I'm familiar with that idea, and it is what I figured he was talking about, but it's such a questionable factor I thought maybe the commentator knew something I didn't. I mean, if you want to change the angle of the cue ball with inside english, then you will achieve that mostly with a softer hit since the ob will throw more with a slower speed, allowing a thinner hit and more energy into the pack. The problem is if you have to slow down the speed of the shot to get that better angle, then you won't get as good a spread of balls. This defeats the purpose of using the inside in the first place. It seems to me if you hit the shot hard enough to spread the balls, you won't really be able to change the angle with inside noticeably.
Your comment that the speed of the shot isn't the most important factor is something good to consider.
Thanks!
Of all the pool players, Straight Pool aficionados are the ones who obsess over detail most. I try to remind students that there should be an order to that. Firstly, control is most important: never miss in an open table, so missing a break shot trying to get too much out of it is out of the question. Secondly, the cue ball needs to get loose from the stack, whenever possible in the direction where the object balls go (or more to the point: to from where one can "see" those object balls), preferably center table. Thirdly, breaking open two balls or less one risks being presented with a scenario where re-breaking the stack may be a problem and/or there is no insurance doing so (ideally, there should be only one shot per rack where that doesn't afford insurance: the break shot), but at least retains control. Breaking open two or more balls controlling the cue ball may not seem "ideal" compared to spreading the whole rack wide open, but it's workable. Life isn't all about how easy it might be if […] (insert wish list)! As a matter of fact, breaking the balls Hohmann style and 1) missing the break shot, or 2) scratching, or 3) spreading 14 balls wide open with the cue ball dead safe behind an object ball - that is a more secure recipe for disaster (or at least a 3-foul penalty and new opening break in the third scenario), and it springs solely from a player's wish or hope to make life easier on him- or herself, when in reality, it's merely an alternative means of trying too hard.
(Side note: "hope" is not the type of concept that makes a great Straight Pool player.)
Now that out of the way, I agree with what you're saying about leaving oneself flat angles (not just behind the rack), along with the need to shoot harder, yet deflect off object ball and stack predictably. The main reason the old-timers wouldn't have any of that was that the equipment (wool cloth, let alone, before then, using clay balls) made the attempt itself marginal (I remember, for example, that shooting yet harder, the stack would not open more beyond a certain point on thick wool cloth - all that happened was one sacrificed control over
all the balls, especially of course the cue ball).
It's a toss-up to some extent: yes, one will make sizable runs more often getting greater spread on average, so doing so may seem fine during practice sessions. But losing control once per game may be enough to lose against serious competition. That is why leaving oneself flat angles on modern equipment should really serve a completely different purpose: to never miss a break ball. Unless, like me, one grew up with the old equipment, and has developed a different kind of "comfort zone" over the years, which is to leave oneself more angle and shoot everything at a nice and loose medium speed, assured that the cue ball is going to go where it needs to go without any additional effort (because it has nowhere else to go: I find that greatly helps concentrating on pocketing break shots, too, as there's only one objective to observe at a time).
To put it another way: in matchplay or at tournaments today, I'm at a point where I no longer expect anyone to miss in Straight Pool. I'm patiently waiting for them to try and do more with the shot than presents itself.
To end this with: the often-discussed choice of a break shot angle behind the stack where one either goes three rails into the center of the table with inside English (trying to beat the kiss in to the corner ball off the second rail!) or one rail using outside, given one does indeed have a choice and the ability to get the cue ball where one needs it, it really depends on which object ball in the back row the cue ball contacts (if not a gap between two) as to which I'd choose, in other words, the choice has less to do with spread of object balls off the break than cue ball control.
(One of the biggest mistakes - some, obviously not all - Straight Pool players make is to think of the stack as one big mass, literally a "stack", as if it were one object, and not made up of 14 individual objects, that is, contact points and mass behind them which differ in inertia and deflection angles to such an extent it doesn't really make sense to make generalizations or try to find simplistic "rules of thumb" - that, to me, is the secret, if indeed there is one.)
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
