Poll: Winner Break, Loser Break, Alternate Break?

Which Break?

  • Winner Breaks

    Votes: 94 60.6%

  • Loser Breaks

    Votes: 4 2.6%

  • Alternate Breaks

    Votes: 57 36.8%
  • Total voters
    155
Winner breaks is how it always was FOREVER until people started messing with the format for tournaments, It's also the way it still should be. I'm never going to enter a $ match up where I agree to alternate breaks, I'll relinquish the table when I miss, not before that & until I miss you can sit there in the electric chair & fry, that's the way it should be.
 
Chuck Fields said:
Same here.
I dont where the notion of everybody getting an equal chance to win such as alternate break came from, but its akin to every kid getting a trophy whether they win or not.
Click to expand...

It's not akin to this at all. It's akin to every kid getting a chance to play and find out who the best is. That's not a bad thing.

Part of pool has always been you MIGHT not get a shot. Thats the game, its been that way for a long long time. Pool for a lot of people is a rhythm game, how can you maintain a rhythm with alternate break? Answer..... You cant.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Keeping pool a "rhythm game" only aids the front runners. If you can't play without "maintaining a rhythm" then you have weaknesses in your game.

I voted alternate break, but honestly I wouldn't mind loser breaks given a try. Winner breaks makes no sense to me.
 
SakuJack said:
Nonsense. Keeping pool a "rhythm game" only aids the front runners. If you can't play without "maintaining a rhythm" then you have weaknesses in your game.
.
Click to expand...
Some of the best in the history of the game have been rhythm players who have no problem playing from behind. Guys like Earl Strickland, Buddy Hall and Mike Sigel,
If you dont agree with a post no problem, but posting that its nonsense shows your arrogance, and ignorance IMO.
Chuck
 
Chuck Fields said:
Some of the best in the history of the game have been rhythm players who have no problem playing from behind. Guys like Earl Strickland, Buddy Hall and Mike Sigel,
If you dont agree with a post no problem, but posting that its nonsense shows your arrogance, and ignorance IMO.
Chuck
Click to expand...

And all of those players (I'm sure) could compete playing alternate break.
 
Learn how to break, problem solved.

If you break and run out the set, your opponet should have a chance to do the same. If they do then have a playoff.

Isn't the idea of mastering anything to get locked in, never miss, in the zone, in the groove, some call it freewheeling, I see it as dead concentration.

If I work on my break 2 hours a day and you don't, screw you.

Imagine a baseball pitcher having to sit out an inning, or every other inning he can only throw fast balls, wtf.

Give me a break, learn how to break

How many times, out of thousands,or millions, have you seen a set runout? Count them on your fingers and get back to me.
 
Last edited:
SmoothStroke said:
Imagine a baseball pitcher having to sit out an inning, or every other inning he can only throw fast balls, wtf.

Give me a break, learn how to break
Click to expand...

Imagine a football team having to let the other side kick off after they just scored a goal. Imagine a football (American) team having to kick the ball back to the opponents after just scoring. Imagine a basketball team having to give their opponents possession after scoring. Imagine tennis players alternating serves each game. Etc, etc.

WTF indeed.
 
SakuJack said:
Imagine a football team having to let the other side kick off after they just scored a goal. Imagine a football (American) team having to kick the ball back to the opponents after just scoring. Imagine a basketball team having to give their opponents possession after scoring. Imagine tennis players alternating serves each game. Etc, etc.

WTF indeed.
Click to expand...

Imagine putting in the time working on your game until you ARE one of the front runners you speak of in an earlier post & you break & run the first rack & then have to take a seat & let the other guy break because of alternating break format, IT SUCKS. To those that can't keep up with those that CAN string packages together regularly I suggest you work on your game. In the infamous words of Fast Eddie Felson, "I'm shooting pool Fats, when I miss you can shoot". Work on your game.
 
Colonel said:
Imagine putting in the time working on your game until you ARE one of the front runners you speak of in an earlier post & you break & run the first rack & then have to take a seat & let the other guy break because of alternating break format, IT SUCKS. To those that can't keep up with those that CAN string packages together regularly I suggest you work on your game. In the infamous words of Fast Eddie Felson, "I'm shooting pool Fats, when I miss you can shoot". Work on your game.
Click to expand...

But those who can string packages will still beat those who can't keep up handily. If you break and run all of your breaks and I only break and run a third of mine... you're still going to win. It's a silly complaint to make that you should be able to break again because you won a game.

And throwaway lines from movies do not help your cause.
 
That's not a complaint. That's the way it's always been. The silly complaint is that there should be alternate breaks to appease weaker players.


Sent from my iPhone
Any spelling errors I'm blaming on autocorrect :)
 
Chuck Fields said:
That's not a complaint. That's the way it's always been. The silly complaint is that there should be alternate breaks to appease weaker players.


Sent from my iPhone
Any spelling errors I'm blaming on autocorrect :)
Click to expand...

How is it appeasing weaker players? It appeases fairness, it makes it a fairer game.

Imagine if Federer got to serve again after each game he won.
 
I started playing pool after seeing the movie The Hustler in 1961 or ’62. I didn’t really get into the game seriously until I moved to where there was a commercial billiard room in 1973. After I started playing in the room, I began to learn a lot more about pool than I had learned previously. I was made to understand that playing the game you did your best to win. That meant keeping the other guy in the chair. In Straight Pool, if you broke and the other guy ran the game out, you accepted that. 9 ball was winner break. If all you did was rack, you accepted that the other guy was playing better and waited for another game, another day.
When did pool become about not winning and about “being fair”? The break was one of many things I worked on for hours at a time. When did it come about that all that time was wasted and I had to give up the break without my opponent winning the previous rack? Did the age of so-called political correctness and the no-child-left-behind movement become responsible for that? Or, did it begin with making the game easier by changing the rules in the first place?
If I watch a championship fight on pay-for-view and my guy gets knocked out in the first minute of the first round, I accept that. I may whine about it but I accept that it happened that way and let it go. I don’t try to get the rules changed so my guy gets up and someone holds his opponent while my guy tries to knock him out, so it’s “fair”. I don’t demand my money back.
Pool has not been a spectator sport for a long, long time now. It is not one now and probably will never be a spectator sport again, no matter how hard the promoters and others try, it’s not going to happen. When I watch pool I want to see the best game possible but if the game/match doesn't go hill-hill or one player runs out from or after the break, I accept that. I may not like it but I accept it. That’s the way the game is played.
Pool is about winning. It’s about which player plays the best on any given day. And, I don’t think the rules need to be changed to make it more “fair”.
 
SakuJack said:
How is it appeasing weaker players? It appeases fairness, it makes it a fairer game.

Imagine if Federer got to serve again after each game he won.
Click to expand...

It appeases weaker players because it CHANGED THE GAME FROM THE WAY IT HAD ALWAYS BEEN PLAYED.
 
SakuJack said:
How is it appeasing weaker players? It appeases fairness, it makes it a fairer game.

Imagine if Federer got to serve again after each game he won.
Click to expand...

Imagine if boxers had to stand back after landing a punch.
Imagine if runners had to wait if they got too far ahead,
Imagine if straight pool and snooker players had to stop at 30 points.

Winner breaks is fair...nothing stopping YOU being the breaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top