Watching professional pool, do you prefer winner break or alternate break?
- Thread starter Smutzc
- Start date
How would those WHO PAID to see Rafael play feel about it? Think about a bigger picture of this game, guys!
Why not just stream practicing by the pros if you want packs? There will be lots of runs. Lots and lots...what excitement!!! I remember watching Don McCoy practice for hours at 9-ball. He could run racks all the time and did. I was alone most times watching.
Jeff Livingston
middleofnowhere
Registered
They came to see a pool match and they did. Nothing the sponsors or promoters can do can guarantee they're going to like the outcome.
I'm not talking outcome; I'm talking process of entertaining.
I'd not come back, that's for sure. Like I said, if I want only runnout pool, I'll watch a pro practice. If I want a competition, a real honest match, I'll watch some sport where each guy gets his chance to show his stuff. What's the best viewing experience for sports fans? Overtime.
Jeff Livingston
middleofnowhere
Registered
If that is the intent to just entertain, then yes. If you want to play a sport then rules have to be designed to govern the game. As rules are in effect they prove themselves to be good or bad and are often changed. I realize the original question in this thread was what would you rather watch. You would rather watch a horse race go back and forth.
Most by their votes would rather see a player stretch out and play the game at a high level, not one rack and stop. Unfortunately in pool that can often result in a blowout. That happens in many sports. Who hasn't paid to watch a 15 round fight only to see a first round knock out. If you are a golfer or a bowler you get to play your game regardless as you are playing against the course or a score. Pool is head to head like tennis and boxing. In the example with Rafael, he had a chance to make a comeback and blew it. What if he ran 5 racks himself, that would be pretty entertaining.
middleofnowhere
Registered
Pool is more like gladiators trying to kill each other, it is direct competition. Players try to control the game and dominate the opponent. However once a player has control of the table it now becomes him against the table and the opponent no longer matters. That is an interesting difference from many sports. Your opponent becomes helpless and can only watch.
What is fair, or fun to watch about a team with a one point lead running out the clock sitting on the ball. It happens in many sports, situations that just seem unfair. In pool, at least it is entertaining to the end, the player does have to continue to perform, he can't just run out the clock. One slip and it can change quickly.
Badpenguin
Well-known member
For 9-ball, I prefer winner break, only with a caveat when using a template. If the shooter breaks and runs the entire set, the loser gets one chance to do the same. They then re-lag and race to 2 ahead.
I'd prefer winner breaks, but only if they get rid of rack templates and institute a break box to go with it.
No matter what format you use, pool is different. You can’t influence your opponents turn (outside of what position you leave) and don’t shoot until your break or your opponent leaves the table. In alternate breaks, if your opponents gets the first break you are reliant on them making a mistake. The only way to truly make it fair is to allow each player to keep shooting until they miss.
Yea pool is different, and maybe it should not be different.
Name one sport that does not gives alternating chances of scoring. If a player runs out a set. is he really the better player if his oponent never gets a chance to play?
I understand the history of pool. But like all other things , it can be improved and alternate breaking is an improvement. IMHO
Name one sport that does not gives alternating chances of scoring. If a player runs out a set. is he really the better player if his oponent never gets a chance to play?
I understand the history of pool. But like all other things , it can be improved and alternate breaking is an improvement. IMHO
middleofnowhere
Registered
Alternating breaks or loser breaks is not by themselves an improvement but just an element. See my post #8. I put on a lot of tournaments, dozens where I played with the rules.
I did one tournament with single elimination race to 8, 2 out of 3. If it went to the third set win by 2 all sets winner breaks. Mike Massey won and told me it was a great format.
I played in a tournament in Germany they played single elimination race to 8, 3 out of 5. It was grulling I won my first match but had to play a young Ralf Souquet who beat me 3 to 2. You could see he was going to be a great player.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
You sure it's not a spot shot shootout?
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
You are saying 2 out of 3 sets to 8? So, potentially 45 games? Or am I misunderstanding you? I like the idea that there can be tournaments that are winner breaks, alternate breaks, sets of differing lengths and quantity, etc.
I see people complain about the different rules, but I don't think it's that difficult. The only thing you absolutely need to know is that you have to shoot the lowest numbered ball. Call shot, call safe, it doesn't happen so often that a viewer would be lost at sea. If I see the money ball drop on the break and they spot it, I know it doesn't count on the break. If they re rack, it does. If you can't follow the game past the 3 shots out of 100 that you don't understand, you are not interested in the game. I don't know what several of the penalties in football are but if I see the ref move the ball back 5 yards, I know someone did something wrong. I don't see some of the fouls that get called in basketball but if I see a guy shooting free throws I assume the ref saw something.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
Hill-hill, no complaints here.
middleofnowhere
Registered
Two out of three sets can be played shorter if the tournament organizers want. But what the multisets do is allow you to play a single elimination tournament yet the players feel like they played a legitimate match.
lose a set you may get behind and the next set you start from scratch and you can come back. From a tournament standpoint you also cut the field in half every round so the fact that you're playing longer matches doesn't really matter.
I was at a tournament that was played like this and I remember Rempy commenting that he really liked it. You either win your match and move on or you go home no hanging around for days only to not make it into money.
It can be tough. You go to the table you get your cue and all your crap out and you get ready to play what might be three hour or more match. Not for the faint of heart.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
That can be a grueling set, I'm sure. I see your point that it's a similar number of games compared to a double elimination and gives the players enough games that the match does prove who was better that day, instead of who was ahead when they ran out of games. And you aren't getting geared up for several different matches in one day. Just like there are short films, feature length movies, and epics, pool matches can be different lengths.
Did anyone think to ask which game??? Sorry, I could not read all the posts.
middleofnowhere
Registered
This is not new. All the Brunswick world championships played in the early 90s were played race to 7, 2 out of 3 till the final 8. Then they switched to double elimination and race to 9.
They probably did a redraw I am not sure. I played in a tournament in the Netherlands that had over 300 players. It was single elimination till the final 32. Then a redraw and a double elimination. I came in like 6th and was totally exhausted.
There are many formats that work.
That tournament in the Netherlands is played around Easter at a place called
Dijkje (sp?). I wonder if they still have it.
Last edited: