Pro 9-ball is a breaking contest.

[ineedaspot]

I watched the finals with a few friends, some of whom are not avid pool players. It didn't take them long to figure out that the most pivotal part of most racks is whether a ball goes in on the break and whether there is a shot on the 1.

Not to take anything away from Shane. He didn't make the rules, he recognizes the importance of the break, and worked on it to the point where he is better at breaking than anyone else. And the rest of his game is obviously great too. He's a deserving champion.

For me, the very high level of play, not just at the finals, but all week, has been great to watch. But I don't really see this as the product that the pool world wants to or is going to be able to market to wider audiences. The real dramatic tension in the finals was whether Dennis was going to be able to figure out the break or not. From a spectator point of view, the fact that you can reliably guess the outcome of most racks just by what happens on the break is a problem.

I don't know the answer. 10-ball isn't really much better. 8-ball is just as bad or worse. One pocket is great but too slow and complicated for non-pool players. Jiggling the rules so that it's harder or easier to make a ball on the break doesn't address the basic problem. Maybe something like forcing a push-out at the start of each rack, so at least it starts out with a tactical exchange, but that would drastically alter the whole character of the game.

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

I don't know the answer. 10-ball isn't really much better. 8-ball is just as bad or worse. One pocket is great but too slow and complicated for non-pool players. Jiggling the rules so that it's harder or easier to make a ball on the break doesn't address the basic problem. Maybe something like forcing a push-out at the start of each rack, so at least it starts out with a tactical exchange, but that would drastically alter the whole character of the game.

The answer is pump money into 14.1/straight pool. One pocket is slow because of the importance of defense. SVB said he doesn't like playing straight pool because here's no money in it. The money's there for one pocket, just not 14.1. Even when you take the break out of the game, it's still the same people in the finals each time. The break is one more shot players need to learn, and a lot feel as if it's not needed. Those people never finish well in tournaments.

 

[Island Drive]

They thought the same thing years ago in tennis when Roscoe Tanner? started serving the ball over 130 mph and no one could hit it, that whining stopped. The only way that I see the US Open 9 ball event get to the next level is to play sets and a tiebreaker if needed like the US Open tennis, one on one matches, they are Very exciting at times.

heres what I sent to Archer/Niels/and Saez

US Open Tennis Format, the entire planet thinks of two players head to head in sets when they hear the term US Open. Why NOT try this proven format with tiebreakers? Dbl elim of course. Winner breaks a set, opponent racks a set and so forth, how difficult can that be????????????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not try and ride on the coattails of a SUCCESSFUL east coast business model and NAME that is VERY successful.

Pros....

Sets….best 3 out of 5….Race to 2/3/4 or whatever works....Double elimination.

Lag for who breaks first set....then alternate

Alternate breaker for each set
Alternate racker for each set
Lag when there is a tiebreaker
Do this till match ends

Use Magic Rack
24 second shot clock, one 24 second extension allowed per rack
Bathroom break, one per match, or what's best for the game

 

[Jaden]

Sorry it's not a breaking contest...

If sets were won by packages or more break and runs than turning over the table, I might agree, but that's just not the case...

Jaden

 

[rexus31]

Hasn't making a ball on the break and controlling the One Ball been the most important factor in 9B for eternity or am I missing something?

 

[ineedaspot]

They thought the same thing years ago in tennis when Roscoe Tanner? started serving the ball over 130 mph and no one could hit it, that whining stopped. The only way that I see the US Open 9 ball event get to the next level is to play sets and a tiebreaker if needed like the US Open tennis, one on one matches, they are Very exciting at times.

heres what I sent to Archer/Niels/and Saez

US Open Tennis Format, the entire planet thinks of two players head to head in sets when they hear the term US Open. Why NOT try this proven format with tiebreakers? Dbl elim of course. Winner breaks a set, opponent racks a set and so forth, how difficult can that be????????????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not try and ride on the coattails of a SUCCESSFUL east coast business model and NAME that is VERY successful.

Pros....

Sets….best 3 out of 5….Race to 2/3/4 or whatever works....Double elimination.

Lag for who breaks first set....then alternate

Alternate breaker for each set
Alternate racker for each set
Lag when there is a tiebreaker
Do this till match ends

Use Magic Rack
24 second shot clock, one 24 second extension allowed per rack
Bathroom break, one per match, or what's best for the game

A few things. First, I am not saying the same thing as Neils. I don't think Shane is "cheating" or using "tricks", I think he has the best break, and he deserves to win. He played by the rules, and did it better than anyone else.

Also, I like your idea of best 3-of-5 alternate break sets, like in tennis.

But here's one big difference. In tennis the serve is huge, yes. But in pool, a lot of times, among pros, the rest of the rack after the break is just a formality. OK, occasionally they miss and get out of line, but for the most part, if there is a ball down and a shot at the one, you can go grab a beer and be back for the next break and not miss anything.

In tennis, when one player has a huge serve, that presents the other player with the challenge of returning it. In pool, there is no equivalent of the return. The other player can only sit and watch. And there also really isn't the equivalent of a routine run-out in tennis.

The problem, I think, is basically that there aren't enough pivotal shots per hour. The break is pivotal, and maybe there is a safety battle from time to time, but a lot of time in a 9-ball match is spent on run-outs that are a foregone conclusion.

 

[ineedaspot]

If sets were won by packages or more break and runs than turning over the table, I might agree, but that's just not the case...

Jaden

It's not just about the break and runs, it's how much of the outcome of a rack is determined by the break. In some cases this means that the breaker doesn't make a ball and the other guy has an easy run-out. I'd actually like to see the statistic of how often the guy who makes the first ball after the break ends up winning the rack.

 

[GDC]

I totally agree with this. I played D1 tennis is college. This argument about breaking is an age old argument about serving in tennis going back to the 70s. And 9-ball is like Wimbledon ... whenever someone with a monster serve is around (like Roscoe, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Sampras, etc) people whine that fast grass court tennis is too much of a serving contest. The bottom line is that the break (just like the serve) is a weapon and they should be rewarded for possessing and honing that weapon. Don't change the rules because someone has a monster weapon. And let's face it, 9-ball is designed to be a lighting fast game like grass court tennis that favors offense. If people want something slower and more strategic ... then that's why we have one-pocket and 14.1 just like tennis has the French Open on clay courts.

They should follow the format of tennis whereby everybody gets their equal opportunity to serve/break. And if you cannot consistently win the games where you serve/break, then you will lose.

The format for tennis is tried and true:
Alternating serve
Best 2 out of 3 sets (and maybe 3 out of 5 for championship finals)
Race to 6 per set

 

[GDC]

A few things. First, I am not saying the same thing as Neils. I don't think Shane is "cheating" or using "tricks", I think he has the best break, and he deserves to win. He played by the rules, and did it better than anyone else.

Also, I like your idea of best 3-of-5 alternate break sets, like in tennis.

But here's one big difference. In tennis the serve is huge, yes. But in pool, a lot of times, among pros, the rest of the rack after the break is just a formality. OK, occasionally they miss and get out of line, but for the most part, if there is a ball down and a shot at the one, you can go grab a beer and be back for the next break and not miss anything.

In tennis, when one player has a huge serve, that presents the other player with the challenge of returning it. In pool, there is no equivalent of the return. The other player can only sit and watch. And there also really isn't the equivalent of a routine run-out in tennis.

The problem, I think, is basically that there aren't enough pivotal shots per hour. The break is pivotal, and maybe there is a safety battle from time to time, but a lot of time in a 9-ball match is spent on run-outs that are a foregone conclusion.

Respectfully to your comment, "But here's one big difference. In tennis the serve is huge, yes. But in pool, a lot of times, among pros, the rest of the rack after the break is just a formality. OK, occasionally they miss and get out of line, but for the most part, if there is a ball down and a shot at the one, you can go grab a beer and be back for the next break and not miss anything."

I don't know how much tennis you watch, but it was my life for 2 decades ... in the years when Roscoe, Goran, and Sampras were serving big ... trust me the rest of those games were a formality. When a guy walks into a Wimbledon final and hits 56 aces, that's the equivalent of sinking the 9 on the break in 16 games. And that doesn't include service winners which is the equivalent of a pure break and run. The serve in tennis is just like the break. And the format in tennis is tried and true.

 

[ineedaspot]

I totally agree with this. I played D1 tennis is college. This argument about breaking is an age old argument about serving in tennis going back to the 70s. And 9-ball is like Wimbledon ... whenever someone with a monster serve is around (like Roscoe, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Sampras, etc) people whine that fast grass court tennis is too much of a serving contest. The bottom line is that the break (just like the serve) is a weapon and they should be rewarded for possessing and honing that weapon. Don't change the rules because someone has a monster weapon. And let's face it, 9-ball is designed to be a lighting fast game like grass court tennis that favors offense. If people want something slower and more strategic ... then that's why we have one-pocket and 14.1 just like tennis has the French Open on clay courts.

They should follow the format of tennis whereby everybody gets their equal opportunity to serve/break. And if you cannot consistently win the games where you serve/break, then you will lose.

The format for tennis is tried and true:
Alternating serve
Best 2 out of 3 sets (and maybe 3 out of 5 for championship finals)
Race to 6 per set

There are a few differences between the serve and the break that I think are notable. One is that you only get one break per rack of pool, so if you don't get a ball in, that's a huge problem. You get to hit at least four first serves in a tennis game.

Still, I agree with the alternating breaks win-by-two idea with multiple sets. If a tourney were held that way I would also get rid of all the rules designed to foil breakers. Rack the 9 on the spot, no break box, and allow soft breaking. Like in tennis, if you don't win your break in those conditions, it's a big deal.

 

[parvus1202]

But that what pool is, breaking and pocketing game. Probably 9 ball is just too few, once broken most likely one would have an open table.

 

[ineedaspot]

Respectfully to your comment, "But here's one big difference. In tennis the serve is huge, yes. But in pool, a lot of times, among pros, the rest of the rack after the break is just a formality. OK, occasionally they miss and get out of line, but for the most part, if there is a ball down and a shot at the one, you can go grab a beer and be back for the next break and not miss anything."

I don't know how much tennis you watch, but it was my life for 2 decades ... in the years when Roscoe, Goran, and Sampras were serving big ... trust me the rest of those games were a formality. When a guy walks into a Wimbledon final and hits 56 aces, that's the equivalent of sinking the 9 on the break in 16 games. And that doesn't include service winners which is the equivalent of a pure break and run. The serve in tennis is just like break. And the format in tennis is tried and true.

I watch a lot of tennis. Huge fan. Play a good amount, but not D1 or anything like that. I think it would be great to model pool after tennis.

What I mean by a formality is that after a good break, a player still has to run out the rack, and this takes a lot of time, and is usually a foregone conclusion. Most of the time is spent running the rack, not on the break, which is actually the most important thing.

In tennis, if you hit a huge serve, then the point doesn't last very long. And if the point lasts more than a few shots, then the serve isn't pivotal anymore.

And also, unlike a break and run, the other guy gets to try and return the serve, not just sit there and watch. That's actually part of the excitement -- is someone going to be able to figure out how to get enough returns back to break serve. There's no return in pool. There's just sitting in a chair.

The serve in tennis is actually not so much like the break in pool. The serve in tennis is much more of an advantage. Breakers win something like 60% of pool games, in tennis it is more like 80%. The reason is that if you don't make a ball on the break, then suddenly the other guy has a huge advantage.

The problem isn't really that the breaker has a big advantage. It's that the outcome of the break determines a rack way too often. Too much is riding on whether a ball drops on the break.

 

[GDC]

I agree with everything. And I think this format would allow opponents to have equal time at the table. And the guy with the big gun break is still going to be able to leverage that as an advantage ... rightfully so.

 

[sjm]

Yeah, and golf is only about driving. Having a great break, to me, is like hitting the fairway more than the next guy, but others skills are also required in both golf and pool, and we all know that you "drive for show and putt for dough."

Sometimes, watching Shane play ten ball bores the hell of me, because he so often has the same shot of the one in the top corner and a layout that is so wide open and so easy by pro standards that it robs a viewer of some of the excitement of seeing difficult racks attempted and/or completed.

... but in the just completed US Open, in which one could not easily play shape off of the break, the runouts were much harder, and in the final, the runouts were super-difficult on a few occasions. That's one reason that the breaker, according to AZB break statistician At Large, won only about 50% of the racks in the US Open.

Watching Shane complete the difficult racks in the final last night was such a treat. I've never enjoyed watching nine ball more than I did in the two Shane/Dennis matches (winners bracket semifinal and the final) in this US Open.

Suggesting that Shane won with his break is an insult to him. He won with his break, his pocketing, his position play, his defense and his kicking, excelling in all of these.

Yes, being a racking guru helps, as the presence of America's two best breakers in the final four (Van Boening and Dechaine) evidences, but this US Open called on the contestants to do a lot more than break well, and that's why the final that many would have predicted as the most likely matchup going into the event was the one we got.

 

[ineedaspot]

Yeah, and golf is only about driving. Having a great break, to me, is like hitting the fairway more than the next guy, but others skills are also required in both golf and pool, and we all know that you "drive for show and putt for dough."

I think that objectively the break is more important in 9-ball than the drive in golf. Maybe on a par-3, but then it's not really just a "drive".

... but in the just completed US Open, in which one could not easily play shape off of the break, the runouts were much harder, and in the final, the runouts were super-difficult on a few occasions. That's one reason that the breaker, according to AZB break statistician At Large, won only about 50% of the racks in the US Open.

The problem isn't that the break is too much of an advantage, the problem I see is that too much is determined by the outcome of the break. If the breaker doesn't make a ball, and leaves a shot on the one, then suddenly the other player has a huge advantage. A statistic I'd like to see is how often does the player who makes the first ball after the break end up winning the rack. That would be more informative IMO.

Suggesting that Shane won with his break is an insult to him. He won with his break, his pocketing, his position play, his defense and his kicking, excelling in all of these.

I don't mean to insult Shane in any way. Breaking is a huge part of the game, and he's the best at it. He absolutely deserves his win. Is he better at running balls and playing tactically than, say, Dennis? I'm not so sure. But it doesn't matter -- the break is the most important shot, so other players would be wise to work on their breaks more. Shane didn't make the rules. He perfected his game to maximize his chances of winning with the rules that are in place. That's exactly what he should do.

But a valid question is, from a spectator's point of view, is the overwhelming importance of the break a good thing? I think it is not.

 

[jmhanson_21]

This is overblown. Many would argue the top two players in the field before it started were Dennis and Shane. Look at the rest of the players who did really well, guys like Busti, Thorsten, Appelton, etc. if this was just a breaking contest, then you'd have way more upsets. There are thousands if high level armatures out there, can't any of them devote a few months of practice to mastering the break and becoming unstoppable? Each table breaks differently, each set if balls breaks differently, the tables change as the tournament goes on, and so does the rest of the equipment. The percentages were showing that it was quite difficult to make balls all week. Everyone knows a great break is a great weapon, but there's no donut the cream is rising to the top, and it has much more to do with that exceptional display of maneuvering and shot making that Shane and Dennis gave us, than the few break 'n runs we saw.

 

[ineedaspot]

This is overblown. Many would argue the top two players in the field before it started were Dennus and Shane. Look at the rest of the players who did really well, guys like Busti, Thorsten, Appelton, etc. if this was just a breaking contest, then you'd have way more upsets. There are thousands if high level armatures out there, can't any of them devote a few months if practice to mastering the break and becoming unstoppable? Each table breaks differently, each set if balls breaks differently, the tables change as the tournament goes on, and so does the rest of the equipment. The percentages were showing that it was quite difficult to make balls all week. Everyone knows a great break is a great weapon, but there's no donut the cream is rising to the top, and it has much more to do with that exceptional display of maneuvering and shot making that Shane and Dennis gave us, than the few break 'n runs we saw.

Well, yes, of course, it's not just a breaking contest -- that was an exaggeration. It's more of a breaking contest that in order to get into, you have to be able to run out at the level of a Shane/Dennis/Darren/Niels/etc. And not many people in the world can do that. But I do think it is unfortunate, particularly from the point of view of spectators, that when you get to the very elite level it becomes mostly about the break.

I actually think that the changes to the break rule made the break more important, not less. If the wing ball is going in every time, then the aspect of making a ball on the break kind of goes away and balances out. But in these tough breaking conditions, we saw a lot of dry breaks, so getting a ball on the break became even more pivotal.

 

[peteypooldude]

Pro 8 ball, 9 ball and 10 ball are all heavily influenced by the break. It's part of the game and imo one of the most beautiful parts of the game. The constant whining and bickering is a discredit to the game. Pros crying about the break is an embarrassment . What kills me is they act like Shane touching the 1 ball somehow helps him win and there's no truth to it period. If some of them would PLEASE demonstrate how this works and why they can't explain it would help their argument. It's a myth and a piss poor excuse. It's hard to believe Shane is the only one in the world that can do this. Truth is he works harder and deserves it, the ones crying and making excuses should be ashamed of their jealousy

 

[Island Drive]

I've watched competitive tennis my entire life even tho I preferred to play badminton. Tennis matches are fun and when the Right' head to head match is going to happen, whether it's today or tomorrow at X time frame Rolan Garrows/Wimbledon or??? I do what I can to watch, it's exciting. Like those that saw the finals. Having seen Lassiter, Crane, Ronnie Allen, Bugs, Rempe, Marino, Boston Shorty, Ed Kelly, Amadeo, Weenie Beanie, Cole Dixon, Keith Thompson and on and on, I know how much fun it was and can be.

In tennis if your serve is better than your opponents so be it, but everyone has a bad day serving or breaking the balls, or the conditions etc, so it's Never that predictable.

Allowing each player equal time racking and breaking is Extremely fair to the players, the venue, the spectators and the game itself. Like another said, it's tried and true, and having such a similar name as the US Open tennis, it would be silly not to try it ONCE.

And if someone knows nothing about pool, just tell em it's just like US Open tennis, and they might get it' right away, you don't have to Explain it, which is confusing to non players.

 

[sjm]

I don't mean to insult Shane in any way. Breaking is a huge part of the game, and he's the best at it. He absolutely deserves his win.

Is he better at running balls and playing tactically than, say, Dennis?

I'm not so sure. But it doesn't matter -- the break is the most important shot, so other players would be wise to work on their breaks more. Shane didn't make the rules. He perfected his game to maximize his chances of winning with the rules that are in place. That's exactly what he should do.

But a valid question is, from a spectator's point of view, is the overwhelming importance of the break a good thing? I think it is not.

Tbe answer is no, but he was better than Dennis this week in both offense and tactical play, and it added up to a title.