"Winner breaks" rule hurts the game

[muttley76]

Winner breaks is an INTEGRAL part of pool. The reasons have been listed on numerous threads, but the bottom line is that winner breaks ensures a player to have the ability to defend themselves, regardless of score, and the prospect of winning/losing without one player playing is unique to pool. To take it away would take away the essence of the game. Perhaps you should look at other variants that would suit you, but most serious players would detest any such change.

 

[shooter50014]

So you could lose a coin flip, race to five or so, and not shoot. Yea, that sounds fair to me.

basically the same thing happened at this years state tourney.

rack 1 he broke and ran
rack 2 I broke dry and he ran
rack 3 he broke and ran
rack 4 i broke made a ball ran 5 and hooked myself,ratled a jump shot and he ran out
rack 5 he broke and ran

you can get beat bad in either format but with winner break you can get hot just as easy as the other guy. All i missed was one break and one shot and lost 0 5 this was in level 1 not masters!

 

[Neil]

................

 

[mikeyfrost]

You have to figure if youd rather bet money playing winner break why in the hell would you prefer alternating break for a tournament??? Pool is about putting packages together and fading packages. If a guy breaks better than you its an advantage he has learned and skill he has worked for. Who cares if the same guys win all the time? It's ok as long as they are the best. When it was winner break JA won player of the decade, hell all of the legends became legends on winner break.

I've never even heard someone referred to as the best Alternating Break Player in the world? Alternating break is a turn off. Even for us guys who break and run a few times a month. It's like starting from scratch every game. To hell with that. You can't compare pool to tennis or to bowling. The only time I ever hear alternate the break come up is when someone knows they need more weight and dont wanna get packages put on them. It's a chump rule. None of the guys I respect, respect the alternating break format and neither do I. Just an opinion.

 

[gdog]

Apparently the variants suit more than just i, as the trend is more and more alternate break formats.

 

[trustyrusty]

Apparently the variants suit more than just i, as the trend is more and more alternate break formats.

The reason for this trend at HIGH levels is because of short races, and the the reason LOWER level tourneys do it is to get more participants. If only one or two guys in an area can put up a 5-7 pack, they will be the only winners of the local tourneys, and others will stop "donating".

I still don't like it, even if I am donating.

 

[macguy]

That's what makes winner breaks so great. Some of my best personal pool memories are matches where I came back from big deficits, which wouldn't have really been possible in an alternate break format.

I just told a story that happened in 1983 and I still get a thrill out of it. I was playing a guy named Bill Stegall (sp?). This guy was no sucker he had already beaten Buddy Hall in the tournament. It was a nice format. Race to 11 two out of three sets single elimination. Those are the kind of memories that stay with you.

 

[gdog]

Miky, your rationale is why pool will never be a main stream sport. I don't think they actually categorize champions in winner and alternate break divisions.

 

[Pushout]

Obviously you are a B leaguer at best then.
Someday, if your game develops, you may understand this concept.

Truly, a totally unnecessary statement.

 

[Cameron Smith]

If both players are capable of stringing racks together, then why is it unfair if one runs 4-7 racks and the other player has to catch up? In theory he should be able to hit him with the same package. Furthermore the lag is based on skill. Just because no one practices the lag doesn't mean it is lucky.

In the World Pool Masters Alex Pagualyan ran six racks against Rodney Morris. Rodney responded by running three racks twice in consecutive innings. He won 8-7.

By the way could someone direct me to a video of a match where someone runs out the entire set (excluding 14.1 matches)? My point is that it is such a rarity I don't know why anyone is concerned about it. Has anyone ever run out all 11 racks in the US Open before?

Part of what makes pool so great is that you can hold the table for as long as you are able. Complaining about it is like grumbling about football being rough.

 

[davidhop]

I think that if someone has the skill to run the entire set, more power to them. They should have the opportunity to do so. Winner breaks, all the way for me.

 

[Ironman317]

i played shawn putnam in a tourney years ago and i won the flip for the break. i broke, made a ball, and pushed out to a jump shot. i never shot again in a race to 7. it was truly amazing to watch. once the last 9 ball fell, i shook his hand and said, "i guess i dogged the push out". winner breaks is what sets pool apart from other sports.

 

[mikeyfrost]

Miky, your rationale is why pool will never be a main stream sport. I don't think they actually categorize champions in winner and alternate break divisions.

No they don't but the should start categorizing them. Alternating break wins should have an asterisk. I wouldn't get tired of seeing Johnny Archer or Dennis Orcullo putting 5 packs or better together on tough equipment. If the opponent cant do that then they should lose. On the other hand Alternating break if you mess up you get punished at most 2 racks. When you add in how impossible it is to catch up in that format its just unfair. In a race to 9 if you can get out 8 straight times to come back that should be allowed. If not, well then you should have lost anyway. At the lower amateur levels ppl will be mad if they dont get to shoot. Thats why they have the rule.

We still count 9 on break as a win? We shouldnt, especially rack your own. When will they start complaining about that. Maybe people will lag for break instead of flip a coin, thats what your supposed to do. Ever see any pros flip a coin? Rarely will they do that. I think balls made on the break should be spotted but thats a different convo. People should jump full cue or kick. All games should be no slop. I've got a ton of these. No alternating break is above any of those things though.

 

[IplayBAD]

The Alternating break is good in a tournament in the sense of its sort of an unwritten handicap to a lesser abilitied player...Before I get flamed think about this situation, when have you ever in a tournament that is based on no handicap played 32 players or 16 players or a field of any size composed of players that play exactly your speed. There has to be some insentive to the lesser player to get in and match up with a better player. I personally cant break and run 5 racks in a row like the guy who plays 2 balls better than me in an open tourney so I have to rely on that alternating break for me to be able to put his fire out. On the flip side of this coin in a gambling situation unless one player is getting the break as a spot it should always be winner breaks as you have probably decided your opponent plays even with you. With all this in consideration I do believe that alternating the break doesn't hurt the game it does however hurt the player that can string racks together.

 

[Cameron Smith]

The Alternating break is good in a tournament in the sense of its sort of an unwritten handicap to a lesser abilitied player...Before I get flamed think about this situation, when have you ever in a tournament that is based on no handicap played 32 players or 16 players or a field of any size composed of players that play exactly your speed. There has to be some insentive to the lesser player to get in and match up with a better player. I personally cant break and run 5 racks in a row like the guy who plays 2 balls better than me in an open tourney so I have to rely on that alternating break for me to be able to put his fire out. On the flip side of this coin in a gambling situation unless one player is getting the break as a spot it should always be winner breaks as you have probably decided your opponent plays even with you. With all this in consideration I do believe that alternating the break doesn't hurt the game it does however hurt the player that can string racks together.

This would make sense for local tournaments, I think I would prefer alternating breaks than giving games on the wire. But as far as professional tournaments are concerned there should never be any handicap involved. If for no other reason than, these guys are trying to make a living, the playing field should not be leveled.

 

[Luxury]

The original poster hinted at it but he didn't ask clear enough. The question should have been is it better for the casual viewer to watch pool on tv with the same shooter shooting over and over again?

Obviously the WPBA has the most successful tv ratings and they play alternate breaks for very good reason.

All the winner break purists don't really seem to care if pool gets played on tv.

I do.

 

[Pushout]

This would make sense for local tournaments, I think I would prefer alternating breaks than giving games on the wire. But as far as professional tournaments are concerned there should never be any handicap involved. If for no other reason than, these guys are trying to make a living, the playing field should not be leveled.

I think it's already being done. If the ball in hand anywhere rules were dropped, you would see a lot less players besides the pros in tournaments like the US Open. That's one reason those rules are favored, because the lesser players feel they have a shot at winning. They may not have been intended to do that but that's what happened.

 

[mikeyfrost]

The original poster hinted at it but he didn't ask clear enough. The question should have been is it better for the casual viewer to watch pool on tv with the same shooter shooting over and over again?

Obviously the WPBA has the most successful tv ratings and they play alternate breaks for very good reason.

All the winner break purists don't really seem to care if pool gets played on tv.

I do.

About 47 titles later for Allison Fisher. Don't know how many for Korr. Fact is when it was winner break in the WPBA it was a one woman show. Now Allison doesn't win nearly as much as before. You think that's because she plays bad now? You think the girls play that much better now the field is even? I don't buy into either one of those. Fact was that woman can put packages together. The format change has hurt her the most.

I look at it this way, once you are a pro how do you determine how much better someone is? When you are an A or B player you say I can run 6 or 8 balls on average. What do you do when you can average a rack? It's about the size of packages you can average at their skill level. So why even the playing field out for the sake of evening it out. Just hurts the players because they get a false sense of their talent. Winner break these girls that win probably lose 7-2 or 7-3. I do like a lot of the WPBA pro's game mind you but Allison is the only one I know to throw huge packages together for wins.

 

[Patrick53212]

I think it's already being done. If the ball in hand anywhere rules were dropped, you would see a lot less players besides the pros in tournaments like the US Open. That's one reason those rules are favored, because the lesser players feel they have a shot at winning. They may not have been intended to do that but that's what happened.

I am with you on that one. I have played players in one of the leagues in which I play, where they do not play ball in hand. These players are monster shotmakers. In this leauge, there are no jump shots allowed either. It is basically a straight in 8-ball game where you lose if you scratch on the 8-ball or you do not drive something to the rail while on the 8-ball. A lot of BIH players have a real tough time winning when playing in this league.

 

[macguy]

The Alternating break is good in a tournament in the sense of its sort of an unwritten handicap to a lesser abilitied player...Before I get flamed think about this situation, when have you ever in a tournament that is based on no handicap played 32 players or 16 players or a field of any size composed of players that play exactly your speed. There has to be some insentive to the lesser player to get in and match up with a better player. I personally cant break and run 5 racks in a row like the guy who plays 2 balls better than me in an open tourney so I have to rely on that alternating break for me to be able to put his fire out. On the flip side of this coin in a gambling situation unless one player is getting the break as a spot it should always be winner breaks as you have probably decided your opponent plays even with you. With all this in consideration I do believe that alternating the break doesn't hurt the game it does however hurt the player that can string racks together.

That actually is not true either. The weaker player has a better chance if the rule allows him to have the chance to play over his head and maybe beat the champion with a few good rolls, some good breaks and a little over the head playing like running 5 or six racks. Alternate break has taken the possibility of getting lucky and winning away. The more restrictive the rules the more it benefits the better player.
You have to relieze what ever you take away from the better you also take away from the weaker player who need all he can get to win. You make it hard for him to even get lucky.