I've been interested in the reasoning for transitioning from Continuous Pool to 14.1 for a while, but it's been rather difficult to nail down the exact issue they had with Continuous Pool. Obviously 14.1 favors the better player, but I wanted to know what the players of the time were thinking.
I've always believed that they began each new rack with a safety break, where others (including dragon promotions) asserted that each rack began with a open smash break. After much research, the answer is apparently...both!
According Mike Shamos' Encyclopedia, players did initially begin smashing the rack to keep the run going. This explains why there are reported high runs of more than 15. Alfredo De Oro still holds the tournament record of over 80 balls and the high run for an exhibition I believe is either 122 or 125. But that is of course because there hasn't been a continuous pool tournament in over 100 years.
However, players at some point began favoring the safety break since it is rather difficult to make a ball on the break on a 10 foot table with ivory balls.
The break ball was intended to stop or reduce safety play by providing players with an assured opportunity of pocketing a ball to continue their run. It would also allow for runs and averages to be tracked much in the same way you see in balkline billiards and 3 cushion.
Keogh Suggesting the Open Break in the New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D06E1DD1330E233A25755C2A9669D946196D6CF
What is interesting however is the tendency towards open breaks vs safety breaks doesn't entirely seem to be stylistic but rather perhaps dictated by the situation. This article provides the play by play of De Oro's 1911 title defense.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F02E3DE1431E233A25753C1A9659C946096D6CF
De Oro's high run for the match was 55, but curiously the article reports in frame 15 he "...made a break which left but a single ball away from the pyramid". At this point in the match Alfredo was most certainly ahead, so I expect he was employing safety play to protect his lead.
But the safety break was common place enough that by the time this rule book (see below) was published in 1913, it stated that the break was a closed only (safety) break only. Interestingly it also suggest that there was also an option to alternate the break, but that of course likely was not the norm for championship play.
http://www.charlesursitti.com/archive/books/30GamesPoolBilliards.pdf
I find all of this fascinating because it's part of a time period where all of cue sports were trying to find games and variations on the rules that could keep up with the skill of the players.
Before Continuous Pool, players would contest each frame until one person pocketed 8 balls as opposed to keeping an aggregate score. I don't know however if they played one game or series of games, I would expect the latter. The New York Times reported in 1887 Alfred M. Freys idea for Continuous Ball Pool,
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A07E1D61E3EEF33A25753C3A9649D94669FD7CF
I have to imagine that going from a requirement on only pocketing 8 balls to "as many as you can" must have really set the players apart.
Soon there after all pocket billiard events reported appear to be Continuous Pool. By going through match reports you can see the evolving skill level of the players,
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9506E5D9153FE432A25756C0A9649C94689FD7CF
This match is from 1889 and as you can see below there were very few full rack runs. (Note: they reported the individual frame scores and not full runs. So a run of 45 would show up as 15, 15, 15. Also 15 may also not be a run of 15 either.) Compare that to the De Oro match or any match in the 20th century and runs of 15 or more were fairly common place.
That's enough history for now. I had fun researching all of this.
I've always believed that they began each new rack with a safety break, where others (including dragon promotions) asserted that each rack began with a open smash break. After much research, the answer is apparently...both!
According Mike Shamos' Encyclopedia, players did initially begin smashing the rack to keep the run going. This explains why there are reported high runs of more than 15. Alfredo De Oro still holds the tournament record of over 80 balls and the high run for an exhibition I believe is either 122 or 125. But that is of course because there hasn't been a continuous pool tournament in over 100 years.
However, players at some point began favoring the safety break since it is rather difficult to make a ball on the break on a 10 foot table with ivory balls.
The break ball was intended to stop or reduce safety play by providing players with an assured opportunity of pocketing a ball to continue their run. It would also allow for runs and averages to be tracked much in the same way you see in balkline billiards and 3 cushion.
Keogh Suggesting the Open Break in the New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D06E1DD1330E233A25755C2A9669D946196D6CF
What is interesting however is the tendency towards open breaks vs safety breaks doesn't entirely seem to be stylistic but rather perhaps dictated by the situation. This article provides the play by play of De Oro's 1911 title defense.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F02E3DE1431E233A25753C1A9659C946096D6CF
De Oro's high run for the match was 55, but curiously the article reports in frame 15 he "...made a break which left but a single ball away from the pyramid". At this point in the match Alfredo was most certainly ahead, so I expect he was employing safety play to protect his lead.
But the safety break was common place enough that by the time this rule book (see below) was published in 1913, it stated that the break was a closed only (safety) break only. Interestingly it also suggest that there was also an option to alternate the break, but that of course likely was not the norm for championship play.
http://www.charlesursitti.com/archive/books/30GamesPoolBilliards.pdf
I find all of this fascinating because it's part of a time period where all of cue sports were trying to find games and variations on the rules that could keep up with the skill of the players.
Before Continuous Pool, players would contest each frame until one person pocketed 8 balls as opposed to keeping an aggregate score. I don't know however if they played one game or series of games, I would expect the latter. The New York Times reported in 1887 Alfred M. Freys idea for Continuous Ball Pool,
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A07E1D61E3EEF33A25753C3A9649D94669FD7CF
I have to imagine that going from a requirement on only pocketing 8 balls to "as many as you can" must have really set the players apart.
Soon there after all pocket billiard events reported appear to be Continuous Pool. By going through match reports you can see the evolving skill level of the players,
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9506E5D9153FE432A25756C0A9649C94689FD7CF
This match is from 1889 and as you can see below there were very few full rack runs. (Note: they reported the individual frame scores and not full runs. So a run of 45 would show up as 15, 15, 15. Also 15 may also not be a run of 15 either.) Compare that to the De Oro match or any match in the 20th century and runs of 15 or more were fairly common place.
That's enough history for now. I had fun researching all of this.
