Winner Breaks..

[chefjeff]

If I pay to watch a pool match and my guy gets no shot, I want my money back.


Jeff Livingston

HALF of the fans will not want to pay again if their guy never shoots. Why would they. hey, my Mom traveled across the country to watch her son play. he didn't and she didn't and she never will.

that's HALF.

I don't get it. Why don't they matter? Why encourage a format that potentially leaves out HALF of the fans? Half.

Pool is loser sport as long as this type of crap continues. Loser.


Jeff Livingston

 

[Cameron Smith]

Yes of course you should and need to have BnR proficiency. However there are other aspects to this game that should be highlighted as well. We do those aspects suffer a dis-service by allowing the best to string racks together endlessly. It's not a perfect means to an end, but alternate break takes players out of BnR rhythm. Battles are interesting.... Lop sided contests are not.

The use of the triangle in the World's was enough to randomize the break out come. It didn't prevent packages from being performed, but there was that human (ref) element that could potentially cause a hiccup.

Template/winner breaks is a great way to bore viewers. "oh there's the wing ball", "oh he's on the one in the corner"... lol... Could almost use a single commentary sound bite after each break.

I agree that the game is more interesting when there is a better balance between run-outs and safety play. I don't like templates and I do think the equipment needs to be sufficiently difficult enough to stifle the player's ability to string racks together. I think if you get the equipment equation right you are really only dealing with runs of 1-2 racks with a rare 4 or 5 pack (as seen in the WPM).

I just think that a lot of the most enduring stories in the history of the game have some sort of high-run component to them and alternating breaks remove that entirely. Yes, you can have alternating packages, but no one ever really notices or talks about that. And from the perspective of casual viewers, a 2-3 pack is super impressive to them. It certainly is for many of my casual-playing friends.

 

[Swighey]

By the way, I'm not trying to argue in favor of either format. I'm just pointing out that the format doesn't favor either player. Choice of the format should be based on other factors, such as perceived fairness or making a more exciting show for the spectators.

Yes got that. I really don't mind either format, although clearly I prefer alternate breaks. However, most of the arguments made in favor of winner breaks are clap trap.

 

[9andout]

Lol. I agree. But, in tennis, when you're serving, your opponent at least has a chance. They aren't just sitting in a chair on the sidelines whatching you serve into an empty service court box.

Bingo! That is the huge difference with the tennis analogy.

 

[straightline]

How do you equate a guy who breaks and has an easy out. Then another player breaks has no out but wins all the safety play ultimately winning.
Whoses win was superior? The score is still 1 to 1. Is one win of greater value then the other? A field goal kicker kicks it dead center. Another just makes it inside the post. Does one count more then the other.

BnRs would not be the only criteria. Stats like win margins would also factor heavily. These are just filters that serve to highlight, can improve field wide skill levels, and most importantly, performance flow.
As far as the guys playing 7 and 6 ball, 9 ball can be played out of a 15 ball rack.

 

[middleofnowhere]

BnRs would not be the only criteria. Stats like win margins would also factor heavily. These are just filters that serve to highlight, can improve field wide skill levels, and most importantly, performance flow.
As far as the guys playing 7 and 6 ball, 9 ball can be played out of a 15 ball rack.

Maybe stop head to head play all together. Just play solo against a score like bowling.

 

[chefjeff]

Speaking of loser, loser should break.


Jeff Livingston

 

[middleofnowhere]

Speaking of loser, loser should break.


Jeff Livingston

Big problems with that

 

[straightline]

Maybe stop head to head play all together. Just play solo against a score like bowling.

Could actually function in some preliminary capacity. I recall some olympic "show" sports - ice skating and gymnastics probably have required technical trials prior to hot dogging.

 

[chefjeff]

Sorry, I had to chuckle with a poster named straightline speaking of ice skating.


Jeff Livingston

 

[Chili Palmer]

Maybe stop head to head play all together. Just play solo against a score like bowling.

Bowlliards for the win!

 

[middleofnowhere]

Could actually function in some preliminary capacity. I recall some olympic "show" sports - ice skating and gymnastics probably have required technical trials prior to hot dogging.

That was done years ago. It was a nation wide tournament with like $50,000 prize fund. You played 10 racks and there was a scoring formula. I don't remember any other details, maybe someone else does.

 

[straightline]

Sorry, I had to chuckle with a poster named straightline speaking of ice skating.


Jeff Livingston

Glad to be of humor - whatever that means.

 

[The_JV]

Maybe stop head to head play all together. Just play solo against a score like bowling.

Oh dear god... This would slam the last nail into the "pool is not a sport" coffin. Can't image a better way to kill the game then completely remove what's left of head to head strategy and moves.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Absolutely. Tennis would be a much better game if you kept serving until you lost a point. The traditionalists would scream, but it would be a lot more exciting.

I am with you, Bob. Basketball would be a much better game if the ball was turned back over to the team that just scored. After all, why punish a team for scoring? Imagine a "basketball package". It would be great!

 

[eastcoast_chris]

Winner break is great. But for pros the equipment needs to be on the tight side. Otherwise they can run out/run most of the set easily.

Best match I've seen in person was Shane VB and Charlie Bryant about 12 years ago. Alternate break bar box 8 ball. Shane won the lag and they both ran every rack they broke, with Shane winning 7-6. If it had been winner, it would have been impressive, but not really fair.

 

[The_JV]

Best match I've seen in person was Shane VB and Charlie Bryant about 12 years ago. Alternate break bar box 8 ball. Shane won the lag and they both ran every rack they broke, with Shane winning 7-6. If it had been winner, it would have been impressive, but not really fair.

Exactly... improtance needs to placed on the lag, but it shouldn't determine the winner. Otherwise why bother playing the set...lol

Hold on... I think I may just have solved all the 9-ball problems. Winner/alternate break, triangle/template, single/double elimination... just have a lagging contest

 

[Hoogaar]

Yeah - losing the lag and potentially not having even a single shot in the actual match is way too harsh a penalty.

There is no sport with huge viewership numbers (that I can think of) that doesn't even give all competitors a chance to, well...compete. Losing a coin toss should not be fatal.

I've always loved watching cue sports - whatever I can find online or on TV. I watched a lot of these Worlds, and for whatever reason, I just didn't find it that exciting. I thought to myself I can't see someone who doesn't play being compelled to watch much more than a few racks.

I like the template because of the consistency - I don't like intentionally introducing a less than perfect rack, but it makes the game way too easy. Maybe the pros need to go to 15 ball rotation - might lead to more exciting racks than a break followed by 7-8 straight stop/stun shots.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... most of the arguments made in favor of winner breaks are clap trap.

I think that goes for all sides. My take on the only two possibilities that have a chance to be chosen by a promoter:
Alternate: perceived as more fair and you are guaranteed to see both players at the table
Winner: traditional and thought to be more exciting

A small problem for me with alternate is that I sometimes forget who won the flip/lag.

The choice will remain with the promoter/organizer. Anyone who really wants to influence the choice will need to contact one of those.

At carom billiards the problem of only one player playing in a match is larger. At the "small" games where no cushion is required, the skill level of the champions got to the point where the breaker would often run out the game. In the most impressive case of this, Ludo Dielis ran 400-and-out in his first five matches of a European championship (in the version called 18.2 balkline in English). He then missed after 10 in his next match for 2010 consecutive points with only one miss.

The carom people fixed this by letting the loser of the lag start from a break shot and try to tie, which is called "equal innings". There is also a shootout possibility but some tournament formats can handle tied matches.

 

[TWOFORPOOL]

It was always winner breaks and then somebody figured out if was alternate break more people would play in a tournament and this would make a bigger prize fund. I have always said alternate break was to get the losers to play since they would get to shoot every other game. I have heard lots of people say they didn't want to play winner breaks because they might not get to play since somebody could put a package on them. When I played somebody who ran a 4 or 5 pack or more I would say great shooting and I never ever complained because I didn't get to play. That's what losers say. How exciting was the the Word Pool tournament! There were lots of come backs after being stuck 4 or 5 games! You are never out of it with winner breaks and this creates a lot of excitement watching it.