Smash-break = slop

@stljohnny - Your last post is a very well-reasoned and educated argument.

@Paul - Do you have any examples of a situation where pro went against pro for money or at a tournament using your rules and they both enjoyed it? (I mean tour pros and excluding yourself)

To both, because speculation about the rules is just that, speculation. The proof would be in the results of those match-ups.
 
I think you could be onto something, Paul. If the game isn't broke, it is at least stalled. The industry is in desperate need of new players, and this could be one of those things that might help just a little. Are the pros doing anything to help us bring new people in? Instead of dwelling on how the pros might feel about these rules, we could consider how the beginners might feel about being given a chance to get to the table.

It's a natural tendency to resist change (I hate it, myself), but sometimes change can be a good thing.

Roger
 
All this shows is the weakness in having 9 ball as the money game.

I'm also of the belief in that just becasue I show up to play does not entitle me to a turn at the table. There is nothing fair in life and in pool, its the same way at times.

Getting to the table and making the most of it is what matters. If I get to the table and screw up, I'd be ashamed that the only way I got back to the table was because of a rule.

Its not good for me in order to help improve my game and its just plain unfair to the winner.

Course, there maybe some blind person out there that might want the job of ball throwout person. Now, that would guarantee randomness.
 
Roger Long said:
I think you could be onto something, Paul. If the game isn't broke, it is at least stalled. The industry is in desperate need of new players, and this could be one of those things that might help just a little. Are the pros doing anything to help us bring new people in? Instead of dwelling on how the pros might feel about these rules, we could consider how the beginners might feel about being given a chance to get to the table.

It's a natural tendency to resist change (I hate it, myself), but sometimes change can be a good thing.

Roger
Click to expand...

Thanks Roger. All the evidence I have has shown that the beginning and very weak players prefer it and the players that can run 100 balls or put together a 5 pack prefer it (once they put some time into it). If there were 5 classes (A,B,C,D,E), A and E readily accept it and see it's logic and value. The B, C, and D players get very upset and resist. After they use the rules and think through it, they eventually get on board.

It is also lends itself to teaching pool skills.
 
Confessions of an addict--now in recovery::

I grew up (think 1960s) hitting the break rather forcefully, but not at any scale used today. Back in my college years I could smash them up pretty good, and I was actually pretty good (B- scale).

Fast forward 35 years (without play more than 1 game per year):

Over the past 3 years while comming back into the game, I tried various break strategies, hard, soft, particular points of aim,....

Then, I started to keep records of my break performance in real games; and started to practice rack breaking as a part of my practice regimine.

It turns out that a moderate break (18 MPH in my case) that impacts the head ball at just the right spot gives me a 0.35 chance of dropping the inside corner ball in the side pocket and a 0.07 chance of dropping either of the opposite side balls in the down corner pocket.

Another good break (again for me) is a 16 MPH break that impacts the head ball significantly off center has a 0.41 chance of dropping the head ball in the opposite side pocket.

I an hit the break at a usefully higher speed, but my success rate goes DOWN. In addition, where I play and who I play against it is advnatgeous to leave the balls only moderately broken since I can pick and run the cluster and my opponents "not so much".

It is entirely possible that one can/could develope a break with higher statistics with higher MPH figures, I've seen a few "good" players exhibit such skills. I have seen VERY MANY "not so good" players attempt to do so, leaving me an open table at their peril.

Over at the road race trace we have a saying for novice to developing drivers:: "Know how to make a driver slower? Add 100 HP to their car" You see they are not used to what will happen with that kind of increment in capabilities and it generally messes up with their brakign points, turn in points, and car attitude accelerating out of corners.

I suspect something similar happens in pool.

In any event, instead of jabbering about whether the OP was making a reasonable statement/demand of players--what I think should happen is that players should start to keep track of actual results, and then use these to govern near future preperatonis and asperations.
 
duckie said:
All this shows is the weakness in having 9 ball as the money game.

I'm also of the belief in that just becasue I show up to play does not entitle me to a turn at the table. There is nothing fair in life and in pool, its the same way at times.

Getting to the table and making the most of it is what matters. If I get to the table and screw up, I'd be ashamed that the only way I got back to the table was because of a rule.

Its not good for me in order to help improve my game and its just plain unfair to the winner.

Course, there maybe some blind person out there that might want the job of ball throwout person. Now, that would guarantee randomness.
Click to expand...

Very true. But just because someone shows up at a tournament and wins, doesn't (or shouldn't, anyway) entitle them to get paid for it. The way I see it, that's the thing that has really hurt our sport - paying amateurs to play.

We often like to draw comparisons between pool and golf. Well, it's common for amateur golfers (maybe "hackers" is a better word) to pay over $100 to play in a golf tournament and get a t-shirt if they win. Are they playing for the money? No, they are playing for the fun and love of the game.

And that's what's wrong with pool. We don't play for the fun and love of the game anymore. Furthermore, we don't do anything to encourage newcomers to continue playing for the fun and love of the game. Instead, we start teaching them right away that it's all about the M-O-N-E-Y.

Think about it.

Roger
 
Paul Schofield said:
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.
Click to expand...

A tight rack is too much to ask for? What's next, being able to chalk up my cue? Creates new problems? Please explain...or do I even want to know?

And yes, I realize that unless you are using a magic rack not ALL of the balls will be frozen tight but at least the first three in a nine ball rack is usually sufficient. Even with these rules, I will still make sure the rack is tight, because now the most important thing is a spread, which won't happen with a loose rack. Nobody is going to just blindly rack their own rack without seeing if they are even remotely tight.
 
"It is also lends itself to teaching pool skills."

Rules don't lend themselves to teaching pool skills. Either you develop the skills necessary to make balls and stay at the table, or you don't. No rule is going to change that.

People than run a 5-pack certainly don't want to give up control, ie: they wouldn't be in favor of the alternate break format. They might like the option to stay at the table after the break without pocketing a ball because they're good shotmakers though, sure.

I'm just going to agree to disagree with I've been disagreeing with since the start. This is just beating a dead horse over and over and over.

Good luck to you and whatever tournaments you run with the No Conflict rules. I'm not opposed to any of them, by the way, however I don't think there's anything that anyone can do - aside from individually talking to and/or banning those "smash" breakers with no control - that will eliminate the hard break.
 
Mt. Cheverest said:
A tight rack is too much to ask for? What's next, being able to chalk up my cue? Creates new problems? Please explain...or do I even want to know?

And yes, I realize that unless you are using a magic rack not ALL of the balls will be frozen tight but at least the first three in a nine ball rack is usually sufficient. Even with these rules, I will still make sure the rack is tight, because now the most important thing is a spread, which won't happen with a loose rack. Nobody is going to just blindly rack their own rack without seeing if they are even remotely tight.
Click to expand...


More times than not, a tight rack is just not possible. We can't have players racking and spinning balls 61 times. Players are trying to get certain balls froze as to increase the chance of certain balls finding their way to a pocket. This is "rack manipulating". Get rid of the ball on the break requirement and all the racking nonsense goes away. Bob Jewett posted this last year. I copied here because it explains the issues over the tight rack.

Bob Jewett said:
It's been clear for at least 10 years that the break at nine ball is broken. If the rack is tight, a ball is almost guaranteed to go in. If the rack is loose, the breaker was cheated. Some of the responses show that many players are unaware of what happens with a really tight rack -- it's likely that they have never had the chance to break except on randomly pitted old cloth using flimsy, worthless plastic racks.

First with the Sardo, and now with tapped tables and the Magic Rack, it's possible to have nearly perfect racks.

Books have been written about how to cheat with the rack (and how to avoid being cheated), and secret gaffs have been passed from one petty thief to another. Tournaments have stopped for 10-15 minutes at a time to resolve arguments about the rack.

I think Paul's rules above solve the problems.
 
Clark_the_Shark said:
@Paul - Do you have any examples of a situation where pro went against pro for money or at a tournament using your rules and they both enjoyed it? (I mean tour pros and excluding yourself)

To both, because speculation about the rules is just that, speculation. The proof would be in the results of those match-ups.
Click to expand...


I have had three regional events in the last year and in each one we used the "No Conflict Rules". There was not one single argument over the racking or breaking process in all three events. Most importantly, the events moved along far, far quicker than if the standard racking and breaking rules applied. Furthermore, there was not even one complaint about the rules. The general response was that the rules worked and did what they were supposed to do.
 
Roger, have you gone crazy? A winner shouldn't get paid?

Hey, I've got a great idea then.. how about we just divvy up all of the money from golf tournaments and give it to the players based on their rankings. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

Sooo... if I entered a tournament and played better than the others for that day, I shouldn't get a cent? That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've read on here. You know who puts up the money for those winners? Most of it is from the players that want to go and give it a shot without the expectation of making money. Guess what.. sometimes they surprise themselves and win. Why not use your brain to tell me how little money would be in the pool for the DCC if none of the lesser players showed. Go on and tell me the added money would stay the same without those players, too.

As for amateur golfers paying $100 to enter a tournament to win a t-shirt. I call BS. There is incentive. Unless you're playing a course that charges the $100+ for play, there is something to work for, whether it be an entry into another event or a glass bowl/trophy or something. And that's an amateur event - no pros allowed. You know, like the US Am.

Next you're going to tell me we're all in it for the money. Oh, sorry, you did say something to that effect. Maybe I'll just put my cues away right now because there really isn't much money in pool and I've been wasting all of this spare time.

Breaking is part of the damn game, if you don't like it then you can go ahead and sissify your tournaments however you like. Other than that, I'm sure myself and most of the people out there that actually play will go on practicing break shots. No, that does not include the people that will come in once a week or every other month and knock a rack around for half an hour.

Pool skills? The break shot is not a skill.. gotcha. Mitch has spent a lot of time and energy figuring out what works best.. I guess that's just luck, right?

Someone takes too long to rack.. either your equipment sucks or they should be penalized. Launch the CB - ball in hand anyways. Broken glasses near the pool tables? Don't put eating tables within range or put them behind a Denny's-ish kind of barrier.

Arnold said it best.. 'Stop whining!'
 
Roger Long said:
Very true. But just because someone shows up at a tournament and wins, doesn't (or shouldn't, anyway) entitle them to get paid for it. The way I see it, that's the thing that has really hurt our sport - paying amateurs to play.

We often like to draw comparisons between pool and golf. Well, it's common for amateur golfers (maybe "hackers" is a better word) to pay over $100 to play in a golf tournament and get a t-shirt if they win. Are they playing for the money? No, they are playing for the fun and love of the game.

And that's what's wrong with pool. We don't play for the fun and love of the game anymore. Furthermore, we don't do anything to encourage newcomers to continue playing for the fun and love of the game. Instead, we start teaching them right away that it's all about the M-O-N-E-Y.

Think about it.

Roger
Click to expand...

Ding, Ding, Ding, We Have a Winner here

Best Post on AZB this year.
 
Banks said:
Someone takes too long to rack.. either your equipment sucks or they should be penalized.
Click to expand...

One thing at a time.

At the US Open there are all these perfect Diamond tables. Last year, I saw matches shut down for ten minutes and more while players, referees, and directors, all get involved in discussions over the racking of the balls. Penalize? Please tell me how that process would work, particularly where there is no referee.

My approach is to dis-incentivize all the special focus on racking by removing the ball on the break requirement. Once this is done, it becomes case closed. Play moves along. If you think about it, the ball on the break is either lucked in or finagled in by manipulating the rack. The ball on the break just brings our game more grief than it is worth. Get rid of it.
 
Last edited:
Paul Schofield said:
One thing at a time.

At the US Open there are all these perfect Diamond tables. Last year, I saw matches shut down for ten minutes and more while players, referees, and directors, all get involved in discussions over the racking of the balls. Penalize? Please tell me how that process would work, particularly where there is no referee.

My approach is to dis-incentivize all the special focus on racking by removing the ball on the break requirement. Once this is done, it becomes case closed. Play moves along. The ball on the break is either lucked in or finagled in by manipulating the rack. The ball on the break just brings our game more grief than it is worth. Get rid of it.
Click to expand...

Our game, our game.............thats the problem. Thinking 9 ball is the game.

If the TD or Ref can not handle the players, get better TD and REF and tell the players to STFU.

As for the whining players that are so concern about breaks........play 14.1
 
Lol

Breaker continues shooting after a legal break, even if a ball is not made ----ARE YOU FREAKIN CRAZY! 5,6,7's would be beating 10's all the time with that rule (Money scale ratings, not league ratings). Do you think there might be a few people hollering about that???

Not only that, but people would be pattern racking all the time to try to get the sequence of balls to be close to each other after the break, so they could just run them off easily.

You would be UNDERMINING the skills that players had practiced and learned over a number of years playing.

I can just see that rule being applied to 8 ball too, ........ ROFL

Why don't we just make the game easier and give people 'overs' that miss a shot?
 
Ditto to this post. Most pros will only give up the breaks to only rank amateurs. Every pro I have known *****es about alternate break in regional events much less allowing the amateurs a shot after the break. Whether you agree or not the break is a skill shot and separates top level pros from shortstops. To take the break out of the game is inherently changing the game itself. You might as well make scratches not count so people can really shoot. The way I see it is you're trying to invent a problem to sell your solution. Thank you very much but the rest of us like the game the way it is.

Snapshot9 said:
Breaker continues shooting after a legal break, even if a ball is not made ----ARE YOU FREAKIN CRAZY! 5,6,7's would be beating 10's all the time with that rule (Money scale ratings, not league ratings). Do you think there might be a few people hollering about that???

Not only that, but people would be pattern racking all the time to try to get the sequence of balls to be close to each other after the break, so they could just run them off easily.

You would be UNDERMINING the skills that players had practiced and learned over a number of years playing.

I can just see that rule being applied to 8 ball too, ........ ROFL

Why don't we just make the game easier and give people 'overs' that miss a shot?
Click to expand...
 
paul,

i watched one of your tournaments with the no conflict rules, i believe that it was in april. I enjoyed it. I talked to several of the players & none of them had any problems with the rules. Well into the tournament i did, however notice two of the top shooters that are regulars at your place racking in the standard manner & watching to be sure that nobody noticed when they were playing against each other.

I can understand you running your tournaments however you see fit & it obviously goes well, but i dont think the major tournaments will adopt the same rules.

Slim
 
SLIM said:
I can understand you running your tournaments however you see fit & it obviously goes well, but i dont think the major tournaments will adopt the same rules.
Click to expand...

I agree. Few ideas actually ever move forward. Every industry needs inovators and risk takers. There are hundreds if not thousands of us out here. I am one of those people.

When the tournament promoters become fed up with all the rack manipulating resulting in slow play and the endless nonsense that goes along with it, only then might it change. Pool is its own worst enemy.

I do know one thing. If I guarantee the cash, the players will come, and they will play by the "No Conflict Rules" and I am confident they will like it. I am contemplating a larger event.
 
Last edited:
Banks said:
Roger, have you gone crazy? A winner shouldn't get paid?
Click to expand...

No, I haven't "gone" crazy, as in just recently; I've actually been there for quite some time. :grin:

Seriously, the point I'm trying to make is this: There are an estimated 35 million pool players in this country, making it the most widely played of all competing games (golf, bowling, etc.). But out of all those players, only about 10% (350K) play in organized competition. Which means that over 34 million people play at home, or in their favorite bar, club, or rec center.

But that also means that there is an untapped market of over 34 million potential "customers" out there. What would it take to catch their interest and get them more involved? Smashing breaks hasn't done it.

Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top