Some general observations regarding tough breaking tables

[Straightpool_99]

...................

 

[lfigueroa]

I've been playing on a very tough breaking table recently, and having some trouble getting runs going. I've noticed that on this, and other tough breaking tables, the traditional side-of-the-rack breakshot tends to leave clusters and blocked shots, giving me little or nothing to shoot at. This is especially true when hitting the center of the pack or low on the pack. I should mention that this table is only an 8-footer.

Below-the-rack breakshots work better, but also tend to give mixed results on this table.

After some experimentation I found that suprisingly, the only breakshot that really works consistently on this table is the side-pocket breakshot with the breakball close to the top of the stack. This tends to give a well placed cueball with a reasonable spread of the balls, without blocking shots and forming many small clusters which are hard to manage.This also squares with observations I have made on other tough breaking tables.The more rare sidepocket breakshot that has the breakball close to the center of the table also works well. Crucially, contacting the top two balls solidly seems to be the common theme. My hypothesis is that this and other tables like it have irregularities in the cloth at the center of the pack area, causing the balls not to freeze solidly, or drift very slightly apart before shooting in a manner that is not easily noticable.

I don't know if this is common knowledge or not, but I thought I'd put it out there for comments.

Just guessing but I don't believe the table is as important as the balls. If they are not all the same size and cleaned and polished, that's when you'll have trouble breaking them apart.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Straightpool_99]

....................

 

[sjm]

In the golden age of pool, condition were slower and the matter of first opening the rack was hard work.

There were several solutions. Lassiter simply hit the break shots harder. He pocketed so well that the ball still went in every time.

In contrast, the great John Ervolino would leave a thinner cut than most on the break shot so that the cue ball speed into the rack was greater.

I think that you've stumbled into something that is philosophically similar to how Ervolino saw it. You are simply being choosier about your attack angle, but your choice of using the side pocket break is only one possible solution.

Whatever break shots you play shape for, leave better attack angles and your results will improve, whether you play to hit the top, side or bottom of the rack.

Very insightful post.

 

[Cornerman]

I've been playing on a very tough breaking table recently, and having some trouble getting runs going. I've noticed that on this, and other tough breaking tables, the traditional side-of-the-rack breakshot tends to leave clusters and blocked shots, giving me little or nothing to shoot at. This is especially true when hitting the center of the pack or low on the pack. I should mention that this table is only an 8-footer.

Below-the-rack breakshots work better, but also tend to give mixed results on this table.

After some experimentation I found that suprisingly, the only breakshot that really works consistently on this table is the side-pocket breakshot with the breakball close to the top of the stack. This tends to give a well placed cueball with a reasonable spread of the balls, without blocking shots and forming many small clusters which are hard to manage.This also squares with observations I have made on other tough breaking tables.The more rare sidepocket breakshot that has the breakball close to the center of the table also works well. Crucially, contacting the top two balls solidly seems to be the common theme. My hypothesis is that this and other tables like it have irregularities in the cloth at the center of the pack area, causing the balls not to freeze solidly, or drift very slightly apart before shooting in a manner that is not easily noticable.

I don't know if this is common knowledge or not, but I thought I'd put it out there for comments.

After doing much of the straight pool challenge commentary at the Derby City Classic matches for the last few years, it was immediately noticeable that the top players were opting for a corner pocket shot with the cueball hitting one of the top two balls rather than the old-school back cut into the corner with the cueball going to the middle of the pack (the Mosconi opening break in his little book).

George Fels considers the break into the top two balls as the number one option for today's equipment, per his various straight pool books. Either they followed George's advice, or they came to the same conclusion independently.

 

[lfigueroa]

I used my own Aramith super pro set (don't get me started on that damned measle ball, lol), that while old, still have very good tolerances on weight and size (I checked with an accurate scale). I do not polish the balls, just clean them, and I use them almost exclusively for straight pool, so they are not chipped by phenolic tips etc. I'm not a fan of polishing balls in general, though I will of course play with such balls without complaint in tournaments etc.

I feel that polished balls change too much over the course of several games unless repolished (which is ridiculous to ask for) and I do tend to play marathon sessions when I get the chance to go to the pool hall so I want the balls to stay the same for as long as possible. I might re-clean them by hand if I deem it necessary, but mostly I will just wipe the cueball now and then.

Well, if that's the case, then I'd say you just have to accept how the balls are breaking and be prepared to chip away at the stack more.

However, I have played with clean balls and I have played with polished balls (Aramith ball polish) and there is a big difference. You're right of course that polished balls change playing characteristics over the course of play but even so I'd have to say that I prefer playing with them polished. Clean balls just do not break well, IME.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Dan White]

I was thinking the same thing as Lou. What are you using to clean the balls with, and are you sure they aren't going in the opposite direction, namely overly sticky?

 

[Ty-Tanic]

If your hitting your break shot to hard and not on one of the outside 4 balls then that's probably the problem. If you don't know what your next shot is going to be then your taking a gamble. I know too many people that try to power through their break shot to get a good spread on the balls and its very risky. Shoot the break at lag speed or a little harder and just chisel away at the rack instead of trying to destroy it in one shot. Just my 2 cents.

 

[kollegedave]

I have recently tried playing under similar conditions.

In my last session, on a table with smallish pockets, and a rack area that I think is a bit damaged, which causes bad breaks (even in rotation games) I noticed that hitting the pack SOFTER, created less clusters of balls, and kept a portion of the stack frozen or closer to frozen so they are easier to re-break.

It seems counter-intuitive, but I think on tables that break tough, it might be better to opt for a softer break shot.

Just my 0.02

kollegedave

 

[lfigueroa]

I have recently tried playing under similar conditions.

In my last session, on a table with smallish pockets, and a rack area that I think is a bit damaged, which causes bad breaks (even in rotation games) I noticed that hitting the pack SOFTER, created less clusters of balls, and kept a portion of the stack frozen or closer to frozen so they are easier to re-break.

It seems counter-intuitive, but I think on tables that break tough, it might be better to opt for a softer break shot.

Just my 0.02

kollegedave

0.02?

Maybe, maybe... Or it could be that the slower/softer speed is changing your contact point on the side of the stack. Depending on how great the difference in speeds you might also be changing the angle of attack the CB is taking into the rack.

Lou Figueroa