IIRC, saw a ref in Ultimate Pool do exactly that
Rebuttal by Johann Chua re Waxgate
- Thread starter JAM
- Start date
Great post, giving us a nice trip down memory lane, but ....
Corey's soft break was already around by 2000 and was, in the eyes of many, the reason he beat Immonen 11-0 in the 2001 US Open 9ball final.
In 2002, in the wake of a lot of complaining by the players that the soft break had made the game too repetitious (an opinion that I shared at the time), some rules changes were made to outlaw the soft break. As we can see, a new iteration of the soft break had reared its ugly head again by 2007. Perhaps this was a case of either a) the rules changes being made at the BCA level and not the WPA level, or b) poor enforcement of rules already on the books, but I just do not know.
The suggestion that the soft break makes it easier to run the table is false. On average, the soft break leaves more clusters. However, as the result of the soft break is more predictable than that of the hard break, the soft break increases the likelihood that the breaker will be the one that controls the table first after the break, thereby increasing the breaker's win rate.
Matchroom has resolved the breaking issue to my complete satisfaction. Everyone can learn to make the one in the side with nine on the spot and the tight Matchroom break box, but the position after the break is unpredictable, as is evidenced by the 24% B&R rate (per At Large stats) at the recently completed World 9ball.
When it comes to the break, "soft" is a four-letter word.
Soft breaking by skilled players do not inherently create more clusters. It will reduce them when the rack is tight and the players break is working. World class player that are winning, their game usually includes the break that is working. A break that’s working will increase run-out chances and is the whole point. For the average Joe trying to emulate the top players on earth and trying to figure out their break I totally agree you. If hit too soft or slightly off racks, the balls don’t spread well, leading to clusters and no shot. There are many variables to saying soft breaks inherently leave more clusters.
Last edited:
Agreed to a point. It depends on who is breaking, but the problem in 2000-01 was that Corey, while often not leaving a runout, almost never had to push out because the soft break was leaving the first ball after the break accessible time and time again. No, he wasn't running packages the way Strickland and Archer were, but he was controlling the game with his special brand of breaking.
The thing with MR rules is that almost every frame starts with a safety battle, which takes a bit from the heart and soul of 9-ball and sometimes makes the game quite boring to watch. Yes, I do appreciate a good safety battle, but not on every rack. Races to 9 take 1.5 hours with a 30-second shot clock... they were shorter without the shot clock when the 1 was on the spot.
If I were a pro playing by MR rules, I would find a different break, something that will keep the 1 on the table and pocket something else.
In Europe they also restrict the 2-ball position in the rack; it could be in the back spot or at the wing spots, so a player can still pot the 1 ball but needs to learn 3 breaks to get position on the 2. Not randomising the 2-ball position is a bad idea in my opinion.
I don't get how stuff like this can bother a high level player.
Never have.
Perhaps it deals with the environments you play in, but sharking was something I had to develop a thick skin to, Fast. Or any type of distractions, for that matter. And what really blows my mind is, when I'm in the zone, I don't hear or see or feel any outside disturbances. I couldn't tell you how much time has passed or any of that. Someone fidgeting in a chair wouldn't make a blip on my radar.
One more thing, please take the time to listen to colloquy in the link that I shared. The commentators were speaking about the soft break being used throughout the 2007 WPC, which was the point of my post, not the exact date and time when Corey Deuel first utilized the soft break.
Again, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
Only takes one.
Thanks classy dame.
I was giving updates on several matches of the this year's WPC, and when it came to the break, I remember thinking it would be nice to have a shorthand macro or brief form for "1 in the side" because that's what happens quite often today when someone who's mastered the break on the TV table. I wish I had a quarter for every time I typed "1 in the side."
At Large stats do not bear this out. Per his stats, 49% of the racks included at least one safety, and some of those safeties start later than on the shot after the break, so probably only two racks out of five begin with safety play.
Of course, it is entirely a matter of opinion how wide open the play should be to maximize the entertainment value of pro pool, and I respect that you'd like things a bit more open, but I think having safety play in nearly half the racks makes the game more, not less, entertaining.
Yes, I enjoyed the commentary. Thanks.One more thing, please take the time to listen to colloquy in the link that I shared. The commentators were speaking about the soft break being used throughout the 2007 WPC, which was the point of my post, not the exact date and time when Corey Deuel first utilized the soft break.
Again, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
It is a general observation from all the events and matches I started to watch since getting back into pool.
It used to be more "fast & loose." I guess it started with tighter pockets, so players took fewer chances, but now with this cut break, it's very hard to get a spread for a run-out. The most important thing is to pocket the 1 and stay at the table and then play safe if they don't have a shot, but it's more often that they don't have a shot. Could be on the first ball, could be on the second or third. Once the match is not with a top 10 player, you see it more often—safe after the break. A 750 Fargo player should run out more often than they do these days.
Nice post.
I think you've got it 100% right that the game has trended in this direction, and certainly the use of four-inch pockets has much to do with why players are opting for more defense. I've often argued that 4 1/4" pockets would be preferable, but obviously those at Matchroom disagree.
Still, the other thing to consider is the super-narrow break box in use in the Matchroom majors. At Derby City this year, the nine was on the spot, but the break box was much wider. The result was that the elite players, accustomed to the more challenging Matchroom break box, had a pretty easy time of it.
It's the combination of the need for the cut break with the narrow break box that has made things the way they are at the Matchroom majors.
You've suggested that the test is too stiff and, for all but the superelite, conservative play has too often been the result. I agree.
Last edited: