PDA

View Full Version : Alternating breaks, winner breaks, and tennis sets



DoomCue
06-18-2003, 12:13 PM
I've seen some posts on the pros and cons of alternating breaks vs. winner breaks. There are also tournaments where loser breaks. The Tournament of Champions uses a variation on tennis sets.

Personally, I feel that "tennis sets" are the way to go. There's nothing more exciting than a 5 set match in a Grand Slam (whoever brought up El Aynaoui and Roddick in a previous thread, good call - that was a GREAT match) tennis tournament. Golfers play 4 rounds to determine tournament winners. Why can't pool do the same? I like the format for the ToC, but I hate that one game sudden death. I'd like to see a third set, win by two, if the first two sets are split. I *think* the IBC was using sets for their events, but I'm not sure.

Are there any formats you'd like to see employed?

Tom_In_Cincy
06-18-2003, 12:24 PM
Its always been my opinion that you never give up the table unless you miss!

How long has this been the rule in POOL? Can you think of any reason why two people competing in a pool macth would give up the table after they have leagally pocketed a ball?
(other than the promoter's rules or fan demands?)

Do you watch the 7 ball on ESPN? that is a promoted event with specific rules to make the audience pay more attention. Only the big $$$ offered to the pros invited, guaranteed their attendence. Otherwise, hardly any of them would be there, IMO.

Pool is different than the other sports that have been mentioned. Pool will always be different.

The spectators and promoters are the same for every public sport. Money rules! change the rules so that the spectators are happy and you can make more money. This is nothing new.
Designated Hitters? ring a bell?

Can you tell that I don't like the subject very much?

Nightstalker
06-18-2003, 01:18 PM
In one of the local bars around here the rule is "money breaks" which of course means if the next player in line is not already on the table, the winner racks! What do you all think about that one? I personally think it is a dumb rule.

Tom_In_Cincy
06-18-2003, 01:45 PM
I agree, dumb rule. But, like I said before, $money$ is the driving force for a lot of 'dumb' rules.

"Golden rule" 'He who has the money, makes the rules'

JPB
06-18-2003, 04:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> Its always been my opinion that you never give up the table unless you miss!

How long has this been the rule in POOL? Can you think of any reason why two people competing in a pool macth would give up the table after they have leagally pocketed a ball?




Totally agree here. Part of the pressure of pool against a good player is that if you miss you might not get back to the table. The ultimate defensive move is to not let the other guy shoot. I like long sets with the winners breaking. The initial break should be determined by a lag. And what could be better than seeing a pro lag perfectly and run a long set out. Doesn't ahppen much, but I want to see great shooters string racks together, not alternate soft breaks on a sardo rack and play safes. I got to see Buddy hall demolish a guy once. He ran a couple racks in a race to 11, missed, and the guy got a game or two. It was 4-2 for hall and the guy missed the 2 ball. The opponent was a local guy and had a big crowd rooting him on. Hall got a look on his face like he was sick of hearing the guy cheered on and was just sick of the opponent. So he sent him to the chair and never let him out. he ran the rest of the racks and I was disappointed it wasn't a race to about 17 because Hall might have run a bunch more. He had the cueball under total control and never had a hard shot during the run. It was sick. I want that on tv, not another Vivian v. Gerda bunt a rama with alternate breaks.

This is another eason to try to revive 3 cushion. Each player will get some turns and have to play some big shots.