Shane vs. Corey - Soft Break Patterns

jalapus logan said:
Damn son! Do you have any free time for sale? :D Just kidding, good info, thanks.

I agree with some here that pattern racking should just be banned outright. Though if pattern racking is insisted upon, I think that the pattern should be the one that has been demonstrated to yield the most difficult runouts possible.
Click to expand...

I might agree... I dunno.
First I need to see real proof that pattern racking can get REALLY abusive.

These guys run out from everywhere if they have a look at the 1 and the balls don't cluster.
Coincidentally, the 1 is in the same place on every rack, whether pattern racking is banned or not.
So I'm not convinced that it matters that much.

I thought I might see something outrageous in Shane vs. Corey.
I was honestly excited that we might get the first 10-pack ever caught on video
(remember Earl's was only recorded halfway through).

Instead we got a surprising number of dry breaks, a 50% break and run rate (not nearly as much
as you'd think with a supposedly guaranteed ball on the break and supposedly easy layout),
and the biggest package was Shane's 6-pack.

That's outstanding pool, but nothing that would make anyone say
"This is getting ridiculous, we need to change the rules, this is broken."

If I see evidence of pattern racking leading to endless runouts and breaking the game,
(let's say 10 pack, or 70% runout rate, something like that) then I'd have to agree
that we need to stick with random racking.


StraightPoolIU said:
I kept waiting for him to change where he was racking them in order to alleviate that particular problem by subsequently changing the run out pattern which would no longer involve the cut into the side. I think at the end of the match he said he thought about doing that, but by then it was too late.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think he tried to adjust speed and hit thinking that would nudge the 3 out.
Maybe that's the downside to this ultra soft break. Maybe ANY ball in that spot
will get "stuck". Or maybe it was just on the TAR table, but in corey's room those
balls always separate and he can run that pattern all day.
 
CreeDo said:
I might agree... I dunno.
First I need to see real proof that pattern racking can get REALLY abusive.


I thought I might see something outrageous in Shane vs. Corey.
I was honestly excited that we might get the first 10-pack ever caught on video
(remember Earl's was only recorded halfway through).

Instead we got a surprising number of dry breaks, a 50% break and run rate (not nearly as much
as you'd think with a supposedly guaranteed ball on the break and supposedly easy layout),
and the biggest package was Shane's 6-pack.

That's outstanding pool, but nothing that would make anyone say
"This is getting ridiculous, we need to change the rules, this is broken."

If I see evidence of pattern racking leading to endless runouts and breaking the game,
(let's say 10 pack, or 70% runout rate, something like that) then I'd have to agree
that we need to stick with random racking.
Click to expand...

Jeezuz, obviously you did not get the memo. Pool is broken and is faaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrr too easy. 3.25" corner pockets are now needed and the side pockets need to be removed entirely. And for onepocket, only multi-rail bank shots count as a score, all other pocketed balls are spotted. Y'all need to stop playing pu$$y pool...:cool:
 
CreeDo said:
I might agree... I dunno.
First I need to see real proof that pattern racking can get REALLY abusive.

These guys run out from everywhere if they have a look at the 1 and the balls don't cluster.
Coincidentally, the 1 is in the same place on every rack, whether pattern racking is banned or not.
So I'm not convinced that it matters that much.

I thought I might see something outrageous in Shane vs. Corey.
I was honestly excited that we might get the first 10-pack ever caught on video
(remember Earl's was only recorded halfway through).

Instead we got a surprising number of dry breaks, a 50% break and run rate (not nearly as much
as you'd think with a supposedly guaranteed ball on the break and supposedly easy layout),
and the biggest package was Shane's 6-pack.

That's outstanding pool, but nothing that would make anyone say
"This is getting ridiculous, we need to change the rules, this is broken."

If I see evidence of pattern racking leading to endless runouts and breaking the game,
(let's say 10 pack, or 70% runout rate, something like that) then I'd have to agree
that we need to stick with random racking.




Yeah, I think he tried to adjust speed and hit thinking that would nudge the 3 out.
Maybe that's the downside to this ultra soft break. Maybe ANY ball in that spot
will get "stuck". Or maybe it was just on the TAR table, but in corey's room those
balls always separate and he can run that pattern all day.
Click to expand...

I changed the 3 for another ball but I never had it stick anyway. Ran the first 5 racks trying his break.
If Corey hadn't made those simple errors I think we woulda seen a lot higher runs
 
Black-Balled said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by CreeDo

This video is even more educational if you happen to be on acid.

I am actuall trippin hard right now and I figured everything out. EVERRTHING.
Click to expand...

all matter is just energy condensed to a slow vibration and. And. Oh my god. It's full of stars


Posted from Azbilliards.com App for Android
 
CreeDo said:
Maaaaannnn....
People always say "I saw the same layout every time!!!" whenever this subject comes up and it's never true.
Nobody's racking and breaking is so perfectly consistent.
If it's possible, then someone should post a video of a 10-pack doing it.
Click to expand...

I've seen Corey Deuel do it at Q-Masters in Va Beach... same runout each time and after the break the balls were extremely close to where they were in the previous rack. I don't know how many he ran before I walked in and started watching him but I saw him run 3 racks in a row that looked exactly the same before he messed up on the break in the 4th one.

It wasn't a 10-pack but I believe he could do it if he was allowed to "train" the racking area so the ball positions were repeatable.
 
CreeDo said:
Maaaaannnn....
People always say "I saw the same layout every time!!!" whenever this subject comes up and it's never true.
Nobody's racking and breaking is so perfectly consistent.
If it's possible, then someone should post a video of a 10-pack doing it.

The match you're thinking of is of Orcullo vs. Shaw where Dennis ran 3 and later 6.
They allowed pattern racking, magic rack, and breaking from the side.
There was much crying afterwards.

I made a chart of where every ball dropped. >>>>
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=326246

Not a single runout had all the balls go in the same pockets.
In fact, nevermind ALL the balls... not even one ball went in the same hole on every rack.
Except the wing ball, which he actually missed on one rack until another ball bumped it in.
He actually swapped balls around and played 3 different patterns.

If someone wants to prove me wrong just break 10 times with the magic rack (making the wing ball every time)
and get every ball within a foot of its previous location, every time. You don't even have to actually run them.
Click to expand...

I watched the Corey-Shane 9 ball match on the last TAR and true, the racks may not have been exactly identical, but close enough to make it quite boring- for both players, moreso Corey, but Shane's racks were quite similar almost every time too
 
Good thread! I missed that match and cant wait for TAR to post it. Two of my favorite players. I also have a list of pattern racking from Shane and Dennis. Need to take a closer look at Cory's.
 
To say "pattern racking" is over-simplifying it. Shane had 7 break and runs with same layout after the break. He stared at his 7th layout and clearly said he needed to switch two balls. He did the next rack and the layout changed dramatically.

They were also giving themselves a repeatable, solid rack. This allows them to duplicate their break. 1-cloth will endent. 2-0 balls vary in size (except new balls). 3-breaking softer allows them make the wing ball repeatedly while reducing the chance of all other balls colliding before the come to rest.

Shane popped the Cue ball/1 ball to get shape. Corey was rolling the Cue ball to 1 ball. Shane ' break resulted in a more spread out rack. Corey's layout was more clustered, resulting in a more difficult runout. That was the difference in the match. They both agreed on this at the after match interviews.

Last- Anyone that thinks that a layout resulting in balls being in smaller area is desired, needs to consider all factors. A good Barbox game relies on superior cue ball control, especially when all 16 balls are on the table (more chances for obstructions).

Respect, Courage, and Commitment!
 
Corey was definitely hurting when one or two of his balls congested on the right rail
(believe it was the 5). But he still got out half the time despite that.

Can virtually guarantee that shane's 6-pack did not have the exact same layout after the break.
Some of the balls were similar I'm sure, but I bet all the balls didn't end up in the same pockets
every time, or even half the time.

I wish I weren't so nitty :) I'd offer up a nice reward for a 10-pack on video.
Or wouldn't a 20k prize for a 20-pack on video be awesome?
I believe Jay Helfert has a standing offer to pay 5 figures for anyone who breaks mosconi's record.
Why not a similar prize for 9b? Or let's at least establish a 9b record.

I'm pretty sure that despite all these tricks (patterns + magic rack) there's no way to get
the exact same layout (every ball in the same hole) every time.
Can even a top pro hit the exact same break speed within .5 mph every time?
At some point the differences in speed will change how the balls collide a second after the break.
One or more of them will end up elsewhere and that "elsewhere" might make the whole rack tougher.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top