There is really ONE word, and one only, to describe the essence of good/great pool -- CONTROL.
For years, we have seen players like Strickland smash racks and gain great advantage. We all feel this is "exciting," but is it really? Maybe to you it is, but it isn't necessarily good pool. I don't think we have the right to dictate how players play shots based on "excitement" anyway. If we could do that, we'd want Efren to draw 3 rails inside english every ball. We want the players to do play the percentages the best they can to facilitate winning.
So, 2 take home points:
1) Big breaks may be exciting to you, but not really to another person
2) Even if they are exciting, you can't force a player to play a shot a certain way just because it's exciting. It doesn't make logical sense.
If you expand my argument, why is it that we think smashing the rack open and having everything fly around god knows where is a good indicator of anything? Isn't it just by random chance that we see a player continue his inning in these cases (eg one breaker can hit them just as good/hard, and not make a ball)? These big breaks are random to a large extent, and they are NOT reliably controlled.
If you look at the history of straight pool as an example, players realized that many times breaking the pack open softly and keeping the cb in control was the way to go. The game advanced because of play like this.
I personally welcome rotation games to enter a stage where the norm is a controlled break, and players alternate break. I am a fan of good pool, and nothing else. I don't care about showboating, or what a guy says... none of it. I like to see players play good, and I really think this whole Idea of a guy playing perfect and getting up there and smacking the break open and getting kissed in the side is passe. That is not controlled pool. If you feel differently than me, as I suspect many do, you must explain why you feel the pros should be compelled to take chances at the start of their innings. I think there are very strong arguments considering the essence of good pool which point to us actually highly favoring these soft and controlled breaks in the future. The only thing holding this type of play back imo is a lack of knowledge by many fans. I really don't think that is a good reason to hold the game back, but perhaps others feel differently.
Last edited:
A new racking gadget reminds me of any new video game back in the 80s. Space Invaders came out and man that game was hard. As time went by, gamers studied and practiced the game until they mastered it. A well practiced player could clear board after board without a problem.
The Magic Rack will be analyzed, studied, and practiced very hard. In due time, players will be well versed and will execute the Magic Rack break to perfection. This spells trouble for the rotation games.
Did we not learn anything from the Sardo Rack experience?
The Magic Rack will be analyzed, studied, and practiced very hard. In due time, players will be well versed and will execute the Magic Rack break to perfection. This spells trouble for the rotation games.
Did we not learn anything from the Sardo Rack experience?
After using the magic rack since its inception, I have come to the same conclusion. Its just way too easy to make the wing ball with the way the 9 ball rack is shaped.
Another poster mentioned that with the 10b rack the balls behind the one head toward the side pockets, and he is right, they do. That being said, you still have to hit the rack well in order to do that. Its not automatic by any means. Far less precision is required with the 9b rack.
I was shooting with a friend of mine Tuesday night at a place with reasonably sized pockets, and I put a 4 pack, and several 2s on him playing 9 ball with the magic rack. Making a ball was so easy that all I had to focus on was the speed of the break and the 1 would be set up to shoot in the top corner every single time.
Just my 2c.
Somebody just posted in the main forum that SVB ran 7 racks for 50k, and you feel this type of pool is somehow "trouble." I and others think this is just flat out great pool. I guess it just boils down to a difference of opinion.
I take a differing view. It depends on who we are trying to appeal to. Who do we want to entertain? Pool aficionados are small in number and yes, they are impressed. It does not do much for anyone else. I am most interested in the big picture. How far has the "big package" playing a rotation game with tiny pockets gotten us so far?
Last edited:
Yeah, just different strokes for diff folks
I could really care less about other people, so maybe you are right. I just want to see and play some good pool, and if the sport takes off, so be it. But i'm not willing to "dress up like a clown" just to bring in some crowds. Just me though.
What kills me about this thread is the idea that it's too easy to make a ball when using the MBR. The obvious answer is alternate break.
To let somebody keep breaking until they lose a game is like letting a tennis player keep serving until he loses a game. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Heck, the rack is just another piece of equipment like the table, cue, chalk, etc. Everybody wants quality and consistency, even perfection with most of their other equipment, so why not the rack?
I don't even own one yet (it's on order). I printed the paper template and put it to use and that's all I needed to see. I have a delta 13, which is great, but I can't get a tight rack on my table anymore until I get new cloth and balls, but I got a tight rack every time even with the home made paper model and I can enjoy playing my table again. I even combined it with my delta 13 to get a great 8 ball rack. The way I see it, for $20 I'm extending the life of my table and balls a year or two.
To let somebody keep breaking until they lose a game is like letting a tennis player keep serving until he loses a game. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Heck, the rack is just another piece of equipment like the table, cue, chalk, etc. Everybody wants quality and consistency, even perfection with most of their other equipment, so why not the rack?
I don't even own one yet (it's on order). I printed the paper template and put it to use and that's all I needed to see. I have a delta 13, which is great, but I can't get a tight rack on my table anymore until I get new cloth and balls, but I got a tight rack every time even with the home made paper model and I can enjoy playing my table again. I even combined it with my delta 13 to get a great 8 ball rack. The way I see it, for $20 I'm extending the life of my table and balls a year or two.
Magic Rack: Implement cheating device!
Most balls made on the break are just slopped in. The MR makes it easier to slop balls in (and easier to pattern rack too). In certain conditions, certain balls are wired. Why do we need a gadget to help slop, wire, and pattern rack balls? I don't know that any of this has anything to do with playing good pool.
Paul:
Before we go any further, what is your definition of "good pool"?
I seem to recall that you're a fan of one pocket, in which case, you and I are on common ground, in sharing a love for this fine game. However, even this noble game has its share of "luck" or "slop" on the opening break. (And before we forget, let's place a bookmark on your ironic use of the word "slop" -- we'll discuss that one later.) In one pocket, the opening break is a skill shot; you attempt to open the rack unidirectionally -- towards your pocket -- while at the same time, not offering your opponent a shot towards his/her pocket. Occasionally, that corner ball nearest your opponent's pocket leaks out for any number of reasons (both explainable/technical, or just plain "bad luck"), and he/she is offered a shot. You may then never get another shot in the case of a fearless dead-eye-dick shooter who's good with the cue ball (i.e. 8-and-out).
The same thing with that mother-of-all-games, 14.1 straight pool. You can just barely lose the lag, get nominated by your opponent to break (as is standard in 14.1), execute a decent break shot, and due to whatever reason (e.g. both explainable/technical, or just plain "bad luck"), your opponent has a shot on a ball directly, or else inside the rack (i.e. dead/wired ball), and he/she takes off and run 100-and-out or 150-and-out on you. You never get another shot, due to really no fault of your own.
What is your take on those situations?
Oh, and about that definition of the word "slop" you ironically used. I find it both curious and humorous that you use it, when I seem to recall that you once proposed that call-shot rules in *any game* are bogus (including 14.1 -- you made that clear) and *all games* should use Texas Express rules. But yet in contradictory fashion, you seem to abhor "slop on the break." Which is it? Slop on the break is a no-no, but slop during regular play is good? I think you need to clear that one up, because your use of it (and your stance on the issue) is very contradictory.
Thoughts?
-Sean
No problem. I am not against slop or luck. I am only against requiring it. That is what the front end of our games do (particularly Eight-Ball).
I am emphatically against all the turmoil that has gone on for decades over the front end of our games. It needs to be permanently fixed. And yes, I am against calling any ball in any game. Simpler rules make for more clarity and less arguments. Luck is OK.
Paul:
That was one *HUGE* snip. You didn't address any of my points/scenarios (e.g. the ones about one pocket and 14.1), which are directly in line with your ironic use of the term "slop." So was I correct in coming to the conclusion that "slop on the opening break is a no-no, but slop during post-break play is ok" is what you're standing for?
I guess I'm really confused. The only game that traditionally has had "turmoil" on its front end (as you refer to it) is 9-ball. You mentioned "especially 8-ball" above, which is interesting. Noone complains about the opening break on 8-ball. I've run (operated/managed) large 8-ball leagues, and about the only time I *ever* heard a complaint about the opening break in 8-ball, had to do with the opponent's method of racking (i.e. slug racks). Not once, in 3 years and change of operating/managing one of the Northeast's largest poolhall-franchise leagues (Boston Billiards), have I heard any complaints about the opening break other than slug-racking or tilted racks. And that one was both targeted (to particular people who are frequent offenders) and easy to solve. As LO, I would just walk over and moderate the "problematic" match, inspecting the racks, and overriding the "chirpers" (complainers). 'Twas no big deal -- an easy task for an LO. In my decently-comprehensive experience with large leagues, there are far worse problems to worry about than "the front end of every rack" (i.e. the opening break).
Also, I'm not sure why you have issues with call-shot in games that've traditionally had never had issues with call-shot in the first place (i.e. 14.1). Even in 8-ball, the only issue with call-shot seem to be in bars, where the outlandish and stupid "every little contact has to be called" rule is used instead of the straight-forward ball/pocket nomination used in most leagues (APA being the notable exception, sans the 8-ball itself). In bars, that's the only issue with call-shot where "issues" and "arguments" (using your terms) arise. You don't see issues with call-shot in 14.1 (and I don't recall *ever* seeing any "issue" or "argument" stem from a shot in a 14.1 match). In these cases, you're proposing a "solution" for a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.
I do appreciate your quick response, though. I hope that you'll respond to points, instead of mass-snipping them.
-Sean
Which is odd, when you take into consideration the [unanswered] points I raised above. So taking the "ball pocketed on the break" requirement out of the equation, if we take a game like, oh, say, 14.1, does that mean the classic safety break is now a non-move? So the person who wins the lag (and thus chooses who breaks), chooses him/herself to break, smacks 'em wide open in 8-ball style, stays at the table, and runs 150-and-out just because the other guy lost the lag?
And, in the face of gaping-holes-in-removing-slop-on-break theory, he's in favor of non-call-shot in *all* games? So if we're playing Bank pool, if I intend a cross-side bank, pop it really hard, and it misses the intended pocket but crosses the table one more time and goes in the opposite side pocket, that's a legal bank shot? Or, it caroms off another ball and goes in the pocket? I'm sorry, I disagree. That removes all the skill and beauty from the game.
But like I've always said, AZB is read from folks from all walks of life, with as many varied viewpoints as grains of sand on the beach. And that's a beautiful thing all by itself! For without it, we'd never get to see such a viewpoint as Paul's -- very unique (flawed, yes, but very unique).
-Sean
Thats exactly why i wont go back to his place to play in his tournament. Its a great tournament, run very very well. But i cant get over the fact that you can break, make nothing, and then go on to shoot a one-nine combo to win.
Most say that calling balls makes our game special. I think differently. I think that having to call what you are going to do is counter culture. No sport does such a thing. In all highly successful sports, players and teams go in with a specific strategy but are not held to it. I think pool should look in this direction for guidance.
Now, on the slop issue: I think I should be clearer. I have no problem with inadvertent luck. As a matter of fact, I think a certain amount of it is a good thing. Every sport has luck. I don't like requiring luck where that becomes the plan. The opening break in Eight-Ball is a slop shot. Lean back, slam the balls, and pray something falls. For the most part, this is also true for Nine and Ten-Ball. Our break rules demean and diminish the game and the players. This is why there is this never ending argument over the racking and breaking process. It just goes on and on.
Let’s not talk about straight pool. It’s finished. Bank-pool is a cult game and has little significance in the big picture.
Now, on the slop issue: I think I should be clearer. I have no problem with inadvertent luck. As a matter of fact, I think a certain amount of it is a good thing. Every sport has luck. I don't like requiring luck where that becomes the plan. The opening break in Eight-Ball is a slop shot. Lean back, slam the balls, and pray something falls. For the most part, this is also true for Nine and Ten-Ball. Our break rules demean and diminish the game and the players. This is why there is this never ending argument over the racking and breaking process. It just goes on and on.
Let’s not talk about straight pool. It’s finished. Bank-pool is a cult game and has little significance in the big picture.