Why doesn't pool have a breaking format like tennis?

[Push&Pool]

Fact is that it is a different game though. First off, pool is not one game, it is many different games. In games like one pocket or straight pool where the break is perceived to be particularly important, they are usually play alternate break or lag for break. In games such as 9 Ball, winner break has been the most dominant mainly because of the culture that developed; the winner of a game also wins the break. Consider it might be interesting if in tennis you kept serving until your opponent broke your serve, then he got to keep it until you broke him.

I'm not married to the winner break format, and in fact run my little annual tournament alternate break. But let's just discuss it for it's own merits as they relate to the game of pool and not why aren't we more like some other sport? In short races I think alternate break is better. But now we an argue on what is considered a short race.

As for win by two, tennis is the only major sport that does that so why don't they fall in line with all the others and get rid of that requirement?

In horse shoes a leaner is worth something so let's make the ball that rattles or hangs worth something in pool.

Tennis is also single elimination. Let's do that too. Never mind that few (particularly dead money) will travel to a pool tournament to go one and out. Some other sport does is so we should too.

Face it, pool is fractured. Until that changes it will be unlikely for one set way of doing things to develop.

Serving in tennis until your opponent breaks would even make some sense. He'd still get to play. I just feel that any sport or game in which there's even a possibility that one participant doesn't get to participate is imperfect, incomplete. I didn't say pool needs to copy everything from tennis, I just used it as an example. Bottom line is that it should be necessary for both players to actually play in a match, unless we want situations where both sides could be near-perfect run-out players and the winner is determined by who breaks first. Where's fair-play in that?

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Serving in tennis until your opponent breaks would even make some sense. He'd still get to play. I just feel that any sport or game in which there's even a possibility that one participant doesn't get to participate is imperfect, incomplete. I didn't say pool needs to copy everything from tennis, I just used it as an example. Bottom line is that it should be necessary for both players to actually play in a match, unless we want situations where both sides could be near-perfect run-out players and the winner is determined by who breaks first. Where's fair-play in that?

But that's exactly what I mean about them being different. In tennis (as in many other games) there is interaction between the players during every point. Pool is not like that. When I'm at the table, I'm at the table you are not. And you don't get a chance again until I miss. So the culture has developed, maybe partly from straight pool, that if I make the 9 ball I'm still at the table because I haven't missed yet.

If you want to ignore that they are different games entirely then let's just play pool where we trade shots and the first one to miss loses that point/game/set/match.