Hey bud...luv ya, but don't you mean in the corner? I've never seen the wing ball made in the side, especially from a head on break. :grin:
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Making the wing ball from the box?
- Thread starter CreeDo
- Start date
Last edited:
My bad. Yes Scott, in the corner. Doh!
AtLarge: wow, I conveniently forgot the opening safeties and pushes and such. Embarrassing. :}
Thanks for the breakdown.
Paul: I agree that having conflicts, crying, and 'insinuations' about the rack is bad.
I'm just not feeling your proposed fix :/
The 'package' might still be there, but the pressure and momentum aren't the same. It would feel like volleyball or tennis... serve, break serve, etc. Guys like Tony and I just can't get as excited about that.
On paper it's more fair, but if someone falls behind, he's probably toast in alternate breaks. If shane gets to the hill and the other guy is down 4 or 5 racks... there's no way he dogs 5 runout opportunities with the break 'for free'. This kind of foregone conclusion is disappointing to both spectators and the player who's lagging behind.
I'd like a solution that retains the unique skills of breaking and rack analysis. Part of what makes pros amazing is their ability to dissect the parts of the game that others write off as too difficult or mostly luck... stuff like controlled kicks, or playing a specific ball on the break. If making a ball is no longer do-or-die, that skill gets marginalized.
How about a baby-steps compromise?
9 ball, break from anywhere, magic rack. Alternating break. You must make a ball on the break, but that should be automatic. Then you have something that is effectively the same as your no conflict rules, but without the 100% free shot after the break that seems to leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Instead it's only 99%... close enough?
Smoooth: corey deuel had an interesting comment about soft breaking and magic racks.
Basically, if you allow all the stuff you're talking about (no more break box, no more balls-past-the-side requirement, no more spot-the-9)... but you throw a magic rack in the mix... the game of 9 ball now has a lot less luck. The ball on the break is now a specific skill shot and not a hit'n'hope. The 9 ball shouldn't move more than 3 inches so you don't need to make a special rule for spotting it.
So now, the game won't be about the break, it will be about who runs out better. Both guys are gonna break fine, but whoever does it in a smarter, more controlled way, and runs out better... will be the winner.
Seems fair enough to me.
Brian:
Do you ever make your way to northern VA? Would be cool to hear some firsthand experiences. It could be something as simple and subtle as alex racking 1/4" higher or lower than shane.
Thanks for the breakdown.
Paul: I agree that having conflicts, crying, and 'insinuations' about the rack is bad.
I'm just not feeling your proposed fix :/
The 'package' might still be there, but the pressure and momentum aren't the same. It would feel like volleyball or tennis... serve, break serve, etc. Guys like Tony and I just can't get as excited about that.
On paper it's more fair, but if someone falls behind, he's probably toast in alternate breaks. If shane gets to the hill and the other guy is down 4 or 5 racks... there's no way he dogs 5 runout opportunities with the break 'for free'. This kind of foregone conclusion is disappointing to both spectators and the player who's lagging behind.
I'd like a solution that retains the unique skills of breaking and rack analysis. Part of what makes pros amazing is their ability to dissect the parts of the game that others write off as too difficult or mostly luck... stuff like controlled kicks, or playing a specific ball on the break. If making a ball is no longer do-or-die, that skill gets marginalized.
How about a baby-steps compromise?
9 ball, break from anywhere, magic rack. Alternating break. You must make a ball on the break, but that should be automatic. Then you have something that is effectively the same as your no conflict rules, but without the 100% free shot after the break that seems to leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Instead it's only 99%... close enough?
Smoooth: corey deuel had an interesting comment about soft breaking and magic racks.
Basically, if you allow all the stuff you're talking about (no more break box, no more balls-past-the-side requirement, no more spot-the-9)... but you throw a magic rack in the mix... the game of 9 ball now has a lot less luck. The ball on the break is now a specific skill shot and not a hit'n'hope. The 9 ball shouldn't move more than 3 inches so you don't need to make a special rule for spotting it.
So now, the game won't be about the break, it will be about who runs out better. Both guys are gonna break fine, but whoever does it in a smarter, more controlled way, and runs out better... will be the winner.
Seems fair enough to me.
Brian:
Do you ever make your way to northern VA? Would be cool to hear some firsthand experiences. It could be something as simple and subtle as alex racking 1/4" higher or lower than shane.
Joe, Who gets to pattern rack that magic rack? So would it be a defensive or an offensive pattern?
What is the MR all about? Is it about freezing balls or is it about making balls. If the Magic Rack made it nearly impossible to make a ball on the break, no one would even think about using it. Our short games are corrupted a hundred ways by the ball on the break. Just get rid of it and all is fixed.
This subject never gets old to me. I will just continue to say it and say it, over and over. I am having tremendous success using the No Conflict Rules in my events. I do stuff.
Joe T
Well-known member
Paul lets get this straight right freakin NOW! I like the way you think
on this and other things as well.
Now back to pattern racking. I don't care if it was offensive or defensive pattern racking but I'm now leaning towards defensive.
I think breaking them, making the corner ball, controlling whitey and gaining a shot on the 1 then running out (any pattern) would be a good test of skill & pressure.
I think the above should be secondary.
I am interested in fun. What we have now is torture. I want to stop the players from cheating and fighting. I want our short games to be straight forward, fast, and interactive. I want players to have a good experience. If they don't make a ball on the break, they think they got screwed or got unlucky. They are right! Let them shoot! What player does not want to shoot after the break. This is a very big deal. It is good for the game.
We need people to play this game. We don't need to make it more combative and frustrating. It is hard enough as it is.
Last edited:
Joe T
Well-known member
No problem with that Paul. I think every tour or room owner should experiment with no conflict rules for the exact reasons you state. For the pros I "think" I would prefer the method I mentioned.
I have good reason to believe that even the pros would prefer it after puting some time into it and adjusting their game to it. But frankly, I am like most people, I have little to no interest in the pros and what they do.
This sounds bad so I will explain:
Joe T favors the pros doing things differently. Called-shot Ten-Ball on big tables with small pockets and different rules makes the pros irrelevant to what is going on in the every day pool world. Honestly, I am trying to get people to play and I cannot do anything with what the pros do. They are getting further and further out there. The novice and even the every day average player just cannot relate to it. I wish things were different.
I actually LOVE that you are OCD about this. Because not only do you bring much needed correction a lot of the time the correction also often serves to temper the arguments that sometimes surround a topic.
Joe T
Well-known member
Thanks for coming back with that Paul, it wasn't bad but it did sound a bit bad to me. I believe the thread was kind of geared towards the U.S. Open and pro level play. I understand exactly what you're saying and as I said before I recommend everyone should give it a try. I still don't see it as a pro option but if you have good reason to believe it is then I sure could be wrong.
I like rack your own, alternate break 10 Ball for pros but that still leaves us with the Open problems and thats where I like the other format I mentioned.
Keep promoting what you believe Paul, its working.