Turning Stone XXIII finals: Shaw vs Shane thread

Cardigan Kid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
https://i.imgur.com/GPTowdC.jpg

These two played at a high level through the whole tournament.
It was really special to watch the Sunday matches up close.

The level of play was amazing. The turning point was when Shaw was left the edge of the 1 and decided to go for the bank with the score tied 3-3....Shane figured out the break and before we knew it, the score was 10-3.

There were some shots that Shane had to come with it, like the 4 sitting behind the 5 in the corner pocket...everyone whispering on how to play the shot safe and where he could go, and he cuts it up, 9 feet to the opposite corner.

I look forward to watching this match again (and the hot seat match where Jayson won 9-3 earlier) whenever they make it to YouTube or Upstate Al's ustream archive.

Huge congratulations to Upstate Al, Troy, Eddie and the Russian guy for the commentary. They make it fun, entertaining and at the same time educational. Upstate Al's operation has come a very long way and is impressive to see in person. To put on a live quality free stream is a treat of which this year I was most appreciative from being sidelined at home with a fractured foot...I had to watch through the stream until Sunday, I got up there on crutches.

Zuglan put on a great tournament once again, and the players' focus, intensity, and level of play is proof that there is a special pride in winning this tournament.

The racking issues were extremely nonexistent and when they did appear, they never distracted from any of the matches I watched. This is another credit to Zuglan, to keep old rules, winners break, 9-ball just as exciting and unpredictable as it should be.

Another Turning Stone Classic in the books and surely, one of the best pool Sundays I can remember. We are watching pool in special times, with special players. I'm extremely grateful.


https://i.imgur.com/GMNyqhz.jpg
 

Joe_Jaguar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The racking issues were extremely nonexistent

In the few matches I watched, that was the first TS in years on the stream where numerous matches weren't ruined by the ridiculous racking issues. The only one I saw doing it was Sossei, as in past events. Number of times in his match with Shuff he just stood there dumbfounded on how to rack, gave up, Shuff came over and threw a tight acceptable rack up in about 7 seconds and the match resumed.
 

BRussell

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Watching it made me realize I’d rather see alternate break. Or better yet, like the US Open where they keep winner breaks but make it harder to successfully break.
 

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
https://i.imgur.com/GPTowdC.jpg

These two played at a high level through the whole tournament.
It was really special to watch the Sunday matches up close.

The level of play was amazing. The turning point was when Shaw was left the edge of the 1 and decided to go for the bank with the score tied 3-3....Shane figured out the break and before we knew it, the score was 10-3.

There were some shots that Shane had to come with it, like the 4 sitting behind the 5 in the corner pocket...everyone whispering on how to play the shot safe and where he could go, and he cuts it up, 9 feet to the opposite corner.

I look forward to watching this match again (and the hot seat match where Jayson won 9-3 earlier) whenever they make it to YouTube or Upstate Al's ustream archive.

Huge congratulations to Upstate Al, Troy, Eddie and the Russian guy for the commentary. They make it fun, entertaining and at the same time educational. Upstate Al's operation has come a very long way and is impressive to see in person. To put on a live quality free stream is a treat of which this year I was most appreciative from being sidelined at home with a fractured foot...I had to watch through the stream until Sunday, I got up there on crutches.

Zuglan put on a great tournament once again, and the players' focus, intensity, and level of play is proof that there is a special pride in winning this tournament.

The racking issues were extremely nonexistent and when they did appear, they never distracted from any of the matches I watched. This is another credit to Zuglan, to keep old rules, winners break, 9-ball just as exciting and unpredictable as it should be.

Another Turning Stone Classic in the books and surely, one of the best pool Sundays I can remember. We are watching pool in special times, with special players. I'm extremely grateful.


https://i.imgur.com/GMNyqhz.jpg

Great post and commentary. I really enjoyed watching the stream. I was going to head to the pool hall but I just couldn't pass up watching Shane and Jayson and then once Jayson won I just had to see if SVB could come back and beat him in the finals.

And I'm glad I did. It was phenomenal pool by SVB, Shaw and Mills.
 

Quesports

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Winner breaks format and Shane's outstanding play did in Jayson. He spent as much time racking as he did playing.
 

JohnnyOzone

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Watching it made me realize I’d rather see alternate break. Or better yet, like the US Open where they keep winner breaks but make it harder to successfully break.

I greatly prefer winner breaks. It puts so much more pressure on the players because a mistake could cause you a bunch of games instead of just one.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
I greatly prefer winner breaks. It puts so much more pressure on the players because a mistake could cause you a bunch of games instead of just one.

Yes in winner breaks a mistake can cost you a bunch of games but you also have the ability to put up a bunch yourself to catch up or get ahead. I think alternate breaks is more pressure simply because you can't put packages together to catch up. You have to make every game count, and since they count so much more there is more pressure on every single game. Not to mention alternate breaks tends to result in closer scores all the way and so both players are also feeling the pressure from the score as well instead of just one of the players feeling the pressure from the score.
 

SmoothStroke

Swim for the win.
Silver Member
All great players.
Double elimination should be double elimination to the end, all the way to the end.
THE END.
 

Cardigan Kid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes in winner breaks a mistake can cost you a bunch of games but you also have the ability to put up a bunch yourself to catch up or get ahead. I think alternate breaks is more pressure simply because you can't put packages together to catch up. You have to make every game count, and since they count so much more there is more pressure on every single game. Not to mention alternate breaks tends to result in closer scores all the way and so both players are also feeling the pressure from the score as well instead of just one of the players feeling the pressure from the score.

Yes, both formats have lead to nail biters in the past. But last night, with Shane up 11-3 (I think) and turned the table over, there was a lot of anticipation to see if Jayson could get back in it. With winner breaks, there definitely was a chance and that lead to a gripping match even though Shane had such a massive lead.

Also winners breaks allows for sheer dominance to be displayed at the table...The kind of stuff you only read in pool history books these days.

Seeing Shaw reduce Shane to 8-0 in 38 minutes in the semi finals was intense, and seeing Shane return the favor in the finals by keeping Shaw in his seat for what seemed like an eternity, was a legendary response. Pool movies can't be written this well.

And if you treated this as a rematch of challenge of Champions....

Shaw won first set 9-3
Shane won second set 9-3
Shane wins the tiebreaker 4-1

It's just fantastic rivalry pool.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Yes, both formats have lead to nail biters in the past. But last night, with Shane up 11-3 (I think) and turned the table over, there was a lot of anticipation to see if Jayson could get back in it. With winner breaks, there definitely was a chance and that lead to a gripping match even though Shane had such a massive lead.

Also winners breaks allows for sheer dominance to be displayed at the table...The kind of stuff you only read in pool history books these days.

While the opponent who was down 11-3 would only have a realistic chance of catching up under the winner breaks format, on the flip side it wouldn't have been 11-3 under an alternate break format but would have been closer and the player who was down would have still been within conceivable striking distance there too.

Dominance can be displayed just as well with alternate breaks. For example, an 11-7 score in alternate breaks is showing way more dominance than an 11-3 score in winner breaks. In fact I think you can argue that alternate breaks displays dominance much more clearly because both players got to break the exact same amount of times (or within 1 anyway) as the other guy did. The fact that one guy got to break so many more times than the other in winner breaks takes away from the domination if you think about it logically.

And then you have the pressure that I mentioned previously. Way more pressure on both players under alternate breaks because the score will usually be close, and because every single game counts so much since you can't put uninterrupted packages together to catch up like you so easily can with winner breaks. You better make each shot and each game count under alternate breaks so the pressure is on so much more.
 

Cardigan Kid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
While the opponent who was down 11-3 would only have a realistic chance of catching up under the winner breaks format, on the flip side it wouldn't have been 11-3 under an alternate break format but would have been closer and the player who was down would have still been within conceivable striking distance there too.

Dominance can be displayed just as well with alternate breaks. For example, an 11-7 score in alternate breaks is showing way more dominance than an 11-3 score in winner breaks. In fact I think you can argue that alternate breaks displays dominance much more clearly because both players got to break the exact same amount of times (or within 1 anyway) as the other guy did. The fact that one guy got to break so many more times than the other in winner breaks takes away from the domination if you think about it logically.

And then you have the pressure that I mentioned previously. Way more pressure on both players under alternate breaks because the score will usually be close, and because every single game counts so much since you can't put uninterrupted packages together to catch up like you so easily can with winner breaks. You better make each shot and each game count under alternate breaks so the pressure is on so much more.

It's hard to disagree with any of the points you made here. For example, the match at the world 9 ball championships two years ago between ko pin yi and Shane (alternating breaks) was on edge of the seat gripping because of the back and forth between both players with Ko famously pulling ahead to take the world title from Shane in the final few racks.

On the other hand, I do believe that if it was winners break, no way Ko would've kept up with Shane who was breaking insanely well that tournament.
So alternating break does take break prowess somewhat out of the equation (where a strong break should be on display at times), that's why I think there is value for 9 ball tournaments to be held in both formats - it brings more discussion and hypothetical discourse for us pool addicts for sure!
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
On the other hand, I do believe that if it was winners break, no way Ko would've kept up with Shane who was breaking insanely well that tournament.
So alternating break does take break prowess somewhat out of the equation...

If one guy would be ahead in winner breaks because he was breaking better, then he would also be ahead in alternate breaks because he was breaking better as well, it's just that the scores would be closer but nothing would change in terms of who would be ahead or who would win so it doesn't negate breaking prowess at all. It does however add a lot more pressure to both players.

The only real argument I can see for winner breaks is the "it's more exciting to watch" argument, but I don't buy that one either. People just think it is more exciting because it is what they are used to. I don't hear any fans screaming for basketball to change the game to where the scoring teams gets possession of the ball again next, nor do I hear any American football fans screaming for the scoring team to be receiving the next kickoff, because those things "would make the games more exciting because you would get to see packages".

If the scoring person or team retaining offensive possession was so great fans in other sports would be screaming for it and those sports would be doing it. It isn't more exciting, it is just what we are used to with pool. And in actuality it is less exciting in many ways. Again, just picture if the scoring team received the next kickoff in football over and over. Aside from it not being any more exciting, the scoring side retaining offensive possession (such as winner breaks) also comes with some significant draw backs like less pressure, it is less adept at determining the better player, there is the possibility that a player can lose without even getting to play, and more.

If we try to forget about tradition and what we are used to, and try to think about it purely from a logical stand point, alternate breaks has every single advantage over winner breaks which is why every single popular sport in the world uses some form of rules to ensure each side gets about equal offensive possession and scoring opportunity. It is a more exciting format that adds more pressure and does a better job determining who is better on that day.
 

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If one guy would be ahead in winner breaks because he was breaking better, then he would also be ahead in alternate breaks because he was breaking better as well, it's just that the scores would be closer but nothing would change in terms of who would be ahead or who would win so it doesn't negate breaking prowess at all. It does however add a lot more pressure to both players.

The only real argument I can see for winner breaks is the "it's more exciting to watch" argument, but I don't buy that one either. People just think it is more exciting because it is what they are used to. I don't hear any fans screaming for basketball to change the game to where the scoring teams gets possession of the ball again next, nor do I hear any American football fans screaming for the scoring team to be receiving the next kickoff, because those things "would make the games more exciting because you would get to see packages".

If the scoring person or team retaining offensive possession was so great fans in other sports would be screaming for it and those sports would be doing it. It isn't more exciting, it is just what we are used to with pool. And in actuality it is less exciting in many ways. Again, just picture if the scoring team received the next kickoff in football over and over. Aside from it not being any more exciting, the scoring side retaining offensive possession (such as winner breaks) also comes with some significant draw backs like less pressure, it is less adept at determining the better player, there is the possibility that a player can lose without even getting to play, and more.

If we try to forget about tradition and what we are used to, and try to think about it purely from a logical stand point, alternate breaks has every single advantage over winner breaks which is why every single popular sport in the world uses some form of rules to ensure each side gets about equal offensive possession and scoring opportunity. It is a more exciting format that adds more pressure and does a better job determining who is better on that day.

That's your opinion and that's OK.

IMHO, I think winner breaks is better.

FWIW, the majority of the people I've ever seen who didn't like winner break were people who didn't break as well as their opponent.
 

pwd72s

recreational banger
Silver Member
The way Shane played in the finals, I doubt 2 sets would have made any difference.

It was interesting to watch on Al's great stream and see two different Shanes. There was the one who lost the hot seat match, then the one who turned up the focus for the finals.

I'm not hinting there was anything nasty going on.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
That's your opinion and that's OK.

IMHO, I think winner breaks is better.

FWIW, the majority of the people I've ever seen who didn't like winner break were people who didn't break as well as their opponent.

I think alternate breaks is superior simply because all good logic and rational thought tells you it is in every way possible and it can also be demonstrated in a number of ways. Has nothing to do with my break. Besides, someone wanting alternate breaks because they don't break as good as their opponent is probably also irrational as it doesn't really increase their chances to win. Alternate breaks certainly makes the scores closer, but it doesn't really change who wins how often.

Another of the many reasons alternate break is superior is because the races don't have to be as long to more accurately find out who the better player is. All winner breaks does is make each turn at the table worth more points on average, and when turns are worth more points it takes a longer race to accurately determine who is better. Imagine if basketball was played as a race to 100 points. Right now regular baskets count as 2 points each, and so by the time one team reaches 100 points there is a pretty good chance that it was the better team that got there first. Imagine if baskets were worth 40 points each though? Now a race to 100 points doesn't tell you as much any more and you would need to race to 2000 points to get the same accuracy in results. And so it is with winner breaks because each turn is worth more points on average it takes a longer race to give the same accuracy in determining the better player.

Now stop and give some serious consideration to what I mentioned earlier. Do you want football and basketball and every other sport to go to the format of the scoring team/person retaining offensive possession as it is in winner breaks pool? Of course not, because you would think it was dumb on a number of levels--every level actually. They only reason you prefer it in pool is simply and totally because it is what you are used to and your resulting bias simply isn't allowing you to see the reality that it is just as dumb in pool as it would be in any other sport. Some people have an easier time than others in allowing their logic to prevail over their irrational biases though and I get that.

There is not one single advantage to winner breaks. Not one.
 
Last edited:

JAM

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A long time ago, I was chatting with Buddy Hall at the Carolinas Open. We were discussing how tough it is to win if you have a rack mechanic and/or somebody who breaks-and-runs game after game after game.

Buddy's suggestion and belief at that time? He told me he prefers loser breaks. :p
 

Poolmanis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There once was a fellow named Shane
Who never got credit for his game
Then he played Jayson Shaw
And the fans were in awe
Now he's headed to the BCA Hall of Fame!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PoolBum again." :)
 

Cardigan Kid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think alternate breaks is superior simply because all good logic and rational thought tells you it is in every way possible and it can also be demonstrated in a number of ways. Has nothing to do with my break. Besides, someone wanting alternate breaks because they don't break as good as their opponent is probably also irrational as it doesn't really increase their chances to win. Alternate breaks certainly makes the scores closer, but it doesn't really change who wins how often.

Another of the many reasons alternate break is superior is because the races don't have to be as long to more accurately find out who the better player is. All winner breaks does is make each turn at the table worth more points on average, and when turns are worth more points it takes a longer race to accurately determine who is better. Imagine if basketball was played as a race to 100 points. Right now regular baskets count as 2 points each, and so by the time one team reaches 100 points there is a pretty good chance that it was the better team that got there first. Imagine if baskets were worth 40 points each though? Now a race to 100 points doesn't tell you as much any more and you would need to race to 2000 points to get the same accuracy in results. And so it is with winner breaks because each turn is worth more points on average it takes a longer race to give the same accuracy in determining the better player.

Now stop and give some serious consideration to what I mentioned earlier. Do you want football and basketball and every other sport to go to the format of the scoring team/person retaining offensive possession as it is in winner breaks pool? Of course not, because you would think it was dumb on a number of levels--every level actually. They only reason you prefer it in pool is simply and totally because it is what you are used to and your resulting bias simply isn't allowing you to see the reality that it is just as dumb in pool as it would be in any other sport. Some people have an easier time than others in allowing their logic to prevail over their irrational biases though and I get that.

There is not one single advantage to winner breaks. Not one.

Ok, as I stated before, I agree with 99% of your views, especially in the equation to other sports. That is why I think alternating breaks 10 ball is the superior game to measure a world champion. It's the ultimate test.

However, we have to look at the history of 9 ball. In a world where long match 14.1 was what determined world champions, 9 ball emerged as a pick-up game of sorts. The old old rules actually had push out available on every shot, and not until Texas express rules came into the picture with tv did safety play even exist (but that's another thread).

So I always saw 9 ball like a pick-up game of basketball. You can take NBA players who play great in the NBA to a street court in Brooklyn, and they can play 1 on 1 pick-up games, race to 13, win by 2...And it's always the scorer keeps possession.

It's the ultimate test who is the stronger player 1 on 1, but many of those great street players can't even make a practice squad in the NBA because it's a different game yet they will beat the NBA player 1 on 1.

That's why I'm a fan of turning stone on that it's a chance to see 9 ball as it was meant to be, unpredictable and strong (Karen Corr came in 2nd last year at turning stone!) No rack templates, no 9 racked on different spots rules or 3 balls to a rail, alternating breaks...It's how it was meant to be before the tinkering.

It's a real treat to watch great pool players run out and display their talents. Sometimes in less than a half hour (the infamous Shaw over Mika in 23 minutes). You just can't find this kind of excitement in alternating breaks (which carries it's own form of excitement but in a different way).
 
Top