Smash-break = slop

[Paul Schofield]

I disgree. I believe it is a GREAT SKILL to be able to park the cue and make a ball on the break consistently. Yes, there is some luck involved, but there will always be luck involved, even with your rules. You cannot take slop out of the game completely unless all shots are called, even then you can still slop a ball in a pocket that you called. I don't think you need to slam the ball too hard either, but if you can do it with control and be successfull at it, more power to you.

I am interested in making our game more sensible for indoors.

I am not interested at all in taking the slop out of the game. Luck is a factor in any game or sport. What is so unique and wrong about the smash-break is that the sole purpose is to get lucky. There is no intent of pocketing any specific ball in any specific pocket. In other words, the requirement is that you get lucky in order to shoot after the break. The only way you get to shoot is if you get lucky. The luck requirement is very very wrong. The break is too important to rely soley on luck in the end to proceed. My answer is to get rid of the ball on the break requirement (which is just slop anyways) and all is fixed and our game becomes more skilled. No sport or game should open in this fashion.

Luck is fine. Just don't make it a requirement. You can park that cue ball perfectly, but if you don't get lucky and make a ball, your done.

In addition, an intended ball in an intended pocket on the break is racking dependent. This means that racking must be done in a certain way. There are mountains of trouble here.

 

[Snapshot9]

Breaking

First off, Paul, the break is not luck because for every action there is a reaction. The reaction you get is because of the way you hit the rack and the force you hit the rack.

Luck is when your opponent is shooting and getting shape on the next ball, and the cue ball hits a minute piece of chalk on the table and ends up hooking him - that's luck.

Smash break - where in the world did you get that term???? I don't care for it personally. What are you going to do stand around watching players and tell someone when they break too hard? What if the cue ball goes straight up in the air 2 feet and then comes down on the table again?

Sorry, I can kind of understand where your thoughts are being a room owner, but you are trying to make the game too conservative and frankly too boring. People are drawn to the wilder things of Pool. Like the big break, a hard shot to the corner with inside english and going 3 rails for shape, a good jump shot, they basically like the things that dazzle them some. Although serious players can appreciate the technical aspects, the shooting consistency, the hard shots, etc..

LOL - Do what you want in YOUR room, just leave my rooms alone though.

 

[RRfireblade]

I've got to unsubscribe from the thread.

Dude , you are borderline insane and I just cant' read it anymore. Look , if you don't like the game that's fine , then pick another one. I don't know why you think it's your mission to change it for all the masses just to suit your own personal misfortunes when there is NO overwellming clammering for your help. FYI , we don't need it and many of us don't want it. Check out page 1 of the forum , notice anything ? Yeah , NOBODY else whining about the rack and NOBODY claiming the only reason they got smoked is 'cause of the rack. Rules are already in place to control the specific of the rack. Whether or not these rules get inforced is a case for the TD of any specific tourny.

I guess if anything good has come from this its knowing that I'll be staying miles aways from anything your 'ruining' , I mean running so thanks for the heads up.

Sorry , I just had to say it. Respond if you like but I won't be here to read it.

Good day sir.

I am interested in making our game more sensible for indoors.

I am not interested at all in taking the slop out of the game. Luck is a factor in any game or sport. What is so unique and wrong about the smash-break is that the sole purpose is to get lucky. There is no intent of pocketing any specific ball in any specific pocket. In other words, the requirement is that you get lucky in order to shoot after the break. The only way you get to shoot is if you get lucky. The luck requirement is very very wrong. The break is too important to rely soley on luck in the end to proceed. My answer is to get rid of the ball on the break requirement (which is just slop anyways) and all is fixed and our game becomes more skilled. No sport or game should open in this fashion.

Luck is fine. Just don't make it a requirement. You can park that cue ball perfectly, but if you don't get lucky and make a ball, your done.

In addition, an intended ball in an intended pocket on the break is racking dependent. This means that racking must be done in a certain way. There are mountains of trouble here.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I've got to unsubscribe from the thread.

Dude , you are borderline insane and I just cant' read it anymore. Look , if you don't like the game that's fine , then pick another one. I don't know why you think it's your mission to change it for all the masses just to suit your own personal misfortunes when there is NO overwhelming clammering for your help. FYI , we don't need it and many of us don't want it. Check out page 1 of the forum , notice anything ? Yeah , NOBODY else whining about the rack and NOBODY claiming the only reason they got smoked is 'cause of the rack. Rules are already in place to control the specific of the rack. Whether or not these rules get inforced is a case for the TD of any specific tourny.

I guess if anything good has come from this its knowing that I'll be staying miles aways from anything your 'ruining' , I mean running so thanks for the heads up.

Sorry , I just had to say it. Respond if you like but I won't be here to read it.

Good day sir.

Nation wide, pocket billiards as a business is on the verge of total collapse. Pool's problems are far more than a weak economy, smoking laws, poker, and casinos. Developers (not promoters) are critical to our game at this time. There are hundreds of us out here. We break out of the box and invent new games, new formats, new activities, and new concepts. All of this is done in the hopes that one will take hold and turn pool in a different direction.

A change need not be big. Imagine if you were flying through space on a dead straight path at 10 MPH. If you deviated just 1 degree , it would not seem like much at first but in three years you could be thousands of miles from where you were going.

Some recent notable development efforts are a game called 6pocket, bonus ball, and pool-poker-and pain. I am always interested in listening to and finding out about new developments. More than 99% will fail. The effort is all worth it for the one idea that succeeds. Hubbart and Bell are the most successful developers in recent decades.

I put my "No Conflict Rules" on this forum to make people think and create a stir. The Beard told me that most of the good players and promoters have been chased off this forum. I know they still read even though they will not post. I have thicker skin than most. Failure and rejection is a big part of development.

There are many unintended consequences of the "No Conflict Rules" and they are all good. I will tell more later. My players have played a quarter million racks under the rules and the response is all good. One interesting find is that the better the player, the more they prefer the rules. I encourage all of you to try them and see what they mean.

 

[RRfireblade]

Wierd , no idea why I still got an email notfication.

Anyway , last word on this.

Nation wide, pocket billiards as a business is on the verge of total collapse. Pool's problems are far more than a weak economy, smoking laws, poker, and casinos. Developers (not promoters) are critical to our game at this time. There are hundreds of us out here. We break out of the box and invent new games, new formats, new activities, and new concepts. All of this is done in the hopes that one will take hold and turn pool in a different direction.

Pool is dead for one reason and one reason only.

It's boring to watch. Therefore there is little to no TV coverage , therefore there is little to no big money sponsorships , therefore there is no growing interest in the subject matter IE , the sport. Therefore no one is inspired to play , therefore no one want's to turn Pro (and be broke). It all runs downhill from there.

A new game will not change that nor will rule changes that make the game MORE boring to watch.

In fact I promise you that the BIG BREAK has drawn more positive attention to the sport than ANY OTHER shot in the game bar none. It's the equivelent of the homerun , the knock out punch , the 350 yard drive.

It's the kind of thing that makes people want to pick up a cue , stop and look while walking by , pause while passing that channel. Look how fast all those stupid break speed apps have taken off. Your way off base here.

There are plenty of 'Pros' to play the game but what holds that growth back is NOT even remotely related to the rack , it's the lack of potential income. See 1st paragraph.

You take the break out of the game and "YOU" put the last nail in the coffin , guaranteed. No Pro is going to play any tourny that doesnt pay real money , no tourny will pay real money without sponsors. Again , see 1st paragraph.

You put on 2 Tournys , yours with your rules and no payouts and mine with a $100K purse and standard break rules (even with a random rack , that part doesn't bother me) and you won't even be able to hear the crickets at your place over the sounds of the crowd at my place.

Go to any house in town and tell all the patrons that in order to play there from now on , they have to use your break rules (limited power break/pocketed balls don't count/etc) and you'll shut that house down in a week.

I appreciate your trying to help. This just won't do it.

Sorry , no offence intended personally. I'm not trying to be mean but this nonsense has just gone to far if you really thin the break of the reason for the decline of Pool.

 

[JMuck]

There is skill in breaking and adjusting and knowing when and how to adjust.

What is the most glaring and prominant stat in this summary.http://www.oldpoolhall.com/tarupdates/shanemika.htm

Score vs Break ball count.

 

[Paul Schofield]

There is skill in breaking and adjusting and knowing when and how to adjust.

What is the most glaring and prominant stat in this summary.http://www.oldpoolhall.com/tarupdates/shanemika.htm

Score vs Break ball count.

Please explain the skill in knowing when to adjust and how. What would be most important would be to know where the balls were pocketed on the break from making what adjustment. Can you make a direct connection from a break adjustment to a particular ball going in a particular pocket (and repeat it)?

 

[Roger Long]

People, and I include railbirds, love a big break, seeing the balls fly around the table, falling in the holes, and seeing what the table looks like after the balls stop rolling. It's almost like opening a Christmas present, seeing a new toy, and trying to figure out how it works.

Yeah, I can count 'em on one finger.

I believe Paul is trying to tell us what he has successfully done in his own pool room with his own tournament players, and the fact is, absolutely no-one cares how well the breaker is breaking, except the breaker himself.

Roger

 

[stljohnny]

Please explain the skill in knowing when to adjust and how. What would be most important would be to know where the balls were pocketed on the break from making what adjustment. Can you make a direct connection from a break adjustment to a particular ball going in a particular pocket (and repeat it)?

I can't believe this is still going on.

The short answer to your this is: YES, you can make direct connection to power+placement = balls in the pocket.

Paul - Seriously - watch every match you can where Shane plays 10-ball. (here's a good example: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5622412) There's a reason he's known for having the best 10-ball break... in the world. He will make slight adjustments on speed and angle to help predict where at least FIVE balls are going; 4 of which are heading to pockets, and he's controlling the 1 ball. There are countless discussions about his 10-ball break, and even diagrams showing the intended paths of the controllable balls inside the rack.

Still don't think so - pick up one of his TAR matches, races to 100 in 10-ball - plenty of breaks to watch, pick apart and examine. Or hell, watch the PPV that's going on this week with him and Mika.

If you're going to say that smashing the rack isn't skill - you certainly CAN NOT say that being able to control the break and multiple balls from the rack is not skill.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I can't believe this is still going on.

The short answer to your this is: YES, you can make direct connection to power+placement = balls in the pocket.

Paul - Seriously - watch every match you can where Shane plays 10-ball. (here's a good example: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5622412) There's a reason he's known for having the best 10-ball break... in the world. He will make slight adjustments on speed and angle to help predict where at least FIVE balls are going; 4 of which are heading to pockets, and he's controlling the 1 ball. There are countless discussions about his 10-ball break, and even diagrams showing the intended paths of the controllable balls inside the rack.

I opened up this thing http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5622412 and went to the 32 minute mark which happened to be a racking process. I began to go back and try to find the beginning of the racking process. I found it and what went on here is just not right. He patterned racked the whole rack, then pushed the balls up over and over, spun the back balls over and over, spun the 1-ball over and over, for a grand total of 61 TIMES ! Go to 31:05 to catch it all. Is this part of the skill you are talking about? I say that these are skills that we ought not need. Pool has lost it's way if this is what it is. This is too painful to watch and too painful to play against.

What really surprises me is that all this is permitted.

I am going to watch this whole thing and record where every ball gets pocketed on the break and how it got there. I am going to make every effort to try to see what you are talking about. I will try to do it by Friday.

Before I start, I have one question. Is all of SVB success that I am going to watch connected to and dependent upon all of his rack manipulating?

 

[dr9ball]

If you do not favor the SMASH/Hard breaks, then promote Straight Pool!! What a great game it is.

 

[stljohnny]

I opened up this thing http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5622412 and went to the 32 minute mark which happened to be a racking process. I began to go back and try to find the beginning of the racking process. I found it and what went on here is just not right. He patterned racked the whole rack, then pushed the balls up over and over, spun the back balls over and over, spun the 1-ball over and over, for a grand total of 61 TIMES ! Go to 31:05 to catch it all. Is this part of the skill you are talking about? I say that these are skills that we ought not need. Pool has lost it's way if this is what it is. This is too painful to watch and too painful to play against.

What really surprises me is that all this is permitted.

I am going to watch this whole thing and record where every ball gets pocketed on the break and how it got there. I am going to make every effort to try to see what you are talking about. I will try to do it by Friday.

Before I start, I have one question. Is all of SVB success that I am going to watch connected to and dependent upon all of his rack manipulating?

Spinning balls in the rack has NOTHING to do with "pattern" racking... he's fussing with the balls in the rear and sides to get them frozen... it doesn't matter one bit which balls are where - there's going to be frozen ball problems - and I know you know that.

I'm not talking about racking skill... I'm talking about breaking skills.

The 1 ball banks up-table cross the head string, the 2 balls behind the 1 head toward their respective side-pockets, the rear corner balls go 4 rails into their respective corner pockets, the cb comes back above the side pockets for a shot on the 1. Those are the 5 object balls he's trying to control - with the break, not with the rack.

He puts different balls in different locations each time (except, i think in this specific tournament, the 2 and 3 have required spots on the rear corners. talk to the TD's about that; but don't blame the players.

 

[Mt. Cheverest]

I opened up this thing http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5622412 and went to the 32 minute mark which happened to be a racking process. I began to go back and try to find the beginning of the racking process. I found it and what went on here is just not right. He patterned racked the whole rack, then pushed the balls up over and over, spun the back balls over and over, spun the 1-ball over and over, for a grand total of 61 TIMES ! Go to 31:05 to catch it all. Is this part of the skill you are talking about? I say that these are skills that we ought not need. Pool has lost it's way if this is what it is. This is too painful to watch and too painful to play against.

What really surprises me is that all this is permitted.

I am going to watch this whole thing and record where every ball gets pocketed on the break and how it got there. I am going to make every effort to try to see what you are talking about. I will try to do it by Friday.

Before I start, I have one question. Is all of SVB success that I am going to watch connected to and dependent upon all of his rack manipulating?

He's just trying to get a tight rack, is that too much to ask for?

 

[Scott Lee]

This is how I feel about the break too. It needs to be a coordinated, controlled swing of the cue...not some wild, throw your body into it, inaccurate strike on the CB, break swing. The weight of the cuestick is plenty to generate as much energy in the break as you need, and still control what happens with key elements. You don't need body weight or muscle to break well. You do need an accurate and repeatable stroke.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

the goal then becomes controlling the cue ball, controlling the 1-ball, and getting a good spread on the balls, all while hitting a random rack with ample force to meet the middle string requirement. This is good enough. There is much skill in all of this.

 

[Paul Schofield]

He's just trying to get a tight rack, is that too much to ask for?

Yes it is too much to ask for and therein lies the problem. We had the Sardo Rack and we learned that a perfect frozen rack of balls creates new problems. No one could possibly be entitled to a frozen rack of balls every time. I do not agree with all the racking carry-ings-on that I observed in the video in question.

All is fixed by:

1. Random racking process
2. Rack your own
3. Two balls break the center-string vertical-plain
4. Money ball spots
5. Breaker shoots after a legal break (no ball on the break required)
6. Alternate breaks

The net result will be a safer, faster, and more fun game.

 

[stljohnny]

Yes it is too much to ask for and therein lies the problem. We had the Sardo Rack and we learned that a perfect frozen rack of balls creates new problems. No one could possibly be entitled to a frozen rack of balls every time. I do not agree with all the racking carry-ings-on that I observed in the video in question.

All is fixed by:

1. Random racking process
2. Rack your own
3. Two balls break the center-string vertical-plain
4. Money ball spots
5. Breaker shoots after a legal break (no ball on the break required)
6. Alternate breaks

The net result will be a safer, faster, and more fun game.

wait.. .what?!?!? what?

so, a frozen rack [for today's ruleset], creates problems? why? oh... because it's too easy to make a ball? Because it doesn't require slop or an unusually hard break to continue on the rack?

that's you're whole argument!!! If anything at all you should be supporting the Sardo and frozen rack because it eliminates the very thing you started this thread about: super hard breaks.

"All is fixed" - No, it isn't. And furthermore, "all" doesn't need to be fixed. Your argument from the start is that people don't need to hit the rack 100mph. That's fine; most people agree with you. But then you keep arguing

It's like you're being combative purely for the sake of being combative now.

If you really think "rack your own" isn't going to lead to people fussing with the rack trying to get the balls as close to frozen as possible, then I'd say you're absolutely wrong. If anything, it will lend itself to MORE time being spent ensuring the rack is froze because it's now up to the breaker to give himself a good rack.

EVEN in a No Conflict setting, the breaker has the final touch on the rack -not the order - but ensuring it is to their liking... which means fussing with the balls. There is no way around that outside of a magik rack or sardo... even the deltas don't always give a perfect rack every time (as noticed by watching any number of delta sponsored events).

If you want "speed up" the game from the racking perspective then you need to invent a racking machine, akin to the bowling pin resetter. outside of that, there is no argument that can be made that the masses will accept which supports just slopping the balls into the rack, pushing up the footspot and removing the racking device without ensuring alignment or tightness.

 

[Paul Schofield]

wait.. .what?!?!? what?

If you really think "rack your own" isn't going to lead to people fussing with the rack trying to get the balls as close to frozen as possible, then I'd say you're absolutely wrong. If anything, it will lend itself to MORE time being spent ensuring the rack is froze because it's now up to the breaker to give himself a good rack.

EVEN in a No Conflict setting, the breaker has the final touch on the rack -not the order - but ensuring it is to their liking... which means fussing with the balls.

Johnny - What you are saying stands to reason but to my surprise just the opposite has happened. The players are much more willing to accept a less than perfect rack because they are not required to make a ball. Most importantly, they don't feel the need to "crush 'em"...hence...new skills are required: pool skills

We should be able to just push the balls up and have them racked in a few seconds and get on with it.

Bob Jewett - If you are out there, will you please tell us what the problem is with the Sardo Rack?

 

[Banks]

If you get a free shot for simply making a few balls cross back, that would be worse. Why not just set up a defensive shot off the break? Almost sounds like playing checkers and hoping the computer doesn't pick the spot that will end in a draw. Not exactly a game I'd want to spend time trying to play.

And to expect a particular ball to go in every time like a called shot? Sure, all you have to do is be a physics genius or have all tables and balls play exactly the same with the same racking. I highly doubt this medium break would last much longer than the first 'almost' made ball off a break, especially if there's money on the line.

Like was mentioned in regards to boxing - nobody wants to watch jabbing and hugging. The crowd goes wild over the knockout.

There are times and places for a methodical break, like a well racked game of 9-ball or 1-pocket. Try it on a typical barbox with a standard who-knows-whatll-stay-put rack.

Some of the best players are known for their impressive breaks. Are they strong breaks? Sure. Are they wild? Not really. You're comparing amateurs with pros. You could stop the stupid break, but there will still be other problems - ripped cloth, dinged cues and tables, etc.

I use a more controlled break in 9, but only to the extent that I don't get too wild. (More controlled on better equipment, too.) In 8, I want the balls to come rushing back the head spot like the cue ball's got the plague.

I'd be willing to meet you halfway on the idea of a better game.. everything must be banked. :thumbup:

 

[Paul Schofield]

If you get a free shot for simply making a few balls cross back, that would be worse. Why not just set up a defensive shot off the break?

Here is what it comes down to: Would a player trade the smash-break and the slopped ball for a control-break and shoot after a legal break. I have that answer. The answer is yes. Furthermore, the better the player, the more they prefer it. The work done on this to date proves it.

You can't just read the "No Conflict Rules" and say "I know I will never like them". A player has to put some time in and develop a strategy behind them. Every player that has done so, gladly gives up the smash-break and the slopped ball.

The skills required here are all good solid pool skills.

 

[stljohnny]

Here is what it comes down to: Would a player trade the smash-break and the slopped ball for a control-break and shoot after a legal break. I have that answer. The answer is yes. Furthermore, the better the player, the more they prefer it. The work done on this to date proves it.

You can't just read the "No Conflict Rules" and say "I know I will never like them". A player has to put some time in and develop a strategy behind them. Every player that has done so, gladly gives up the smash-break and the slopped ball.

The skills required here are all good solid pool skills.

It's pointless to say a pro will prefer the no conflict rules... there's nothing to change there. all this does really is help the amateurs who can't make a ball on the break.

anyone who's capable of running a rack is also *already* controlling the break, controlling the 1 ball, and controlling the cue ball for a shot... this new set of rules doesn't change or benefit anyone, except possibly by giving racks away.

if 2 pros use these rules, then you can *almost* guarantee that every rack will go to the breaker; since they don't have to do anything but get a decent spread. That means the LAG then becomes the most important factor in the match. so, yes - no 7-packs and out, but due to the alternate break format (which i'm in favor of, for the record), the chances of pros not finishing an open table... pretty slim.

The no conflict rules do not, and should not, apply to profession levels. I don't think they should apply to the Open, Shortstop or A+ levels either. That rule-set is great for local D, C and maybe B player events; absolutely - but it should stop there.

"The skills required here are all good solid pool skills. "
The skill required for solid and controlled power-break is also solid pool skills. There's no one, and I mean No One, that is going to say otherwise. The reason room owners and others hate the power break is because people try it without having those skills and send the CB flying. I don't disagree with your disgust at people doing that; but I will not try to change the game because of people who don't even know how to play.