WPC Debate on the Soft Break

jsp

jsp

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Okay folks, time to let out your frustrations in this thread.

It has been said that Alcano won last year's WPC due to the soft break. It also looks like he got eliminated in this year's tournament by the soft break at the hands of Daryl Peach.

I've read that Gomez won a "boring" match against Chao 10-2 due to the soft break.

And it looks like Busta is down early to Nick van de Berg because of the soft break.

So, should the WPC ban the soft break? Should they require that a minimum number of balls go past mid-table?

Personally, I think a rule banning the soft break would be wrong. Any rule making a game harder just for the sake of being harder goes against the fundamentals of the game (think infield-fly rule in baseball). If the soft break works for some, then it should work for all. If we really don't want to see soft breaking at all, then 10-ball should be the game played.

However, if soft breaking is allowed and continues to be working, then last year's alternate break format should be used instead of winner's break. At this level of play, if you can guarantee a wing ball down and position on the one-ball, then 6-7 packs in winner's break won't be uncommon at all. At least with alternate breaks, each player has an equal opportunity to get to the table.

So either switch to 10-ball (which probably will never happen), or go back to alternating breaks. What are your thoughts?
 
There have been several players interviewed during the tournament who were asked about the soft break- pretty much all of them said that it seems to be working extremely well on the TV table, so that's what they were gonna use unless it let them down, in which case they were gonna go back to a strong break.

Gomez said that he was using a stronger break on the other tables as that was what best suited the conditions.

Plenty of guys tried the soft break last year but it didn't really do the job, and they went back to breaking hard.

Unless you can guarantee that conditions will be exactly the same from tourney to tourney, you can't impose new break rules.

As far as alternating/winner breaks goes, I like alternating for the first round as it gives low-level players who were lucky to make the tournament more table time against the big boys, and I favor winner breaks in all other rounds.
 
Nevermind the soft break. That's just another part of the "luck game" we call nine ball. They want to do something they should ban the whole lucky ass game from any major championship. More than 80% of the times the best player that day does not win the tournament, the guy that has the best break going those days wins. They should call it "Break Pool". Imagine if Efren could break like Cory, Johnny A., or SVB, he would be just about unbeatable. Rotation or 14.1 should be played for chamoionships IMO. Johnnyt
 
Uh, we have a 10-ball World Championship already. Are you guys suggesting the WPA get rid of 9-ball? I don't get it.

I think the answer is alternate breaks.
 
Johnnyt said:
Nevermind the soft break. That's just another part of the "luck game" we call nine ball. They want to do something they should ban the whole lucky ass game from any major championship. More than 80% of the times the best player that day does not win the tournament, the guy that has the best break going those days wins. They should call it "Break Pool". Imagine if Efren could break like Cory, Johnny A., or SVB, he would be just about unbeatable. Rotation or 14.1 should be played for chamoionships IMO. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

Simple solution: mandatory push-out after the break ! This would take away the luck of the break and make it more of a chess match.
 
jsp said:
<valid points about the nature of the break in 9-ball snipped>
So either switch to 10-ball (which probably will never happen), or go back to alternating breaks. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I agree with others that 10-ball is the best solution to this problem, and I wonder why you seem sure it will probably never happen. I feel, gauging public consensus among pool-players about 9-ball, that more and more people are arriving at the conclusion that 10-ball is a better game to test the abilities of pro players against each other, in that it requires a more complete skill-set to break and run the rack.

-Andrew
 
evolution...

I can see how soft breaking is pretty boring, and it really is not conducive to making pool a television friendly sport, (a agree actually), but banning the soft break would be pretty naive, IMHO. It's just another way that this game (9 Ball) has evolved. If you look at how it is played now vs. how it was played 30 years ago, it's much different. Banning an aspect of the game because it lacks excitement is counterproductive. People talk about luck making 9-ball a turkey shoot...well, this is one way to ensure that part of that luck factor is taken out. And it is still possible, soft breaking NOT to make a ball. You still have to employ the proper technique and speed in order to achieve the desired results. I do think that it should be alternate breaks though, as it would make mistakes that much more prominent.

Want to see big breaks? Change the game to 10 ball, but leave 9 ball alone and let the game evolve how it will.

Dags
 
Rarelymisses said:
Simple solution: mandatory push-out after the break ! This would take away the luck of the break and make it more of a chess match.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things wrong with 9-ball for championships. The break is way too big a factor, most games you only have to run 6,7, or 8 balls after the break not 13 to 15 like most REAL games of pool, and get rid of the ****** gimmick jump cues. Nine ball should be for players rated B abd down. Johnnyt
 
No problem at all!

I personally don't see a problem. Its just like any game.You learn the rules and play the game. If the rules don't suit you play a different game.There's room for a championship in every format. Rather that delete a game lets add some more.More is better! Don
 
Andrew Manning said:
I agree with others that 10-ball is the best solution to this problem, and I wonder why you seem sure it will probably never happen. I feel, gauging public consensus among pool-players about 9-ball, that more and more people are arriving at the conclusion that 10-ball is a better game to test the abilities of pro players against each other, in that it requires a more complete skill-set to break and run the rack.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

People, the WPC in Manila is for the 9-ball billiard discipline it not the Championship of Championships. Although it's the most high-profiled tournament of the year, it's only a championship for 9-ball.

BTW, there is already a WPA sanctioned 10-ball Championship. So if you want a 10-ball championship with the same effort put into it just like the WPC 9-ball and 8-ball, you might want to campaign to move the venue of next year's 10-ball to Manila or Taiwan. :D WPC 9-ball is supposedly moving to Indonesia next year.

But if you want a true-blue tournament where the only best players can win, it should be Rotation or One-Pocket.

Going back to the topic. Soft, hard, whatever kind of legal break, I don't care because no one is stopping players from using the same technique. Players SHOULD be allowed to use the technique that suits the condition. It is part of the overall game plan; who can adapt the quickest.
 
Last edited:
crosseyedjoe said:
But there is already a WPA sanctioned 10-ball Championship.

But if you want a true-blue tournament where the only best players can win, it should be Rotation or One-Pocket.
Click to expand...
I'll buy HALF of that. Johnnyt
 
the way the main table is breaking it takes the randomness out of 9 ball and it also negates most of the skill required for breaking and gives guys who don't break so well a chance to run out sets against top players, they need to do something similar to what the challenge of champions does, if u make the wing ball in the corner spot back up and if u make the 1 in the side put it back up as well but if u don't make any random ball(s) u lose your turn at the table instead of getting a chance to run out
________
 
Last edited:
TX Poolnut said:
Uh, we have a 10-ball World Championship already. Are you guys suggesting the WPA get rid of 9-ball? I don't get it.

I think the answer is alternate breaks.
Click to expand...

I don't really know how all that works, but doesn't the WPA basically decide who can use the term "World"?

I mean, if the WPC wanted to switch to 10-ball, and the WPA agreed that this was the right thing to do, couldn't the WPA basically make the current World 10-ball tournament switch their name to something else, such as North American 10-ball Championship?

I suppose the folks who run that tournament wouldn't like that too much, but I'm just "thinking out loud".
 
I don't quite understand how alternate breaks would solve anything, but perhaps that is for another thread.

Alternate breaks could perhaps produce a closer match, which creates the illusion of being a solution, but is it? ... If you lose the lag, you will need to break the other guy's "serve" at some point in order to with the match. That is true with both winner breaks and alternate breaks.

If alternate breaks are assumed to be more fair, then I think it would need to be accompanied by a win-by-two requirement to make any difference in the outcome.

Does anyone have any statistics available on the win/lose percentages of winner breaks verses alternate breaks? Does alternate break really give the loser of the lag a fighting chance more than winner break does?
 
Cuebacca said:
I don't really know how all that works, but doesn't the WPA basically decide who can use the term "World"? ...
Click to expand...
I don't think so. They can only decide which events are sanctioned as WPA world championships. The recently completed 10-ball "world championship" had tough competition and a fine winner, but it was not a WPA sanctioned championship, as Mike Panozzo pointed out. He got some heat for that, you may recall. If you want to organize a "World Five Ball Championships," all it takes is two players and some advertising.

The "Olympic Games" are different, and have some kind of trademark protection that the IOC is fairly rigorous about enforcing.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I don't think so. They can only decide which events are sanctioned as WPA world championships. The recently completed 10-ball "world championship" had tough competition and a fine winner, but it was not a WPA sanctioned championship, as Mike Panozzo pointed out. He got some heat for that, you may recall. If you want to organize a "World Five Ball Championships," all it takes is two players and some advertising.

The "Olympic Games" are different, and have some kind of trademark protection that the IOC is fairly rigorous about enforcing.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, World 5-ball Championship, you say? Stay tuned...

(j/k. Thanks, Bob) :)
 
It is not just the lame breaks with exact control of the one?ball. It is also the shots. Nine-ball was a game about tough shotmaking and long 2,3 rail positionplay. That is gone now.

10-ball, a bit slower cloth, like 860. I am IN!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top