Smash-break = slop

Roger Long said:
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
Click to expand...

10% would be 3.5M, which isn't that bad. At least not in comparisson to most every other hobby/sport.

I think holding the events at malls would be great. The men could play while their wives go shopping for hours. Or they could drop the tots off at a daycare spot in the mall. Or, for some men, they could go shopping while their wives played. ;)

As for settling the racking disputes and generating more interest.. have rack girls in little bikinis do all of the racking.

Smashing breaks haven't done it and neither have bank shots, kick shots, rail shots, jump shots or defensive shots. The only thing that seems to get attention is the money shot. :thumbup:
 
Banks said:
10% would be 3.5M, which isn't that bad. At least not in comparisson to most every other hobby/sport.

I think holding the events at malls would be great. The men could play while their wives go shopping for hours. Or they could drop the tots off at a daycare spot in the mall. Or, for some men, they could go shopping while their wives played. ;)

As for settling the racking disputes and generating more interest.. have rack girls in little bikinis do all of the racking.

Smashing breaks haven't done it and neither have bank shots, kick shots, rail shots, jump shots or defensive shots. The only thing that seems to get attention is the money shot. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

You're right. Simple numbers have never been simple to me. :o

My real mistake was in saying that 10% play competitively when it is actually only about 1%. And you're right again when you say that 3.5M wouldn't be bad. But, alas, all we can do is wish. :sorry:

Roger
 
I am reposting this. I received one PM and a few emails wanting my take on the video in question. I will also add that this accurately applies to the SVB-MIKA match.



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

still waitin on your results , Paul ......
Or were the answers not what you expected ?
Do they not support your arguments ?
Did you find out it's actually skill on SVB's part ?
Or is it a trick shot ??
 
still waiting

Still Waiting movie , 2008 , Rob Benedict , Alana Uback . . . .

No ! I mean we're still waiting on those stats that Paul promised !

You lose a lot of strength in your argument here when you make promises and then don't deliver on them , Paul . . . .
 
I know personally that he has them, he just hasn't posted them yet as he's been extremely busy. Should be real soon though.
 
any day now . . .

could it be they don't support his hypothesis ?
maybe he should have picked on someone besides SVB . . . .
 
sry, I couldn't even read all the post's

just play straight pool and don't worry about it anymore.
steven
 
OK, here it goes:

stljohnny said in post #49: (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.

stljohnny said in post #52: 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.

Paul Schofield said in post #11: the goal then becomes controlling the cue ball, controlling the 1-ball, and getting a good spread on the balls

Paul Schofield said in post #103: 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.

Paul Schofield said in post #41: 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.


First off, we agree that the break is a highly skilled part of the game and that the 1-ball and cue ball are controllable and are a part of a successful break. There is no problem there.

You are saying that making a ball on the break is skill. I am saying that making a ball on the break is not a skill but rather: 1) an inadvertent event or 2) a player manipulated event due to the racking process (post #41). My conclusion is that neither of these events warrants keeping the ball on the break because they are detrimental to the game.

In the video you selected, SVB only breaks 5 times. I am very familiar with his strategy none-the-less. This is how I would summarize this video: SVB tried to pocket 15-20 intended balls. He was successful in pocketing 3 intended balls. Each of the 3 intended balls pocketed were racking dependent. This means that the balls had to be set up by the player in a special and careful way in order for the ball to find its intended destination. In addition, 5 inadvertent balls were pocketed (any ball in any pocket).

4 out of 5 racks saw an inadvertent ball pocketed on the break.
2 out of 5 racks saw an intended ball pocketed on the break.

Prior to each of his breaks, I see careful manipulation of the balls, everything from pattern racking to paying close attention to ball spacing. I will be redundant: These are skills that no one should need and should not be a part of our game. I just found this on another thread. Everyone should watch this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKRj24H0RU4&feature=player_embedded#!
 

Attachments

  • Document (2).jpg
    Document (2).jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 144
Last edited:
the420trooper said:
I would be OK with that, as it usually ends up costing you the game anyway.

But really, when playing 8ball or 10ball, doesn't the person who breaks the hardest with control usually win?

This is a fundamental aspect of pool that will never really change. (Nor should it, imo)
Click to expand...

yea on the big table....but on the box especially in 8 ball its the man that can find the speed of maximum expansion w/ minimal contraction....you break too hard on the box playin 8 ball and the balls tend to re-conglomerate in small groupings.

My average break speed in 8 ball on the box when hitting them and getting that great spread I'm talking about is actually a softer break than when I fall into the slot breaking 9 ball on the box.

On the big table I break them just the same speed as i do with the big track 9 ball.

It has to do with the vicinity of the rails to the rack, there are more open lanes for balls to bank away from each other on the big table instead of toward one another and grouping up like on a bar box. So you break 8 softer on the box and you get a sweet wide open spread.

Obviously IMOP you can OVERBREAK the balls, just like you can hit them too hard in one pocket.

-Grey Ghost-
 
I think I have put it all into perspective here for myself... When everyone refers to SVB's "Skill" of BREAKING, I/we are actually confusing that with his "skill" of RACKING. He doesn't do anything special during the break to cause all of the balls Paul is talking about to go to pockets, he is doing something special with the rack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top