First I'd like to declare that I enjoy our discussions...you are thoughtful and resonable....
....so any time I lose an argument...I'll gain something.
I've played a lot of nine-ball...but I've rarely gone looking for it...my games of choice have
been snooker, straight pool, one pocket, and three cushion...nine ball is a game a lot of
gamblers play while they're waiting for the action to start....kinda like poker players will
play gin rummy till they have enough players for a full table.
So, I confess I'm a bit prejudiced by my experience...nine ball is a form of rotation that
was played for QUICK ACTION...if you miss, you lose....and that's probably why it was
chosen as a game for the public...easy to understand.....and speedy.
So for years, I've told the people that want to slow it down...play some other game.
....told my old friend Grady, rather than slow the game down, stick to one-hole and 14.1...
...the games you're good at.
...so basically, instead of making 9 and 10 into pedestrian games, don't play it....
...there's lots of games that take longer.
Personally, I'd like to see one pocket become the premier pool game.
I enjoy your posts as well. You are one of the valuable members of the forum. I also agree than any time we "lose" an argument it means that we got to learn something so it really isn't a loss at all.
I would like to use a basketball analogy to explain winner breaks verses alternate breaks because many still think there is a significant difference and this helps explain why there really isn't. First, so that the analogy works, let us imagine that basketball is played as a race to 100 points (the same way that pool is played to a certain number of points), instead of it being whoever is ahead at the end of 48 minutes. Having your "regular" baskets count as 2 points like they do now is just like alternate breaks in pool. But lets say we decided to change how much the regular baskets are worth and now we make them worth 4 points each instead of 2. Well that is like winner breaks in pool. It doesn't change anything though. The same person still won. All it did was change the final score and put more point separation between the two teams. All it does is change how much each each turn at the table (for pool) or possession of the ball (for basketball) was worth, and in turn that changes how much the winner wins by, but it doesn't change who wins or anything else. In alternate breaks you might average .6 games won for each turn at the table, but in winner breaks you might average 1.2 games won for every turn at the table. All you really did was increase the amount each turn was worth, just like when you change what baskets are worth by making them worth 2 points or 4 points.
So when you say play winner breaks so that the game moves faster, all you have really said is make the baskets worth 4 points instead of 2 points so you reach 100 points faster. You could have done the exact same thing and made things go faster by just playing a shorter race of alternate breaks which would be like going to 50 points in basketball instead of 100. Same result. Going to 50 points at 2 points a basket is the same thing as going to 100 points at 4 points a basket, just like the difference between alternate and winner breaks where each turn is just worth a different amount of points (but is similarly increased or decreased for
both of the players so nothing really changed at all).
Here are a few of the many other benefits of alternate breaks though:
-Matches stay closer and therefore more of the matches are exciting to watch because you have fewer blowouts. Who will ultimately win isn't going to change, but instead of knowing who it is that is going to win by the half way point like you often do in winner breaks and then being bored because it is anticlimactic and a blowout and there is no excitement left, you aren't going to know until near the end of each set who is going to win. Both players are usually still going to seem to be in it until the end so the excitement stays all the way through to the end of the matches. A MUCH higher percentage of the matches will be exciting. Nice comebacks will still happen too.
-Any rule set where you can lose without even getting to play is stupid (like you can in winner breaks if your opponent runs out the set). The public will never take that seriously if we ever hope to have pool become more popular. Can you imagine if the Olympics ever gave pool serious consideration for inclusion? They would literally laugh at us once we told them it was winner breaks where somebody can lose without even getting to play. They would say that is the dumbest thing ever and no way could they ever consider having that format and that we would have to change it to be like every other sport in the world where both sides get about the same opportunities to score before they could ever even begin to take our sport seriously and give it any real consideration. Can you imagine if football was a race to 30 points and whoever scores receives the next kickoff? It would be so stupid that a team could lose the game without even having had possession of the ball and nobody would ever go for that. But it is just as stupid in pool--we are just used to it since that is just the way it has always been.
-Some people argue that with winner breaks if the guy runs the set out then he deserves the win. But does he really? Why would you say that? Maybe I would have shot twice as good and could have run twice as many racks but the dumb rules didn't allow me the chance to show it. I want matches decided by who played better, which requires that both play a similar amount, not by who got to shoot first and the other guy didn't even get to show his stuff. That answers absolutely nothing about who was the better player that match, and finding out who was the better player that match is the whole point of a match to begin with. Again, any rules that let you lose without even getting to play are just dumb. No other sport would ever allow that as it just makes no sense.
-Alternate breaks puts MUCH more pressure on the players. With winner breaks you always figure you can put a few games together yourself to catch up. In alternate breaks every single game is going to seem to be so much more important to the players and there will be lots more pressure all of the time with every single game. It is intense. More pressure leads to more excitement. It will probably lead to more separation between the players as well since some are going to handle that additional pressure better than others. More pressure is just a good thing all the way around.
-As already stated the truth is who wins and how often doesn't change between winner breaks and alternate breaks. But it is going to seem to be more fair with alternate breaks and seeming fair and leaving no doubt about who should have won is always a good thing. There is no more "well it was 5 to 5 in a race to 9 and then he got a roll and got lucky to string a 4 pack together at just the right time to close it out 9-5 otherwise I would have beat him but he got to break more times than I did so the lesser player got to win in this case". When both opponents get about an equal amount of opportunities to score there is no arguing who is the better player or who performed better than who though. If you and I are doing a free throw competition to 50 baskets and it is alternate shot, and you win 50-40, there is no arguing who was better. We both had the same amount of shots but you made more of yours. The better guy won, simple as that, and proved it by performing better when they both had equal opportunities. On the other hand, if we were playing where you shoot again each time you make a basket I can always say that you just got a couple of streaks at the right time that put you at 50 points first and you only won because you got to shoot more shots than I did but I'm still the better shooter--and I could be right.
