WPC Debate on the Soft Break

I don't like banning the soft break.

I actually get pretty excited to see multiple racks run with it.
It's no longer "he smashed them and the balls rolled into a tricky layout" or "he smashed them and now it's a road map and I can go take a nap". There's something interesting about every rack, namely that "can he pull it off again?" feeling with the break. With the soft break, I'm actually more interested now in 9 ball than ever before.

I bet the people playing 9 ball 10 years ago never would have guessed there might finally be something new and undiscovered in 9 ball (yeah, I know someone will say "people thought of it before, and such and such used to do it." That's great, hush now).

--

Just from a strictly logical point of view, it doesn't seem right to change the rules. It seems like another concession to TV. Some smart guy was told "you have to make sure two balls hit a rail" in straight pool several decades ago, and he worked out the textbook straight pool safe break to make that happen and get an ideal result. Nobody said "let's modify the rules and make a safe break illegal. How about 5 balls have to hit a rail?"

Some other smart guy figured out the ideal break in 1 pocket, and there wasn't some jackass saying "dude, that's too effective. You're getting a huge advantage by doing that. You need to stop it and go back to something more mindless."

In general, the break in pool games is kind of a weird exception to the way the game is 'meant' to be (if we're gonna drag out that argument) because you're asked to play with precision and control all the time, but for one specific shot you're required to blast it and intentionally give up control... wtf? It makes sense to blast the rack in 8 ball and 10 ball so we do. It doesn't in straight pool or 1P, so we don't. People seem to be freaking out that 9 ball is being played differently, but really it's just that 9 ball has jumped ship from the first category to the second. It's still a neat and challenging game.
 
CreeDo said:
... Just from a strictly logical point of view, it doesn't seem right to change the rules. It seems like another concession to TV. ...
Click to expand...
The history of cue sports has a very long tradition of changing the rules when the game has gotten too easy under the old rules. The main examples of this are in carom billiards and English billiards. For pocket billiards, I can't think of any example of a change because things were too easy. The rules of nine ball were changed in the 1970s and 1980s to make the game faster. Balls on fouls used to be spotted. No BIH anywhere for a foul. Now nine ball is "too easy" with a tight rack.

I think the problems associated with the rack/break will need to be properly addressed sooner or later. We are suffering from half measures now. I don't see any sure solution.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The history of cue sports has a very long tradition of changing the rules when the game has gotten too easy under the old rules. The main examples of this are in carom billiards and English billiards. For pocket billiards, I can't think of any example of a change because things were too easy. The rules of nine ball were changed in the 1970s and 1980s to make the game faster. Balls on fouls used to be spotted. No BIH anywhere for a foul. Now nine ball is "too easy" with a tight rack.

I think the problems associated with the rack/break will need to be properly addressed sooner or later. We are suffering from half measures now. I don't see any sure solution.
Click to expand...

3-inch pocket, just a thought.
 
av84fun said:
And how could Archer have become the Player of the Decade in the 1990s?

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...



It's because of the damn lints!!! They're fewer and fewer every year! :D
 
Its pretty obvious that nothing dramatic will be put into effect. Although making the pockets extremely small and changing the game entirely would work, its just not realistic. I follow lots of sports, although pool is my passion. I can't seem to get for the life of me why everyone isn't excited as hell that they have figured out a way to make balls in consistently on the break. It might be the strangest thing in all of sports. I mean use any analogy you want and it becomes painfully obvious. I mean this is how it is supposed to work. The balls are racked in the same place everytime the same way. So if you repeat a motion the same thing should happen. Instead of saying how do we get rid of this, they should feel embarrased to have not used it for the last 20 years. Ban the bunt in baseball? Ban the drop shot in tennis? Rid basketball of the layup? This whole debate seems completely absurd.
 
[COLOR="Blac[FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]8 BALL IS THE TRUE ANSWER TO ALL PROBLEMS[/FONT]k"][/COLOR]
 
I practiced a few racks with the soft break using low-inside English, and the 1-ball went for the side pocket every time. I didn't pocket many balls but I can see why even Bustamunte is using the soft break. There has to be a substantial benefit to it, considering Busta's monster break.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The history of cue sports has a very long tradition of changing the rules when the game has gotten too easy under the old rules.
Click to expand...

I get that, obviously something like 1,000 caroms in a row is broken... but I don't feel like these changes are being made because the game is getting too easy.

It takes a champion to keep his opponent in the chair for 4, 5, 6 racks in a row. It doesn't matter if he guarantees himself a good look at the 1 or not, it's still something that only a handful of players can do. An equally skilled champion who slams the balls still makes the wing ball, and if the balls happen to roll into the same positions as the soft breaker's, his runout is just as "easy". The only difference is he's just unnecessarily subjecting himself to the whims of the pool gods by slamming them.

I think the change is made because it just simply offends some people's sensibilities to take away some of the luck and crowd appeal that comes with a hard break. 9 ball has a certain image to live up to, full of gambles and do-or-die shots and kicks and banks and whatever. We all giggle when we see Jeff DeLuna hop. The guys who run tournaments don't want 9 ball to take on a placid, thoughtful flavor. They figure spectators and TV viewers want to see a guy crush the balls and they're probably right.

I think your comment about the various bandaids put on 9 ball is spot on, it isn't going to cut it because the game is inherently broken. you need at least a race to 10 or 20 (hell, 50?) games to separate the cream of the crop properly. The game's just too lopsided. It's a goofy way to test player's skill levels and I don't think it'd have lasted this long, except it's inherently fun to play and watch so the players don't seem to be insisting on something better.
 
CreeDo said:
I get that, obviously something like 1,000 caroms in a row is broken... ...
Click to expand...
The record in one form of the game was about 244,000 caroms. Really. By Tom Reece about 1907. It took him five weeks, and he was under time pressure because he knew they were going to change the rules.

I think a real solution to nine ball has to work for both tight and loose racks. It's not fair for the player to lose because the ref or his opponent or himself didn't get a ball tight in the rack, and yet that is what we're facing right now.
 
The WPC now is so anticlimactic. The final was good because the corner ball was not going on the soft break, thus we had a real break. I think they should just keep the name World Pool Championship but switch to 10 ball.
 
Takumi4G63 said:
The WPC now is so anticlimactic. The final was good because the corner ball was not going on the soft break, thus we had a real break. I think they should just keep the name World Pool Championship but switch to 10 ball.
Click to expand...


There will be a World 10-Ball Championship, and it's inaugural tournament will be held next year...
 
Last edited:
gopi-1 said:
There will be a World 10-Ball Championship, and it's inaugural tournament will
be held next year, Jan. 21-28 at the same venue (Araneta Coliseum) as the WPC...
Click to expand...

And is the prize fund $400,000? That's what I thought.
 
Takumi4G63 said:
And is the prize fund $400,000? That's what I thought.
Click to expand...



Forget what I said about the venue and date, there's nothing final yet, but I
know for sure that Raya Sports earned the right to host the World 10-Ball in
2008.

... and is there something wrong about a $400,000 loot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top