US OPEN: This breaking format is killing me...
- Thread starter filluptieu
- Start date
Better idea....why don't everyone learn how to break like Cory does.....then, everyone's equal.....but, the lazy bastards don't want to put in the time it takes to master the break.....THAT'S THE PROBLEM.....I say let them keep RACKING THE BALLS until they learn how to break like Cory does!!!!
Can't argue with the success of Coreys break, but as a spectator ( which more or less Is the point of conversation - growing pool ) It is VERY BORING and even as a player and understanding what's going on I EVEN find it extremely boring. I am aware comparing Coreys 9 ball break to Shane's 10 ball break may be apples to oranges but look at how much better and exciting SVB's break is.
I thought the whole point of the rules was to eliminate the soft break?
1. Everyone already learned the Corey break. We've gone over this.
2. Based on the fact you aren't seeing many packages, I'd say breaking successfully using the current rules is much more of a skill.
3. That's the problem. These lazy bastards don't want to put in the time it takes to master the break under the current rules.
I think I read somebody ran a 7-pack on Dechaine. How come he could figure it out? Maybe everybody should be taking note of what he is doing.
Every time I'm breaking and making balls and my opponent isn't, I notice that they try to imitate me after couple games.
Would you agree then that Golf is flawed as a game because the tee-shot is critical to a players success?
Assuming you are a 1P or 14.1 player since as you disregard 9-ball so easily, then surely if you hit the perfect 1P break then that game is flawed too?
He's a 14.1 snob.
Though I'm not sure he realizes just how much luck is involved in that game's break shot.
The break is a skill shot but if we reach a stage where the break determines the outcome of the game far too often then it detracts from the game as a whole. I never understood the grief that Corey Deuel and others got for the "soft break" - they found a way to maximize their opportunity on the break shot, just like you should in every situation in a pool game. Like all sports, the rules have to change though when things like this happen - hence the, um, changes.
A better breaker has, and should have, an advantage over a lesser breaker but when that advantage pretty much determines the outcome then something should be done to change things. The "three point rule" is fine - it's not that difficult to make most of the time for a competent breaker. The way the WPA have written it is good as it still permits lower level events, which are necessary to bring social players into the pool world, to be played with the old four-balls-must-hit-the-rail rule.
More generally - alternate or winner breaks? Alternate breaks all the way in a tournament. Winner breaks goes against the purity of the game (but "stealing" the break by winning two in succession, one of them "against your serve" would be fine if winner breaks is really what the viewing audience wants). I'm not convinced it is what the viewers want though - and I also don't understand why fans of the break don't want to see both players have a go at it an equal number of times (surely the best breaker would still win more?) - and also not sure why they feel the need to treat advocates of alternate break with disdain. The reward for winning a rack is a "1" added to you score, no need for another reward.
The 9 ball/10 ball debate? WPA World Championships and sanctioned ranking events should be 8 ball, straight pool and one form of rotation pool (currently 10 ball seems like the best contender).
A better breaker has, and should have, an advantage over a lesser breaker but when that advantage pretty much determines the outcome then something should be done to change things. The "three point rule" is fine - it's not that difficult to make most of the time for a competent breaker. The way the WPA have written it is good as it still permits lower level events, which are necessary to bring social players into the pool world, to be played with the old four-balls-must-hit-the-rail rule.
More generally - alternate or winner breaks? Alternate breaks all the way in a tournament. Winner breaks goes against the purity of the game (but "stealing" the break by winning two in succession, one of them "against your serve" would be fine if winner breaks is really what the viewing audience wants). I'm not convinced it is what the viewers want though - and I also don't understand why fans of the break don't want to see both players have a go at it an equal number of times (surely the best breaker would still win more?) - and also not sure why they feel the need to treat advocates of alternate break with disdain. The reward for winning a rack is a "1" added to you score, no need for another reward.
The 9 ball/10 ball debate? WPA World Championships and sanctioned ranking events should be 8 ball, straight pool and one form of rotation pool (currently 10 ball seems like the best contender).
Last edited: