Should we basically do away with the break in 8 / 9 / 10ball?

[CreeDo]

So far it's 70% "Definitely no" and 20% unsure...
I think no-conflict has at best a limited niche where it might make the game more fun for low level players
and whoever sweats low-level matches.

Any time you mess with the break rules you see pros work hard to master and eventually abuse
the new format. Years ago nobody would dare say the 10b break is too easy, like shooting
a tapped-table wired trick shot. But someone worked on it enough to actually make it look
like child's play.

I think no-conflict, in the hands of dedicated pros, would lead to abuse.
After a few months they'd figure out a soft break (or even a hard break) that works reliably to
hang the 1 ball or some other ball in 8b. Then they'd proceed to get out every time.
Whoever wins the coin flip wins the set. After a year of these people will be looking
for a new solution to the 'problem'.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I think no-conflict, in the hands of dedicated pros, would lead to abuse.
After a few months they'd figure out a soft break

There is no way to know anything without some experience.

I don't know what you are afraid of. You should not be so scared. There is no harm intended here. There is a vote that matters. People say one thing and do another. The real vote is what people do with their time and how they spend their money. You can count that vote. It has real meaning.

I will continue to advocate the "No Conflict Rules" for all level of play. I have posative results: good numbers, satisfied players, improved competition, faster and smoother events.

You should read the rules. Your posts reveal that you have not. I will also add: All of the "NO" votes may swear they would never play under these rules, would eventually come and play, and all would return. This has been my experience.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I'm not sure exactly what your point is but below is the poll. 9-ball came in last and 10-ball and 1-P were tops. I think American Rotation or something similar will get more popular in the future, too. Pool is changing. There are more and more players who want to aim at higher skill, not lower skill.

10 Ball 50.71%
One Pocket 39.34%
8 Ball 34.60%
14.1 Continuous 32.23%
9 Ball 25.12%
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=323453

I guess this would be an example of an accurate AZ poll (like this one).

I wish some of you folks with such strong opinions would actually do something that would produce results that have meaning. I often say that this is only a forum and nothing really happens here. Sometimes I even have to remind myself of this. sheeesh

 

[I Got Lucky]

I vote we go this route....

http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/general/no-more-winning-in-soccer/

A column by Sun writer Ron Corbett tells the story of Bill Michalopulos from the Ottawa South United soccer club. Bill runs the club, a massive organization with 6,300 members at all levels of play.

Bill and his colleagues were shocked when they dropped by the offices of the Eastern Ontario District Soccer Association to pick up medals for their winning teams. A number of United’s teams had won their divisions and that normally means they get a medal given out at the end of year banquet.

Not this year.

The district office told Ottawa South that there were no medals and there wouldn’t be in the future because medals promote competition.

Thinking this was a mistake the Ottawa South looked to clarify via email. Here is what they received back.

“The EODSA league will not be giving out medals. The decision was ratified by the EODSA board at its September 1 meeting. As you know we have reduced fees in the league to $200.00 per team this season, in addition the presentation of medals is considered to emphasize winning versus player development, which is the new focus of OSA programs.”

I’d hang my head in shame at this point if this were just about soccer, a game I have played all my life but it is not. So all of you folks who like to claim that soccer is a wimp sport and that of course those wimps wouldn’t keep score….well, you just hold that for a moment.

This move towards eliminating competition goes well beyond soccer and is moving into all children’s activities and it’s backed by the federal government. Specifically Sports Canada, part of the Heritage Department headed up by James Moore.

The Long Term Athlete Development program is being pushed by the feds and national and provincial sports bodies onto leagues that belong to any kind of organized structure.

It has looked at the real problem of some parents and coaches putting too much emphasis on winning and not enough on teaching the fundamentals of a sport and decided to throw the baby out with the bath water.

They are mandating that children’s sports leagues follow a new regimen that drops competition at the youngest ages and focuses on practicing rather than playing a game.

According to the program, there should be no competition, meaning no real, organized active games in team sports until age 8 for girls and age 9 for boys. Even after that age the ratio of practices to games is ridiculous. The recommendation is 7 practices for every 3 games played.

After age 12, you can have 3 practices for every 2 games.

There is also a push to drop standings and awards for excellence.

We don’t want little Timmy’s team feeling bad for being in third place now do we?

Our society has been trying to diminish winning for a long time. First it was through “participation trophies” – that was the give every kid a trophy movement. Except that the winning team still got a big trophy. Now we are going the opposite direction – no one gets a trophy.

In my time playing kids t-ball, soccer and hockey I was on a winning teams, I was on mediocre teams and I was on some real stinkers as well.

In all instances you learn and develop character. You learn how to win graciously and you learn how to lose graciously.

You learn that it takes teamwork to win and that everyone has to do their part.

JUST KIDDING... That kind of crap is more of the insane BS that comes from the liberal mind.


THIS GUY HAS IT RIGHT..........

You get an unobstructed shot at all 15 balls racked together and you can't make ONE?
No, you don't get another turn. Practice your break.

 

[Paul Schofield]

New2Cue? This must mean that you are new to the game?

You must not know that the break is a highly skilled part of the game. Controlling the cue -ball and controlling the 1-ball and getting a good spread is very difficult and comes with practice.

You also must not know that the No Conflict Rules make it significantly more difficult for a weaker player to win a match.

For the most part, especially in Eight-Ball, the breaker is just slopping balls in. Are you aware of this? Please explain the connection between your post and the matter at hand.


Originally Posted by YubaCushion View Post
You get an unobstructed shot at all 15 balls racked together and you can't make ONE?
No, you don't get another turn. Practice your break.

The above is a guy who does not understand the break.

 

[Hungarian]

Business owners can make rules how they wish in their own establishment. But in my view this idea about free shot after the break should never become policy. I hope it doesn't for the sake of the game.

 

[Magog30]

A hard break with a full rack of balls is an exciting and interesting part of pool. Trying to make a ball is part of this. There can be luck on the break, but it is also a skill shot.

The problem comes in when the break becomes the only thing that matters because players are running out every time (8 ball, 9 ball depending on break rules). The game then becomes a "break contest". I say a made ball on the break should be an advantage but that the game played needs to be hard enough that most games are not "run outs".

A Big Drive in golf is coming to mind - It's an advantage for sure, but usually doesn't determine the winner.

 

[CreeDo]

The real vote is what people do with their time and
how they spend their money. You can count that vote. It has real meaning.

[snip] All of the "NO" votes may swear they would never play under these rules,
would eventually come and play, and all would return. This has been my experience.

I think the reason so many people are willing to vote a definite no, despite not having tried it,
is you can sense when something is not a good idea.
I've never eaten a spider but I'm pretty sure I won't enjoy it.
Still, I'm sure no conflict won't be as unpleasant as all that.

But as for "put your money where your mouth is"... we can't all be tournament directors.
I'll try to open my mind. Next time I shoot with my buddies we'll try no-conflict (the whole ruleset)
and we'll see if it's fun or if it tastes like spiders.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I think the reason so many people are willing to vote a definite no, despite not having tried it,
is you can sense when something is not a good idea.
I've never eaten a spider but I'm pretty sure I won't enjoy it.
Still, I'm sure no conflict won't be as unpleasant as all that.

and we'll see if it's fun or if it tastes like spiders.

Hilarious! Not only do you not understand the game, you do not understand human nature. People are hardened in their habits. People naturally resist change. Because something is 10 or 20% better is not enough to move anyone. Something has to be much better, overwhelmingly better, 50 to 100% better, than what they have in order to embrace change. Even with that it takes many tries and a long time.

You are the perfect example of what I am talking about. That is why I enjoy interacting with you.

 

[CreeDo]

Hilarious! Not only do you not understand the game, you do not understand human nature.

Comments like this are why I don't enjoy interacting with you so much.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Comments like this are why I don't enjoy interacting with you so much.

LOL. Oh come on. You have got to admit: Eating spiders!? This is funny, and how could someone take this seriously? Players will shoot pool under any rules. They will never eat spiders! You should expect a harmless jab for that.


At different times, I have posted the comments on the rules by well-knowns in our industry. I have a couple more players to add to it. I will see if I can find the quotes tomorrow or Friday and post them here. It won't change minds. Only playing changes minds. It might make some people think and try them out.

 

[Paul Schofield]

If you think that's bad try walking into his pool room with your ball cap on and the brim on facing any direction other than straight forward.

Bob, you would be in pool heaven. You would like the equipment, the service, the cleanliness, and the care that we give our place...just for you. Like everyone else, you would just turn your hat around.

 

[CreeDo]

LOL. Oh come on. You have got to admit: Eating spiders!? This is funny, and how could someone take this seriously? Players will shoot pool under any rules. They will never eat spiders! You should expect a harmless jab for that.

Oh okay, eating spiders was a little strong. You're still kind of a jerk though.
You should drop the "you must not play well" and "you're all anal" and "why so oversensitive".
Stick to your facts and statistics, they can win people over. That other shit just turns them off.

You mentioned being able to play and understand something about human nature.
Anyone who can really play knows it's a controlled shot.
You honestly think 8 ball's break is "unsolvable"?
At least one guy already figured it out. It's inevitable the rest will catch up.
The only reason you don't see 100 pros doing the same break in 8b is they don't care about that game.
Why practice for a game that is mostly absent from major events?

So anyway, yes, racking leads to quibbling and arguments.
But it adds an interesting and difficult shot that the crowd loves, which is why it ALWAYS gets replayed on TV.
And it adds an element of luck which we both know is a good thing in controlled quantities.

You feel the break is way too much luck, an uncontrolled quantity of it?
OK but tournaments have always been about who was better that particular day.
They're never gonna be fair, whether you "fix" the break or not.
The races will always be too short, there will always be rolls etc.

A few decades ago you could watch pool on TV and players could win real money too.
We had that same sloppy random break. What's the problem?

 

[Paul Schofield]

Oh okay, eating spiders was a little strong. You're still kind of a jerk though.
You should drop the "you must not play well" and "you're all anal" and "why so oversensitive".

.

If I post something that bothers you, just ignore it. I don't mean to upset you. There is no need for name calling. No minds can ever be changed on a forum. This is where some people come to kill time and hone their persuasive skills for the real world.

When I say "you must not play well", it was not meant as a dig. I have found that the very good player and the novice "get it". The middle does not. They have strange notions about the break.

When I state that pool may have been highjacked by anal personality types, I am serious and I am wondering. I am trying to understand how we got to where we are today (tightning the whole game down). Something happened to pool. It used to be more fun.

So anyway, yes, racking leads to quibbling and arguments.

You forgot cheating, time wasting, and animosity, all of which are destructive. As a tournament director, I am not putting up with this crap. Everyone else can do what they want.

 

[YubaCushion]

.

If I post something that bothers you, just ignore it. I don't mean to upset you. There is no need for name calling. No minds can ever be changed on a forum. This is where some people come to kill time and hone their persuasive skills for the real world.

When I say "you must not play well", it was not meant as a dig. I have found that the very good player and the novice "get it". The middle does not. They have strange notions about the break.

When I state that pool may have been highjacked by anal personality types, I am serious and I am wondering. I am trying to understand how we got to where we are today (tightning the whole game down). Something happened to pool. It used to be more fun.



You forgot cheating, time wasting, and animosity, all of which are destructive. As a tournament director, I am not putting up with this crap. Everyone else can do what they want.

Pool is fun, if it's not played like you wanna play it. Your tournaments sound lame.
Your whole, If you only knew pool like I know pool and whatnot is just sorry.
Here's a simple truth, If pool was made to be played like you advocate, it would be.
It's not. A small group of people like you who don't know any better are intent on leaving the game worse off than when they found it.

 

[cardiac kid]

I've played in many of Paul's events. Is it the perfect format for players like Dennis Hatch? Probably not. Notice I said probably. He's played in a few. I resisted Paul's events for years. Once I tried it, I like it. Not once did I have to check a rack. Not once was there a heated discussion. Is it the perfect tournament format? Only time will tell.

I've read comments from players who have never been to Gold Crown Billiards. Got to be one of the nicest "pool rooms" I've been to. Food is great. Beer really cold. Tables are clean and well maintained. Pockets a little loose but good for business. Not sure if there is a room that's more player oriented.

Take a ride and play in an event. Bet you'll change your mind!!!!

Lyn

Don't get me started on the break and run. Best format of all! Once you try it that is .

 

[eastcoast_chris]

In 8 ball... no. Squat the ball in the center and you will have a shot 99% of the time, and if you hit them good/great then you get a ball well over 80% of the time. Not needed

In 9 ball and 10 ball, yes it could work, but only if the 3 ball past the head string rule was used. With the alternate break in use, this format wouldn't favor either player and you'd still have to try to control the q-ball and 1 ball.

I'm all for taking as much "luck" out of the game as possible.

 

[Matt]

I'm a "not sure" because it all depends on what you're trying to achieve.

In Paul's case, his goal is to keep things moving and eliminate all the fussing over the rack. Between alternate breaks, enforced random racking, rack your own, requirements for a certain number of balls past the center string, spotting the game ball, and giving the breaker the shot whether they make a ball or not, I would say he's done a pretty good job of achieving his goal. He has also nearly eliminated the break as a factor in the game. With Paul's rules, all that really matters to the breaker is avoiding a scratch and satisfying the requirements for balls across the center string. Preferably, you also have a shot on the first ball and have a runnable spread. Excepting the fact that certain patterns are more common from a break (center ball tends to stay put, most balls are still on one end of the table, etc.), this isn't far from just dumping the balls on the table and playing them where they lie.

If he wanted to take it to the next level, he could take the lead from American Rotation and give the breaker ball in hand after the break. Speaking of American Rotation, I do think it's an interesting to note that the same person that wrote the book(s) on racking and breaking conceived a game where the break's impact on the game is greatly reduced. I wonder if he would agree with Paul's assessment of the break as a trick shot.

Personally, I agree with those that think that breaking is fun and exciting, but it does seem a bit absurd that so many matches come down to how well each player breaks or how lucky/unlucky they get off the break. Pool is primarily a game of finesse, so why should the break be such a big factor anyhow? As someone mentioned previously, if the rest of the game is so easy that it comes down to the break, it's time to make the rest of the game harder. The shift to 10 ball has helped by making the break tougher, adding another ball to the mix, and trying to minimize the impact of lucky rolls. One pocket is nice because it is way more interactive throughout the course of a single game, but can be rather dull at times, even for one pocket fans. Straight pool is a great game, but doesn't give you as many opportunities to let your stroke out and produces very lopsided games between closely matched opponents. It seems like there is room for something new, especially at the pro level. Is it Bonus Ball or American Rotation? Only time will tell.

 

[Pidge]

The problem I see with 8 ball is the randomised racking. When ever I play 8 ball I rack them as they do in World Rules English 8 Ball. Always the same, gives a fair and even spread. I hate the randomness of just chucking 15 balls into a triangle and moving the 8 into the middle 3rd row.

I see the break as a valid skill shot, like draw, follow or masse. But if we wanted to really change it into a skill shot, then I'd go with calling a ball and pocket on the break; 2 ball, bottom left. If you make it then any other ball that goes down stays down, if the 2 stays on the table but others are made, then the opponent comes to the table and all balls get re-spotted. In this case I think there should be BIH behind the headstring only.

The idea of shooting after the break regardless puzzles me. Its something I'd use when playing my 10year old nephew to give him a chance.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Speaking of American Rotation, I do think it's an interesting to note that the same person that wrote the book(s) on racking and breaking conceived a game where the break's impact on the game is greatly reduced. I wonder if he would agree with Paul's assessment of the break as a trick shot.

The following is a quote from Joe Tucker posted on AZ:

Joe Tucker: “I believe this rule will cost me MONEY! But I still think it should be implemented”