Turning Stone XXIII finals: Shaw vs Shane thread

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The two matches that this very thread is about between Shaw and SVB are a perfect example. Shaw won the first set they played because of his break. Shane could have been twice as good at pocketing balls, playing shape, playing strategy, picking patterns, etc, and it wouldn't have made any difference and he still would have lost. The exact same is true in the second set where SVB won. It wouldn't have mattered how much better Shaw was at every other skill outside of the break he could not have won that set. The break plays way, way, way too much of a factor in todays game, more than all other skills combined.

You AREN'T going to convert me to your way of thinking, no matter how much you try.

I like seeing multiple "packs" just to see how far they can go before they give up the table. Their opponent has the "same" opportunity to run "packs", if/when they get a turn at the table. If they don't capitalize on it, so be it.

9-ball has been "bastardized" too much already. Make your own game of "equal opportunity" or something of the sort. Make them take turns shooting a shot apiece and they play position for each other, with the option of passing the shot back. The first person to miss loses.

9-ball needs to revert back to the "old school" game with push outs, IMHO. There is more strategy in that than there is in one-foul BIH where they just break out the jump cues and pogo over balls all the time.

Everybody wants to change something that has already been invented. They don't necessarily want to change it for the betterment of the game, they just want to change it so that "THEY" have a better chance.

I don't mind losing if somebody puts multiple packs on me. If they do it, they deserve to win. I figure I have the same opportunity to do it back to them if I get back to the table. That is why I like longer sets because I expect people to run more than one rack at a time...myself included.
 

Tooler

AhSheetMaDruars
Silver Member
You AREN'T going to convert me to your way of thinking, no matter how much you try.

I like seeing multiple "packs" just to see how far they can go before they give up the table. Their opponent has the "same" opportunity to run "packs", if/when they get a turn at the table. If they don't capitalize on it, so be it.

9-ball has been "bastardized" too much already. Make your own game of "equal opportunity" or something of the sort. Make them take turns shooting a shot apiece and they play position for each other, with the option of passing the shot back. The first person to miss loses.

9-ball needs to revert back to the "old school" game with push outs, IMHO. There is more strategy in that than there is in one-foul BIH where they just break out the jump cues and pogo over balls all the time.

Everybody wants to change something that has already been invented. They don't necessarily want to change it for the betterment of the game, they just want to change it so that "THEY" have a better chance.

I don't mind losing if somebody puts multiple packs on me. If they do it, they deserve to win. I figure I have the same opportunity to do it back to them if I get back to the table. That is why I like longer sets because I expect people to run more than one rack at a time...myself included.




Well said....tap,tap,tap
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Your are obtuse if you try to compare pool to any other sport. Precisely what is unique about pool is the fact that a person can win without their opponent ever getting a chance to play.

You are obtuse if you don't try to think about why other sports don't do it. Any sport out there could also choose to be "unique" as you put it and have the scorer retain offensive possession indefinitely. Yet none of them do. Not just most of them don't, but none of them do. None. Are they all wrong about what format is best, or could it be that the lone ranger pool is the one that has it wrong? Logic tells which is substantially more likely.

Before you say "well it isn't wrong just because it is different", again, consider WHY no other sports do it this way. The reason is because there is another way that is superior in every way possible, not just in some ways, but every single way, otherwise there would be a portion of other sports doing it the way pool does just because it offers certain benefits they deem important, but you don't see that because it offers zero benefits--none. Again, you just think it is better simply because it is what you are so used to but once you got used to alternate breaks you would prefer it just as you prefer that same general format for literally every single other sport on earth.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
You AREN'T going to convert me to your way of thinking, no matter how much you try.
The nice thing about facts and truth is that it remains facts and truth whether you choose to believe or not.

I like seeing multiple "packs" just to see how far they can go before they give up the table.
You still get to see the same exact packs in alternate breaks. If a guys runs all five of his breaks, he has run all five of his breaks whether it was winner breaks format or alternate breaks format.

9-ball has been "bastardized" too much already.
Changing to another way that has literally every single benefit is not bastardizing something, it is fixing a bastard.

9-ball needs to revert back to the "old school" game with push outs, IMHO.
Can't say that I disagree with you there. It still needs to be alternate breaks though because it has every single benefit.

They don't necessarily want to change it for the betterment of the game, they just want to change it so that "THEY" have a better chance.
Alternate breaks doesn't give a lesser player a better chance. In fact it allows for finding the better player even more accurately in less time.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Nah, the break wasn't all there was to that match.

Shane missed once and fouled 3 times. Jayson ran out after all 4 of those errors, including twice after breaking fouls.

Jayson missed 6 times and fouled twice. Shane ran out after 6 of those 8 errors, including twice after breaking fouls. Shane's 5-pack followed one of Jayson's missed shots.

So shooting errors played a significant role in Jayson's demise.

The breaks played a bigger role though. And in the first set the breaks played almost the sole role. Like I said it has come to the point where a significant portion of the time, probably the majority, the break is more important than all other pool skills combined. Maybe some people like that and it is personal preference but I want to see shot making, position play, strategy, patterns, and even kicking and such play a bigger role that the break. If the break is going to be decider the majority of the time then lets just save some time and just have breaking contests. I personally want to see pool, of which the break should only be a small part along with all the other parts.
 

easy-e

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Use some logic. What is more likely, that you and everybody else in the world likes every sport in the world to allow both sides to have equal scoring opportunities and pool is somehow magically different from all 56 billion other sports, or you are biased because of what you are used to and once you got used to the other way you would end up preferring it just like you and everybody else does with every other sport in the world. While what you are saying is certainly technically possible, it isn't even remotely close to as likely. You have to use logic to see that though instead of "feelings".

How can you find it logical to tell my that I don't prefer "winner breaks". It's MY preference! What if I like vegan vanilla ice cream? Are you going to tell me that I don't simply because it's more logical to like chocolate? I get to like what I like, and you get to like what you like.

Perhaps you are trying to argue that alternate break is more logical than winner breaks. If so, stick to that. Stop telling me that I don't like something. You don't know me at all. I'm a weird mother****3r.
 

skip100

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
How can you find it logical to tell my that I don't prefer "winner breaks". It's MY preference! What if I like vegan vanilla ice cream? Are you going to tell me that I don't simply because it's more logical to like chocolate? I get to like what I like, and you get to like what you like.

Perhaps you are trying to argue that alternate break is more logical than winner breaks. If so, stick to that. Stop telling me that I don't like something. You don't know me at all. I'm a weird mother****3r.
You don't need to be a weird MF to enjoy watching players put up packages.

On a recent cross country plane trip I watched part 4/5 (eastbound) and part 5/5 (westbound) of the Color of Money Reyes vs. Strickland match.

That match is a pale shadow of itself without winner breaks.
 

easy-e

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
You don't need to be a weird MF to enjoy watching players put up packages.

On a recent cross country plane trip I watched part 4/5 (eastbound) and part 5/5 (westbound) of the Color of Money Reyes vs. Strickland match.

That match is a pale shadow of itself without winner breaks.

Yeah, but you didn't enjoy it. That would be illogical.
 

fastone371

Certifiable
Silver Member
The breaks played a bigger role though. And in the first set the breaks played almost the sole role. Like I said it has come to the point where a significant portion of the time, probably the majority, the break is more important than all other pool skills combined. Maybe some people like that and it is personal preference but I want to see shot making, position play, strategy, patterns, and even kicking and such play a bigger role that the break. If the break is going to be decider the majority of the time then lets just save some time and just have breaking contests. I personally want to see pool, of which the break should only be a small part along with all the other parts.

You make some good and interesting points. If its a poll I agree with you that I prefer alternating breaks.
 

easy-e

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
You make some good and interesting points. If its a poll I agree with you that I prefer alternating breaks.

He also made the point that you have to prefer alternating breaks, you don't have a choice.
 

barrymuch90

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Nah, the break wasn't all there was to that match.

Shane missed once and fouled 3 times. Jayson ran out after all 4 of those errors, including twice after breaking fouls.

Jayson missed 6 times and fouled twice. Shane ran out after 6 of those 8 errors, including twice after breaking fouls. Shane's 5-pack followed one of Jayson's missed shots.

So shooting errors played a significant role in Jayson's demise.

Ahhhh just the man I'm looking for can u provide stats for the two matches at last years US open with Jayson Shaw making two historic comebacks winning one and falling just short in the other. I believe it was the loser side quarter final n then semi final maybe? Def towards the end and I believe back to back. I could be mistaken but I know for sure he was down at least 9 racks with his opponent on the hill and came back and won one of them.
 

PoppaSaun

Banned
You are obtuse if you don't try to think about why other sports don't do it. Any sport out there could also choose to be "unique" as you put it and have the scorer retain offensive possession indefinitely. Yet none of them do. Not just most of them don't, but none of them do. None. Are they all wrong about what format is best, or could it be that the lone ranger pool is the one that has it wrong? Logic tells which is substantially more likely.

Before you say "well it isn't wrong just because it is different", again, consider WHY no other sports do it this way. The reason is because there is another way that is superior in every way possible, not just in some ways, but every single way, otherwise there would be a portion of other sports doing it the way pool does just because it offers certain benefits they deem important, but you don't see that because it offers zero benefits--none. Again, you just think it is better simply because it is what you are so used to but once you got used to alternate breaks you would prefer it just as you prefer that same general format for literally every single other sport on earth.

In pool the possibility of winning a game without your opponent getting to play is done because the equipment/scoring chances are eliminated. Without winner-breaks, the pinnacle of the game would be running one rack. Running one rack is pretty pedestrian, you might even get there at some point. Not having winner-break would make records in our sport pretty mundane. Which is more impressive: Earl running 11 racks in a match or Earl running 11 racks in a row? If that match had been alternating break, all we would have had would be Earl running eleven racks. Nothing more.

Other sports don't do it this way because they are inherently combative (football, hockey, basketball, etc.) or the scoring chances are not eliminated (darts, twiddly-winks, bowling). Pool is unique precisely because it is a non-combative, scoring-eliminating game played by both competitors on the same field.

Getting the possession of a ball is not inherently an advantage in most sports, nor is it usually a chance to win the entire game. When a team gets the football or basketball after a score, they must travel most of the field of play for a decent chance at scoring.

In pool, the possession of the ball is the only advantage one gets. This is unique in sports. This and all of the other unique things about pool that I have listed are reasons other sports cannot be used to compare to pool.

Using football rules to argue against pool rules is like saying Eskimos should wear bermuda shorts because Californians get hot in parkas. Its infantile, senseless and idiotic.
 

barrymuch90

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The breaks played a bigger role though. And in the first set the breaks played almost the sole role. Like I said it has come to the point where a significant portion of the time, probably the majority, the break is more important than all other pool skills combined. Maybe some people like that and it is personal preference but I want to see shot making, position play, strategy, patterns, and even kicking and such play a bigger role that the break. If the break is going to be decider the majority of the time then lets just save some time and just have breaking contests. I personally want to see pool, of which the break should only be a small part along with all the other parts.

I hope u are a one pocket guy because what u said here is almost my entire reason for enjoying one pocket. Not to mention each player absolutely is garunteed a shot in each game hense why it's the best gambling game because u control ur own fate way more then Any other game. (That's rerack if u break a ball in ur pocket one pocket)
 

easy-e

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I hope u are a one pocket guy because what u said here is almost my entire reason for enjoying one pocket. Not to mention each player absolutely is garunteed a shot in each game hense why it's the best gambling game because u control ur own fate way more then Any other game. (That's rerack if u break a ball in ur pocket one pocket)

I like one pocket too. But how is each player "absolutely guaranteed" a shot in each game? I've broken and run out before.
 

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Using football rules to argue against pool rules is like saying Eskimos should wear bermuda shorts because Californians get hot in parkas. Its infantile, senseless and idiotic.

Now we are getting somewhere.

That is the crux of his argument...infantile, senseless and idiotic.

Just because "HE" likes something, EVERYBODY else should defer to his way of thinking.

As far as I'm concerned, I think the new 9-ball formats have made it far less enjoyable to watch. The jump cues, alternate breaks, the constant changing of racks and rack placements on the table, the one-foul BIH rules, and "so many" balls beyond the line on the break rules, etc., etc., etc. have completely bastardized what once was a good game.

Today, it is break, shoot a couple balls, play a safe, shoot a ball or two, play a safe, jump a ball, play a safe, shoot a ball, play a safe, OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

There isn't a soul alive, except for maybe Earl and a couple old-school players, who will actually go for anything that isn't a lock. That has taken the excitement out of the game. When two-foul rules were the norm, players would push out to difficult shots and go for them. That was when pool was fun to watch.

Ask Efren, Keith McCready, Earl, Buddy Hall, or any of the rest of them which rules they prefer.
 

Tin Man

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
In pool the possibility of winning a game without your opponent getting to play is done because the equipment/scoring chances are eliminated. Without winner-breaks, the pinnacle of the game would be running one rack. Running one rack is pretty pedestrian, you might even get there at some point. Not having winner-break would make records in our sport pretty mundane. Which is more impressive: Earl running 11 racks in a match or Earl running 11 racks in a row? If that match had been alternating break, all we would have had would be Earl running eleven racks. Nothing more.

Other sports don't do it this way because they are inherently combative (football, hockey, basketball, etc.) or the scoring chances are not eliminated (darts, twiddly-winks, bowling). Pool is unique precisely because it is a non-combative, scoring-eliminating game played by both competitors on the same field.

Getting the possession of a ball is not inherently an advantage in most sports, nor is it usually a chance to win the entire game. When a team gets the football or basketball after a score, they must travel most of the field of play for a decent chance at scoring.

In pool, the possession of the ball is the only advantage one gets. This is unique in sports. This and all of the other unique things about pool that I have listed are reasons other sports cannot be used to compare to pool.

Using football rules to argue against pool rules is like saying Eskimos should wear bermuda shorts because Californians get hot in parkas. Its infantile, senseless and idiotic.

I support winner breaks for this reason.

Earl's 10 rack million.
Willie's 526.
Wu's 5 rack run to come from 16-12 down to win the world title.

Wow. These are the moments I love in pool.

Trust me, I get all of the arguments for and against. It all depends on what you're looking for. There are many ways to alter the game depending on what skills you want to measure. We all have opinions on call shot vs texas express, and jump cues, and everyone has their preference. That's fine. I don't have a problem with alternating break competitions.

But I love the high runs myself. I know what my high run is in straight pool, 9 ball, 8 ball, shoot, even 3 cushion billiards. I couldn't tell you what my lowest inning set is, or my best accu-stats set, or anything like that.

Yeah, I just like it this way because that's how I grew up and what I've learned to enjoy. I'll continue to enjoy it.
 

skip100

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Nice mention of Willie's 526.

Unlike nearly all of the other sports mentioned here, pool is a game in which only one person gets to play at a time. That means sometimes when you miss, you may never get back to the table. Occasionally that happens when your opponent is 1 game or 1 ball away, or sometimes he may be many games or balls away.

A run in straight pool or 3 cushion is not stopped to give the other guy a chance.

The occasional "unfairness" of being stuck in your chair is not some historical anomaly, it is part of the history of pool.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Perhaps you are trying to argue that alternate break is more logical than winner breaks. If so, stick to that. Stop telling me that I don't like something. You don't know me at all. I'm a weird mother****3r.

I am arguing that it is more logical. I am arguing that it has more benefit. I am arguing that is has every benefit. I am not arguing that you don't like winner breaks (I like winner breaks too, even though it is inferior). I am however arguing that you would prefer alternate breaks if we went to that exclusively and after you had enough time to get used to it and see all the benefits because it is so superior in every single way. Until that happens I of course can't prove that you will end up liking it more, nor can you prove that you won't. But even without being able to prove it I can still tell you what would happen, and even without being able to prove it you are still free to tell me you don't think so, as you did.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
He also made the point that you have to prefer alternating breaks, you don't have a choice.

Never said you had to do anything. I said what is going to end up happening for the vast majority of people. All the sports aren't a certain way with all the fans loving it for no reason, it is because we see the superiority of the format. Bias due to what we are used to keeps some of us from seeing it with pool, but most would see it and prefer it if pool changed to alternate breaks and they got used to it.
 
Top