Smash-break = slop
- Thread starter Paul Schofield
- Start date
I think the jump shot should be illegal. I think the draw shot should be stricken from the game. I don't like when people use excessive follow, and I also don't care for those center ball, punch stroke players.
I think pool should be illegal, otherwise, somebody's gonna get hurt.
(This post is only as ridiculous as the rest of this thread, imo.)
The truth comes when they are played. You would have to play them and develop a strategy behind them. Then poll.
Last edited:
Well , Paul , it's Friday , and SVB's breaks were astounding , allowing him to dominate the match .
CaliRed's dry break stats don't show which pocket the balls went in , but they do show how many , and Shane was killin' it .
I can't wait to see your stats , and how you are going to try to diminish SVB's SKILL at breaking .:angry:
Why watch the feed ?
Paul,
Why are you watching the video feed of SVB vs Mika ?
If you are willing to concede that a pro can skillfully break a 10-ball rack, then go for it.
If you only want to point out rack manipulation and the speed of the game when a ref. is not racking, then don't bother. Some of this will happen in order to achieve a tight rack. If you want to warn us about the racker placing balls, etc, then don't bother. It is their action with $10K on the line.
I have a three questions about your rule set...
1) 9/10 ball- Why penalize a player who makes the money ball by spotting it, resulting in an a position that interfers with an existing ball on the long string. He now must get very creative to run out. The guy who broke dry with a nice spread and had no interfering balls is free to run out more easily.
You should allow for a re-break under this scenario.
2) 8-ball- Are you opposed to allowing a player to break safe (as long as it is legal by world standardized / BCA, etc.) 8-ball play following a safety break can be challenging and rewarding as well. Also it is common to break firm and drive 6 or more and not get two to cross the center string.
Stick with the the world standardized rules for a legal break. No punishment should occur for not getting two past center.
3) 9-ball- So if there is no inspection of the rack allowed, I can think of a form of rack manipultion that is conducive to 9-ball position after the break. Don't think that your ruleset will negate innovation, because we are still human.
Allow for both players to inspect the rack to ensure that the balls are frozen.
Let me know your answers about these ideas. Thanks.
Paul,
Why are you watching the video feed of SVB vs Mika ?
If you are willing to concede that a pro can skillfully break a 10-ball rack, then go for it.
If you only want to point out rack manipulation and the speed of the game when a ref. is not racking, then don't bother. Some of this will happen in order to achieve a tight rack. If you want to warn us about the racker placing balls, etc, then don't bother. It is their action with $10K on the line.
I have a three questions about your rule set...
1) 9/10 ball- Why penalize a player who makes the money ball by spotting it, resulting in an a position that interfers with an existing ball on the long string. He now must get very creative to run out. The guy who broke dry with a nice spread and had no interfering balls is free to run out more easily.
You should allow for a re-break under this scenario.
2) 8-ball- Are you opposed to allowing a player to break safe (as long as it is legal by world standardized / BCA, etc.) 8-ball play following a safety break can be challenging and rewarding as well. Also it is common to break firm and drive 6 or more and not get two to cross the center string.
Stick with the the world standardized rules for a legal break. No punishment should occur for not getting two past center.
3) 9-ball- So if there is no inspection of the rack allowed, I can think of a form of rack manipultion that is conducive to 9-ball position after the break. Don't think that your ruleset will negate innovation, because we are still human.
Allow for both players to inspect the rack to ensure that the balls are frozen.
Let me know your answers about these ideas. Thanks.
maybe we should start using whiffle balls too, so nobody gets hurt. 
Lift some weights, crush some racks... the better shape you're in, the more control you get and the less effort it takes.
my shoulder starts bugging me after 6 hours or so, so I lighten up on my breaks a bit knowing I'll pay later for it.
the only reason I see to break easy, is to get inside the opponents head.
Lift some weights, crush some racks... the better shape you're in, the more control you get and the less effort it takes.
my shoulder starts bugging me after 6 hours or so, so I lighten up on my breaks a bit knowing I'll pay later for it.
the only reason I see to break easy, is to get inside the opponents head.
Seriously... 4 MINUTES TO RACK THE BALLS at 31:30, and that's ONE game in the set. Unbelievable! Nah... there's nothing wrong with the game.... I lOVE watching someone rack for 4 minutes at a time!stljohnny said:
Johnny – I watched the video you referred to and fast forwarded to all of SBV racks and breaks. I have watched many of his videos and I am well aware of his tactics and strategies. I have to tell you that this video and every other video of him confirms every last point I have been making:
A ball made on the break is either lucked or it is finagled in. To put it another way, a ball pocketed on the break is either slopped in or is dependent upon racking a certain way.
To quote a lesser known AZ Billiards philosopher h2o4170: "Basicly the break has turned into a trick shot. Get the balls where you want them, hit them here and its dead." Have you ever watched a trick shot exhibition? It involves setting the balls up a certain way which requires some spinning, tapping, pushing, rubbing the cloth, and other manipulating moves. Then it is a matter knowing how and where to hit the balls. This is precisely what the racking and breaking process currently is. This is precisely what I am against.
I have read where many of you believe that knowing how to rack is a learned skill and is part of the game. I stand my ground and repeat: This skill is destructive, a distraction, and a skill that we do not need. All of this pattern racking, racking and re-racking, spinning balls, tapping balls, cloth rubbing, rack flipping, racking gadgets, breaking gadgets, rack checking, rack approving, neutral rackers, smash breaking, broken stuff, injury, and on and on, just slows the game down and has little to do with playing the game well. It makes pool nearly unwatchable.
The break is a very skilled part of the game. The focus should be to get a good spread on the balls, control the 1-ball, and control the cue-ball. That is good enough. Get rid of the ball on the break and all the negatives mentioned in the previous paragraph just go away. Our games and matches will move along much faster, will be more fun, and with much less aggravation.
Johnny – Please don’t make me watch these guys manipulate the balls 10, 30, 60 times a rack just so they can finagle a ball in. I can’t stand watching it, and neither can anyone else who could possibly be interested in this game. I am really not trying to be condescending or in anybody's face about all this. I am trying to get people to think and put some time into this before they discard them. It really does make the game more fun. I am confident everyone would get more out of this game.
A ball made on the break is either lucked or it is finagled in. To put it another way, a ball pocketed on the break is either slopped in or is dependent upon racking a certain way.
To quote a lesser known AZ Billiards philosopher h2o4170: "Basicly the break has turned into a trick shot. Get the balls where you want them, hit them here and its dead." Have you ever watched a trick shot exhibition? It involves setting the balls up a certain way which requires some spinning, tapping, pushing, rubbing the cloth, and other manipulating moves. Then it is a matter knowing how and where to hit the balls. This is precisely what the racking and breaking process currently is. This is precisely what I am against.
I have read where many of you believe that knowing how to rack is a learned skill and is part of the game. I stand my ground and repeat: This skill is destructive, a distraction, and a skill that we do not need. All of this pattern racking, racking and re-racking, spinning balls, tapping balls, cloth rubbing, rack flipping, racking gadgets, breaking gadgets, rack checking, rack approving, neutral rackers, smash breaking, broken stuff, injury, and on and on, just slows the game down and has little to do with playing the game well. It makes pool nearly unwatchable.
The break is a very skilled part of the game. The focus should be to get a good spread on the balls, control the 1-ball, and control the cue-ball. That is good enough. Get rid of the ball on the break and all the negatives mentioned in the previous paragraph just go away. Our games and matches will move along much faster, will be more fun, and with much less aggravation.
Johnny – Please don’t make me watch these guys manipulate the balls 10, 30, 60 times a rack just so they can finagle a ball in. I can’t stand watching it, and neither can anyone else who could possibly be interested in this game. I am really not trying to be condescending or in anybody's face about all this. I am trying to get people to think and put some time into this before they discard them. It really does make the game more fun. I am confident everyone would get more out of this game.
Last edited:
I am not going to say that the game is not broken but just because the player is trying to get the balls tight and knows what gaps are bad or even worse , sleazy, does not mean they are manipulating the rack.
Ever since the kinister video came out in 88 or 89, I have seen many players racking for their opponants in a specific order.
1
35
697
24
8
what is wrong with that? If I know what order yields the best results, why can't I rack that way for my opponent?
If my opponent is getting the 6 ball from me, why can't I put the 78 on the wings? If my opponant is racking for himself, and he puts the 3 and 4 on the wings, that is a big deal.
If the balls randomly come up, and the 23 are in the second row, I am supposed to rack like that for my opponent?
Yet when he racks, I never get the 2 ball in the second row? If I know how to rack and have learned in 20 years of playing, isn't that a skill?
If my opponent doesn't know what a gap here or there will do to the rack, I am supposed to be penalized?
In the absence of a magic rack or a sardo , I know that a perfectly tight rack is a minor miracle. That is why rack your own is also a bad idea.
Let's say you are racking the balls for yourself and no matter what you do there are going to be 2 gaps. You try and try and you still get two gaps.
Are you going to put the gap on the wing ball? Behind the one? Behind the nine? It should not be up to me to pick the gaps. Cause than you are manipulating the rack?
That is why let my opponant give me the best rack he can, and make me adjust. If I don't like his rack, let him rerack. Why should I suffer because he can't or chooses not to rack in a fair manner?
Like I said, getting all the balls tight without a magic rack or sardo is tough , especially when you throw in exactly on the spot and perfectly straight. It is true that the nine ball rack can be manipulated, but just because somebody knows how to rack, doesn't mean he is cheating.
I think rack your own is a terrible thing and much worse than racking for your opponant.
There have been hundreds of times, while racking for my opponant, that I have left the corner ball not touching the nine(which some players think wires that ball- it may or may not) instead of a gap behind the nine or in the second row. Sometimes you just cant get it. Especially with mismatched sets and pitted cloth. Now if there are gaps in the rack, it is up to my opponant to seize the chance, not me.
I have shown many people in my town what I know from the joe tucker book. I have never not shared that or any other knowledge with anybody. It is out there for the taking.
The nine ball rack is imperfect and if you look at the way svb breaks the balls, you could argue that the 10 ball rack is flawed as well. But to take away the knowledge of the rack and the skill to make balls and get on the one and to get out is wrong.
I have played many players using the magic rack. It is almost comical to watch them not make balls and for me to make the corner ball consistantly. If they cant pay attention to the simplest detail, why make it easier for them and to take away the make a ball on the break requirement?
SVB has the greatest 10 ball break ever. Think that is not skill? You have mentioned many times he is manipulating the rack. Closest thing to calling him a outright cheater.
He has spent hundreds of hours working on his 10 ball break and I know that for a long time he was using the break rack. I don't know if he still has one, but the time he has put in is evidant.
Remember Steve Cook? Could run balls as well as anybody. Great player- terrible break. But I assume that he did not work on that skill. Nobody has like SVB and he reaps the rewards.
John Schmidt came out and said he ran balls as good as if not better than Shane. But Shane is the better rotation player because of his break and the WORK and TIME he has put in on it.
I don't know why ever aspiring player doesn't have a break rack and make it a focus of his practice. It takes a lot of dedication and desire.
I have a break rack and hardly ever use it. It is the greatest practice device made. A good price too. But takes hard work. More fun to hit balls around.
Good luck trying to change the game. It will go great for the B player tourneys.
I do remember the year that Max Eberle did real well at the DCC. Right after that he won a tourney back in Cal. that was similar to what you want. No breaks. Just predetermined layouts. I am not sure of the number of layouts. 10 or 20 . Just eliminated the skill of breaking. Different game. Just like this idea of yours.
I do believe you want what is best for POOL. Not doing this in a selfish way at all. But I think you are wrong.
I would have no problem racking the 2 in the 4th row if the rules said that. Get the BCA to change it. Matter of fact. A set order would be great too. Make the game tougher. But of course it would be tougher for the lesser player to win.
I always hear take away slop, no nine ball on the break for a win. The lesser player need the element of luck. Just like making a ball on the break. All the knowledge in the world and there is no guarantee of making a ball. There is luck on the break and without luck in nineball the best player would always win. There would be no upsets. The lesser players would drop out sooner.
And one last thing for my longest azb post. If the breaker is hitting the balls at 20+ mph, I cant imagine the balls being in consistantly the same place after the break. Not with gaps in a unperfect rack. Maybe in a perfect rack with all the balls touching with the best breakers in the world but not in the world you and I live in.
If SVB knows that certain balls have to be touching to have a good break, he is doing something wrong?
If he racks the balls, throws them up there and they rack bad, he is supposed to break them? I dont think he is up there wiring a ball, he is just trying to give himself the best rack. What is wrong with that? I think the magic rack is one of the best ideas ever for pool.
A near perfect , repeatable rack for everyone. If balls can be made, it is because they are round and are supposed to go in. I have seen many breaks where 3-4 balls go in and somebody comments that is why the magic rack will never work. A perfect rack yields better results and I think that is what the top players are striving for when they rack the balls.
With the money and time that is on the line they deserve to give themselves the best rack possible. I cant imagine hitting a bad rack if I knew better with the stakes these guys have on the line. And can't blame these guys either.
Now when it becomes gamemanship, that is a different story and sometimes you have that.
That statement right there holds the key. Spectators (both TV viewers and live audiences) are the thing pool is lacking in order to be truly successful. If we get lots of spectators, we get corporate sponsorships. And if we get lots of spectators, we make the pool rooms and other venues happy because they no longer have to rely only on the tournament players to spend money in order to make the events successful.
But every time I point this out, I get the old argument, "Pool is NOT a spectator sport!" To that, I say, WHY not? It SHOULD be! That is the thing that all other sports have over pool; they have all made themselves good spectator sports!
Now I'm not saying that Paul's rules are definitely the answer to the spectator problem, but they are definitely worth trying.
Roger
In my room, we have played more than a quarter million racks under the "No conflict Rules". I copied this post from another forum that explains why I advocate for them. It is worth the read.
I have played 6700 racks under the “No Conflict Rules”.
I like the alternate breaks. When I am the favorite, I have found that the matches (using the No Conflict Rules) are much closer and at the same time I win more often than with winner breaks. As the underdog, I know that I am going to get to play. Alternating breaks under the No Conflict Rules works for me either way (as the favorite or the underdog).
I really like the random racking process. It is just so easy. If the two ball winds up in the row behind the nine, so be it. My integrity is never questioned and I never have to wonder about my opponent. Most importantly, nobody gets pattern racked.
I find great comfort in racking my own and nobody has anything to say about it. I like the fact that nobody is going to come along and tell me that the rack is no good and force me to re-rack. I like the fact that I do not need any “racking gadgets”. Removing the ball-on-the-break requirement means that I don’t have to rack the balls 15, 20, and 25 times to get certain balls froze as to increase my chances of making a ball. That I really like. I can concentrate on my play rather than be distracted by all this racking nonsense. I like the fact that the No Conflict Rules erase all logic behind a rack checking process.
My favorite part of all this is the break itself. I love the fact that the break is now a control pool shot and not a chaotic smash shot and that means advantage goes to the better player. I do not need a break cue and that is a good thing. I have an entire process that I go through to execute my control break. The sound emitted on a perfect break is downright addicting. I like it now that the focus is on controlling the cue ball and the 1-ball in rotation games. I really like being rewarded for a good break. I do not have to depend on some lucked ball to capitalize on my good break. I break and then I shoot which makes perfect sense to me, instead of hit and hope I get to stay at the table.
I like the fact that I don’t have to check my opponent’s racks. He is going to get to shoot anyway after the break and the money ball spots so what would be the point? I really like how all the conflict at the beginning of every rack is erased. It makes the competition better and keeps the focus where it should be: on the table. I like the fact that my opponent cannot hit a “soft break”. He has got to hit em’. He is compelled to play for three balls breaking the center string vertical plain. If he plays for two and one of the balls he is counting on to break the plain goes in a foot corner pocket, he is going to get stung time and again. So he has got to hit em’ with some force. I like the fact that when my opponent breaks poorly and leaves the cue ball on the foot rail, he is shooting and not me.
As a player, I prefer the No Conflict Rules. If I had my druthers, I would never play any other way again. Try them. I think you will like them too.
A growing list of recognizable potential supporters and advocates for a rules change:
Bob Jewett: “I think Paul's rules above solve the problems.”
Danny DiLiberto: “I will talk about these rules every chance I get when I commentate.”
Fred Bentivegna: “I personally think he has a great new idea.”
Joe Tucker: “I believe this rule will cost me MONEY! But I still think it should be implemented”
John Schmidt: “this is exactly how the games should be played”
Pat Fleming: “I think Paul’s new rules are in the game’s best interest.”
Robert Byrne: “You can use my name as a strong advocate for a rules change for the break.”
Scott Lee: “I like your no-conflict rules”
I have played 6700 racks under the “No Conflict Rules”.
I like the alternate breaks. When I am the favorite, I have found that the matches (using the No Conflict Rules) are much closer and at the same time I win more often than with winner breaks. As the underdog, I know that I am going to get to play. Alternating breaks under the No Conflict Rules works for me either way (as the favorite or the underdog).
I really like the random racking process. It is just so easy. If the two ball winds up in the row behind the nine, so be it. My integrity is never questioned and I never have to wonder about my opponent. Most importantly, nobody gets pattern racked.
I find great comfort in racking my own and nobody has anything to say about it. I like the fact that nobody is going to come along and tell me that the rack is no good and force me to re-rack. I like the fact that I do not need any “racking gadgets”. Removing the ball-on-the-break requirement means that I don’t have to rack the balls 15, 20, and 25 times to get certain balls froze as to increase my chances of making a ball. That I really like. I can concentrate on my play rather than be distracted by all this racking nonsense. I like the fact that the No Conflict Rules erase all logic behind a rack checking process.
My favorite part of all this is the break itself. I love the fact that the break is now a control pool shot and not a chaotic smash shot and that means advantage goes to the better player. I do not need a break cue and that is a good thing. I have an entire process that I go through to execute my control break. The sound emitted on a perfect break is downright addicting. I like it now that the focus is on controlling the cue ball and the 1-ball in rotation games. I really like being rewarded for a good break. I do not have to depend on some lucked ball to capitalize on my good break. I break and then I shoot which makes perfect sense to me, instead of hit and hope I get to stay at the table.
I like the fact that I don’t have to check my opponent’s racks. He is going to get to shoot anyway after the break and the money ball spots so what would be the point? I really like how all the conflict at the beginning of every rack is erased. It makes the competition better and keeps the focus where it should be: on the table. I like the fact that my opponent cannot hit a “soft break”. He has got to hit em’. He is compelled to play for three balls breaking the center string vertical plain. If he plays for two and one of the balls he is counting on to break the plain goes in a foot corner pocket, he is going to get stung time and again. So he has got to hit em’ with some force. I like the fact that when my opponent breaks poorly and leaves the cue ball on the foot rail, he is shooting and not me.
As a player, I prefer the No Conflict Rules. If I had my druthers, I would never play any other way again. Try them. I think you will like them too.
A growing list of recognizable potential supporters and advocates for a rules change:
Bob Jewett: “I think Paul's rules above solve the problems.”
Danny DiLiberto: “I will talk about these rules every chance I get when I commentate.”
Fred Bentivegna: “I personally think he has a great new idea.”
Joe Tucker: “I believe this rule will cost me MONEY! But I still think it should be implemented”
John Schmidt: “this is exactly how the games should be played”
Pat Fleming: “I think Paul’s new rules are in the game’s best interest.”
Robert Byrne: “You can use my name as a strong advocate for a rules change for the break.”
Scott Lee: “I like your no-conflict rules”
Last edited:
I don't think that 6700 is ever equal to a quarter of a million, no matter what kind of math you're using.
Hey Paul
My last post did have 3 questions. please look at them when you can.
Also when did you switch from the 3 balls to 2 balls passing the center string requirement of your rules? I noticed it from your previous re-post.
Thanks.
My last post did have 3 questions. please look at them when you can.
Also when did you switch from the 3 balls to 2 balls passing the center string requirement of your rules? I noticed it from your previous re-post.
Thanks.
Jim – Thanks for your interest.
The rule is two balls must break the center string vertical plain. The rule was not changed to three balls. I was saying that if you hit the balls just hard enough for only two balls to break the plain, it is possible that one of those balls that you are counting on to break the plain could wind up in one of the foot pockets (you get stung). So you kind of have to play cautious and hit them hard enough for three just in case this happens. I am saying that the soft break is out of the question if you always want to get two balls past.
1.
Please keep in mind, the “No Conflict Rules” are not about fairness or about righting every wrong or eliminating chance. A certain amount of chance is good for our game. These rules are about ending arguments that surround the racking and breaking process and moving the games and matches along at a quicker pace. Your suggestion would slow things down.
2.
World standardized rules for Eight-Ball require four balls hit rails on the break. I say "Who can see it and who can count them?" This is an invitation for conflict. Confirming two balls breaking the center string vertical plain is easy.
3.
Checking and approving racks really slows things down and creates conflict, besides, it is just pointless anyway. The breaking player shoots after a legal break whether he makes a ball or not. In addition, it makes no sense to spend extra time checking how the money ball is racked because it gets spotted anyway. I say, if you want to play position for a combo off the break, more power to you.
You really have to play them to sense the logic behind them. They really do work and they really do make sense. Furthermore, they make the game more fun and will make a better player out of you. I encourage you to give them a fair chance. I think you will be surprised.
The rule is two balls must break the center string vertical plain. The rule was not changed to three balls. I was saying that if you hit the balls just hard enough for only two balls to break the plain, it is possible that one of those balls that you are counting on to break the plain could wind up in one of the foot pockets (you get stung). So you kind of have to play cautious and hit them hard enough for three just in case this happens. I am saying that the soft break is out of the question if you always want to get two balls past.
1.
Please keep in mind, the “No Conflict Rules” are not about fairness or about righting every wrong or eliminating chance. A certain amount of chance is good for our game. These rules are about ending arguments that surround the racking and breaking process and moving the games and matches along at a quicker pace. Your suggestion would slow things down.
2.
World standardized rules for Eight-Ball require four balls hit rails on the break. I say "Who can see it and who can count them?" This is an invitation for conflict. Confirming two balls breaking the center string vertical plain is easy.
3.
Checking and approving racks really slows things down and creates conflict, besides, it is just pointless anyway. The breaking player shoots after a legal break whether he makes a ball or not. In addition, it makes no sense to spend extra time checking how the money ball is racked because it gets spotted anyway. I say, if you want to play position for a combo off the break, more power to you.
You really have to play them to sense the logic behind them. They really do work and they really do make sense. Furthermore, they make the game more fun and will make a better player out of you. I encourage you to give them a fair chance. I think you will be surprised.
Last edited:
please explain
Double post.
Last edited:
Paul was saying that he personally has played 6700 racks, and that people in his pool room in total have played over a quarter of a million.
My purpose of "no 9-ball on the break" has nothing to do with luck. I am not interested in removing luck from the game. While racking their own, some players have been known to finagle the 9-ball to promote it toward a corner pocket. Keeping the 9 on the break would require a rack checking process. The "No Conflict Rules" are all about quickening the game up and removing aggravation. Rack checking, re-racking, and rack approving slows the game down and generates further grief.