Why the alternate break?

A

Ak Guy

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was listening to commentary from the great Buddy Hall as Earl and Efren played 9 Ball in an old match and Earl was at his best. Buddy made a comment about liking looser or alternate breaks as some one like Earl could just run away with a match when they get on a roll.

So is that what alternate breaks is all about? Is it a way of giving players with a less rounded game a better chance?

Is the trend towards bar box play and short races causing a need for alternate breaks?
 
It's for people who's break sucks, so they don't get blown out by people who break well.
 
Many, many other sports in the world uses "alternate break" or at the very least equal chances. Basketball, football, soccer, professional darts, and more. Volleyball is one of the only sports I can think of that has a "make it, take it" type of rule, but even then, the rules have been changed to allow the receiving team to still be able to score on every serve.

So why is pool different? Why does it need to be possible for a player to be able to win a match without their opponent ever putting their hand on the table? Not that it does happen that often, but it can. So why? Because that's how its always been? If that's your reasoning that is the worst argument ever. With that argument we'd still have slavery. "I think slavery is fine because that's just the way it's always been." Pure stupidity.

Alternate break is better because it ensures that both players get an equal chance to come to the table and make something happen. How does having rules that allow one player to win without the other player getting a shot benefit the player with the "less rounded game?" Get out of here with that non-sense.

Alternate break is more fair, gives equal chance to both players. End of discussion. Alternate break should have been the rule years ago, hell, from the very beginning.
 
SUPERSTAR said:
It's for people who's break sucks, so they don't get blown out by people who break well.
Click to expand...

What? How? If you suck at breaking how does getting more chances to break help you. You are still going to suck at breaking and not be able to run out the table.

Alternate break is simply the fairest way to play the game. Every other sport has some sense of equality in opportunity build into the rules, but for whatever reason pool players have this mentality that that doesn't matter. That kind of silly, stuck in the mud thinking is part of the problem facing pool when new players come into the hall and see non-sense like this going on.
 
Wheelsno3 said:
Many, many other sports in the world uses "alternate break" or at the very least equal chances. Basketball, football, soccer, professional darts, and more. Volleyball is one of the only sports I can think of that has a "make it, take it" type of rule, but even then, the rules have been changed to allow the receiving team to still be able to score on every serve.

So why is pool different? Why does it need to be possible for a player to be able to win a match without their opponent ever putting their hand on the table? Not that it does happen that often, but it can. So why? Because that's how its always been? If that's your reasoning that is the worst argument ever. With that argument we'd still have slavery. "I think slavery is fine because that's just the way it's always been." Pure stupidity.

Alternate break is better because it ensures that both players get an equal chance to come to the table and make something happen. How does having rules that allow one player to win without the other player getting a shot benefit the player with the "less rounded game?" Get out of here with that non-sense.

Alternate break is more fair, gives equal chance to both players. End of discussion. Alternate break should have been the rule years ago, hell, from the very beginning.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Packers.
 
The Packers did get an equal shot after every score by the Cardinals throughout the game. The NFL's overtimes rules specifically are at fault, not the overall set up of Football.

And by the way, there are lots and lots of people who think the NFL overtime rules are stupid, myself included. College overtime rules are much better for equality of opportunity, and you can find many players and former players and commentators criticizing the NFL for having bad rules.

Pointing to the NFL only further proves the point that Alternate break is the proper way to play the game.
 
In theory it's more fair. However I believe that one of the things that separate the very elite players from the rest is their ability to control the table through several packages and/or safety play. I feel like the alternate break evens things out too much. The top player will still win the tournament but there will be a few more upsets than there should have been.

I've said quite often that the prevailing concern with regard to a player running out the a full match with the opposing player never getting shoot is hyperbolic. Maybe use an equal innings rule as they do in billiards.
 
Let's look at Tennis and Darts specifically because they are very clearly two sports where the first mover advantage is HUGE. At the top of both sports the best player "holds serve/throw" a very high percentage of the time, easily over 80% for the best players. Therefore the alternate start is vital because if one player goes first every time they win they instantly become MASSIVE favorites to win the match. So alternate start is required, and the match comes down to who can break serve/throw the most times. This system is exciting and fair.

Now lets turn to pool. The break and run percentages are much much lower than they are for holding serve/throw, but the percentage of break and win is still pretty high. You might not break and run, but if you play smart you can play safe and control the table even if it isn't a run out. So no the break is not as big of an advantage as the serve in tennis, but it is still an advantage. And unlike tennis and darts, pool is a game where one player controls the table and the other player can not do anything. In Tennis at least the other player can return the serve. Therefore, because of the structural inequities built into pool by one player being able to control the entire game, alternate break is mandatory for the game to be fair.
 
Wheelsno3 said:
Let's look at Tennis and Darts specifically because they are very clearly two sports where the first mover advantage is HUGE. At the top of both sports the best player "holds serve/throw" a very high percentage of the time, easily over 80% for the best players. Therefore the alternate start is vital because if one player goes first every time they win they instantly become MASSIVE favorites to win the match. So alternate start is required, and the match comes down to who can break serve/throw the most times. This system is exciting and fair.

Now lets turn to pool. The break and run percentages are much much lower than they are for holding serve/throw, but the percentage of break and win is still pretty high. You might not break and run, but if you play smart you can play safe and control the table even if it isn't a run out. So no the break is not as big of an advantage as the serve in tennis, but it is still an advantage. And unlike tennis and darts, pool is a game where one player controls the table and the other player can not do anything. In Tennis at least the other player can return the serve. Therefore, because of the structural inequities built into pool by one player being able to control the entire game, alternate break is mandatory for the game to be fair.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with what you are saying but winner break adds a bit of excitement. Someone can be down 11-0 in a race to 15 and put together a huge package and win (these things have happened). Very unlikely to happen in alternate break.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
 
Well,the alternate break is certainly for suckers and it kills the game.
This is one of the most stupid changes that has ever done in pool.:o:o:o:(:o:o:o
What you can do is to ask any real player about that and you will get this answer.
Only those who are affraid of loosing would tell you oposit.
Of course,you have right on your opinion but this is mine:smile:

Wheelsno3 said:
What? How? If you suck at breaking how does getting more chances to break help you. You are still going to suck at breaking and not be able to run out the table.

Alternate break is simply the fairest way to play the game. Every other sport has some sense of equality in opportunity build into the rules, but for whatever reason pool players have this mentality that that doesn't matter. That kind of silly, stuck in the mud thinking is part of the problem facing pool when new players come into the hall and see non-sense like this going on.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wheelsno3 said:
Let's look at Tennis and Darts specifically because they are very clearly two sports where the first mover advantage is HUGE. At the top of both sports the best player "holds serve/throw" a very high percentage of the time, easily over 80% for the best players. Therefore the alternate start is vital because if one player goes first every time they win they instantly become MASSIVE favorites to win the match. So alternate start is required, and the match comes down to who can break serve/throw the most times. This system is exciting and fair.

Now lets turn to pool. The break and run percentages are much much lower than they are for holding serve/throw, but the percentage of break and win is still pretty high. You might not break and run, but if you play smart you can play safe and control the table even if it isn't a run out. So no the break is not as big of an advantage as the serve in tennis, but it is still an advantage. And unlike tennis and darts, pool is a game where one player controls the table and the other player can not do anything. In Tennis at least the other player can return the serve. Therefore, because of the structural inequities built into pool by one player being able to control the entire game, alternate break is mandatory for the game to be fair.
Click to expand...

You can't really compare Pool/Snooker/Billiards to other sports because it's so different. I think the concept of holding your turn is one of things that is uniquely billiards, and what I enjoy about it.

The best solution is essentially to make matches sufficiently long that the chances of running the set out are unlikely to impossible. Races to 15 or 20 do just that. Both players get equalish opportunities and it opens to the possibility for big packages.
 
caff3in3 said:
I don't disagree with what you are saying but winner break adds a bit of excitement. Someone can be down 11-0 in a race to 15 and put together a huge package and win (these things have happened). Very unlikely to happen in alternate break.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think this is a fair point, but, on the other side of this argument is how often is someone down in an alternate break format 11-0? And, if they are down 11-0 in alternate break format, chances are they don't possess the skill to put together a "huge package" if it were winner break anyhow.
 
ivicafranic said:
Well,the alternate break is certainly for suckers and it kills the game.
This is one of the most stupid changes that has ever done in pool.:o:o:o:(:o:o:o
What you can do is to ask any real player about that and you will get this answer.
Only those who are affraid of loosing would tell you oposit.
Of course,you have right on your opinion but this is mine:smile:
Click to expand...

I stopped listening to real players when the most realistic answer to fixing pool was to win the lottery. :shrug:
 
jojopiff said:
I think this is a fair point, but, on the other side of this argument is how often is someone down in an alternate break format 11-0? And, if they are down 11-0 in alternate break format, chances are they don't possess the skill to put together a "huge package" if it were winner break anyhow.
Click to expand...
Good point although the flip side is someone who is capable of putting together a huge package starting slow and then getting into stroke. Take earl for instance. Sometimes he is seemingly down and out and someone says something that pisses him off and he 2 strokes every ball to run out a set

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
 
Alternate breaks are for sissies.

If your opponent runs out the set, so be it.

However, if you never get to shoot, I think you should be allowed a chance at the table to attempt to run as many as your opponent did. If you do, then go into additional games. If not, you need to practice your break more.
 
Ak Guy said:
I was listening to commentary from the great Buddy Hall as Earl and Efren played 9 Ball in an old match and Earl was at his best. Buddy made a comment about liking looser or alternate breaks as some one like Earl could just run away with a match when they get on a roll.

So is that what alternate breaks is all about? Is it a way of giving players with a less rounded game a better chance?

Is the trend towards bar box play and short races causing a need for alternate breaks?
Click to expand...

I think like bowling or golf, at least you get to play your game. Pool may be one of the few sports where you can lose and never get to play.
 
Cameron Smith said:
In theory it's more fair. However I believe that one of the things that separate the very elite players from the rest is their ability to control the table through several packages and/or safety play. I feel like the alternate break evens things out too much. The top player will still win the tournament but there will be a few more upsets than there should have been.

I've said quite often that the prevailing concern with regard to a player running out the a full match with the opposing player never getting shoot is hyperbolic. Maybe use an equal innings rule as they do in billiards.
Click to expand...

There can be another school of thought on that. Winner breaks may be the only chance the weaker play has. It is the opportunity to maybe play a little over your head and beat a top player with an unexpected flurry. I have beat top players in tournament play that would give me the 5 for the cash. Your only hope is with a little luck to hit them hard before they get the chance to hit you. It happens all the time. If you make a rule that evens everything out it benefits the better player every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top