Turning Stone XXIII finals: Shaw vs Shane thread

Cardigan Kid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think it is about time we ignore him.

Poolplaya9 is like Rain Man and just likes to hear himself babble.

He can't understand about somebody "playing the table", so he obviously is stuck on comparing it to every other sports on the planet, when it is obviously its own game.

I have a feeling he is more of a "watcher" than a real player. If he ever had a "package", he'd maybe understand a little better.

If you haven't noticed, every post of his is about 10 times as long as any response. He thinks he is smart and he's hoping we think he is, too...but I'm not buying it. Just because you like to "babble" a lot doesn't mean you are smart or know what the hell you are talking about.

Good point and well put, sir.
I wholeheartedly agree.

:thumbup:
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
In volleyball and badminton (for neither of which am I an expert), I think the team or player that wins the point has the next serve. So that's sort of a "winner breaks" format, and it makes it possible for a team or player to lose a set (volleyball) or game (badminton) without ever getting the serve.

[Of course, both sides participate in each point, and I think the serve is actually a disadvantage in volleyball.]
 

pwd72s

recreational banger
Silver Member
Never mind the format. I just enjoyed the hell out of watching the focus and skill displayed by both players in the finals.

Far as I'm concerned, the guy with the better focus of that time period won. Simple as that.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
You do not play your opponent directly in a back and forth, you play the table.

He can't understand about somebody "playing the table", so he obviously is stuck on comparing it to every other sports on the planet, when it is obviously its own game.

So pool is only played against the table and is like golf in that respect huh? Look, it is clear that neither of you are the sharpest tool in the shed, but to have a belief of this stupidity level just has to be impossible. It just has to be that you just didn’t think this through very well. At least for your sakes I hope that’s all it is although it still doesn’t make it much better.

In golf (minus any psychological affects) your score is going to be the same whether you play against Tiger woods or some +45 handicap beginner hack because neither interacts directly with your game or is able to have any direct effect on it. You really think your score will be the same whether you play Shane Van Boening or some APA 2 hack though? Why do you think this is? It’s because in pool you are playing directly against an opponent, one who directly interacts with your game and is able to have a direct effect on it.

Think of a prolonged safety exchange as an example if your feeble minds are still struggling to grasp how pool is not like golf where you are only playing the course. In golf nobody can pick up your golf ball and throw it in a sand trap, or rearrange the layout of the course as you are playing it like they can in pool. In pool you have an opponent who you alternate turns with on the same table and with the same balls. An opponent who has a direct impact on your game, table, layouts and opportunities, one that you are often having to directly battle and interact with and trade shots with and defend against and outsmart etc. Unlike in golf, in pool you are also playing an opponent and not just the table.

I do agree that in pool there is obviously a component of playing the table as well, just as there are varying degrees of playing the table/field/board/slope/etc in most other sports or games out there. But for you both to suggest that in pool you are exclusively playing the table as if your opponent has no significant effect on your success is beyond asinine. Again, consider the difference in playing SVB or an APA 2 if you are still struggling with comprehending that concept. Now if we were talking about some break and run competition full of guys at a table by themselves playing the ghost seeing how many racks they can break and run, then THAT would be like only playing the table. THAT would be like your golf example where you are simply playing the course and nobody else can have any effect on your game but that isn’t how pool is played at all.

But as I pointed out previously, what difference does any of the above make to whether or not it makes good sense, in a competition intended to find out who the best player is, to have a format that may not allow one side the same opportunity to compete and try to score? The answer is that none of the above makes any difference to that at all. If competing to see who is the best is a major reason for doing something—and this is certainly the reason for pool tournaments and pretty much every other competition out there-- then with that in mind it doesn’t make good sense if both sides aren’t guaranteed an equal opportunity to compete. Stationary this or that is immaterial to this. What type of clothing or uniform they compete in is immaterial to this. So are all the other immaterial differences that could be pointed out. The only thing that matters when it comes to whether or not both sides should get about an equal chance to compete--is whether or not it is a competition intended to see who is better. If it is, then both sides need to be afforded about an equal opportunity to compete otherwise the results will always have less significance, relevance, and accuracy. That is one of the main reasons why pretty much every other sport and game in the world has rules in place for all competitions that guarantee both sides get about an equal opportunity to compete, so you actually get a chance to see who is better, you know, the whole point of the competition to begin with.

You both keep avoiding my questions because you know the answers to them are in direct conflict with the arguments you have been trying to make but I am going to ask a couple of them again anyway. I’ll even number them so that it is a little more obvious when you conveniently choose to ignore them again. You can even number your answers to help you make sure that you don’t “accidentally” miss one. Try to actually think your answers through this time for a change though so you don’t end up posting more nonsense.

1. Please explain why one pocket uses alternate breaks.

2. Please explain why the reason for using alternate beaks in one pocket is not also a good reason for using it in 9 ball or 10 ball.

3. If packages are so great--the ones that come about from the scorer retaining advantageous offensive possession which may result in the opponent not being able to compete as much or at all--then why wouldn’t you want to see this format in even just one other sport somewhere? Wouldn’t it make sense that out of all the sports out there, that there would be some other sport somewhere where you would also like to see some packages since packages are so awesome? Why isn’t there then? Is it because you know that it defeats the purpose of a competition if one side is not fully allowed an opportunity to compete?

4. How can you even tell who the better player is (which is supposed to be the whole point of a competition) if one side is prevented from being able to compete as much or at all? Even if one person breaks and runs out a whole race to say 7, doesn’t that only just tell you that he is capable of running 7 racks, but still doesn’t tell you anything at all about whether he was playing better than his opponent on this day or not which was supposed to be the whole point of the competition between the two to begin with?
 

PoppaSaun

Banned
...blah, blah, blah, insults, blah, same tire arguments, blah, blah...

3. If packages are so great--the ones that come about from the scorer retaining advantageous offensive possession which may result in the opponent not being able to compete as much or at all--then why wouldn’t you want to see this format in even just one other sport somewhere? Wouldn’t it make sense that out of all the sports out there, that there would be some other sport somewhere where you would also like to see some packages since packages are so awesome? Why isn’t there then? Is it because you know that it defeats the purpose of a competition if one side is not fully allowed an opportunity to compete?

I would like to see the format elsewhere. In fact it is relatively common in street basketball. I think it would help american football--one offense ends up so tired after being on the field for more than one effective drive that they can't compete the rest of the game? Awesome.

And, you are wrong. There is a sport that the scoring team keeps the chance to score. It's a new-fangled fad called baseball, pal. Now you are going to argue that the other team gets a chance to equal the first team. I argue that I've only heard of a few matches where both players didn't get to the table...and that doesn't include the lag.

You aren't nearly as intelligent as you think you are
 

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
BLAH BLAH BLAH SOS SOS SOS.

When you are playing other sports, there are other players playing defense AT THE SAME TIME and ON THE SAME playing surface as you are while you are playing your offense. There are people trying to tackle you, trying to block you, and trying to get the ball away from you while you are attempting to make a score.

Do you get tackled in the middle of the shot where you play pool?

When you play pool, you are the ONLY person at the table. The table is STATIC. The balls AREN'T moving. Your opponent is away from the table (hopefully). There is nothing going on except YOU and the table layout. It is irrelevant if your opponent put you in whatever position the table layout may be. It would be the same if you broke the balls and the table wound up on the same position. It is STILL just YOU against the TABLE. You have to figure out how to produce the BEST shot for whatever you have and live with the consequences. If you can't figure out what to do and screw it up, it is YOU who made the mistake. You should have learned what to do before you ever got in the predicament you are situated with in a real game.
 

Cardigan Kid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I would like to see the format elsewhere. In fact it is relatively common in street basketball. I think it would help american football--one offense ends up so tired after being on the field for more than one effective drive that they can't compete the rest of the game? Awesome.

And, you are wrong. There is a sport that the scoring team keeps the chance to score. It's a new-fangled fad called baseball, pal. Now you are going to argue that the other team gets a chance to equal the first team. I argue that I've only heard of a few matches where both players didn't get to the table...and that doesn't include the lag.

You aren't nearly as intelligent as you think you are

I used the street court basketball example way back in the thread and he ignored it. I don't think he really has experience in playing other sports because when you get more experienced in that sport you learn the other formats that the sport can be played in. Soccer has indoor Soccer, basketball full court has 3 on 3 half court play. There is beach volley ball and court volley ball....same game, but with different rules.

Your baseball analogy is a good one in that you don't stop batting until three outs. No matter how many runs scored. Then there is softball, baseball rules but bigger ball and underhand pitch to make it a bit easier. But you don't see baseball players saying this is unfair, and they should change to a bigger ball. (Just go play softball)

So winners break 9 ball seems like it's the only pool game format that is constantly under some sort of attack/rule change. Some folks just can't comprehend that the game is what it is, and if you don't like it, go play 10 ball (which seems to be comfortable with umpteen rule changes).

No matter what, you can't watch earl run those racks, or witness Shane or Shaw put packages together and not be in awe, entertained, and thirsty for more. As long as that is happening winner break 9 ball is what I prefer and enjoy.
 

Cardigan Kid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Look, it is clear that neither of you are the sharpest tool in the shed, but to have a belief of this stupidity level just has to be impossible

Not sure what triggered you into the personal attacks, but it appears you've been confronted with your own flawed logic and now are falling into the abyss, arms flailing away, like Hans Gruber at the end of "Die Hard".
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
Street basketball isn't the case...

I used the street court basketball example way back in the thread and he ignored it. I don't think he really has experience in playing other sports because when you get more experienced in that sport you learn the other formats that the sport can be played in. Soccer has indoor Soccer, basketball full court has 3 on 3 half court play. There is beach volley ball and court volley ball....same game, but with different rules.

Your baseball analogy is a good one in that you don't stop batting until three outs. No matter how many runs scored. Then there is softball, baseball rules but bigger ball and underhand pitch to make it a bit easier. But you don't see baseball players saying this is unfair, and they should change to a bigger ball. (Just go play softball)

So winners break 9 ball seems like it's the only pool game format that is constantly under some sort of attack/rule change. Some folks just can't comprehend that the game is what it is, and if you don't like it, go play 10 ball (which seems to be comfortable with umpteen rule changes).

No matter what, you can't watch earl run those racks, or witness Shane or Shaw put packages together and not be in awe, entertained, and thirsty for more. As long as that is happening winner break 9 ball is what I prefer and enjoy.

You can stuff your opponent and keep him from scoring... not a valid comparison at all. Can you run up to the table and stop the ball from going into the pocket with your cue in billiard sports?

Jaden
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
As much as I typically disagree with poolplaya9...

Not sure what triggered you into the personal attacks, but it appears you've been confronted with your own flawed logic and now are falling into the abyss, arms flailing away, like Hans Gruber at the end of "Die Hard".

His has been the only logical position in this entire argument so far.

Jaden
 

Cardigan Kid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
His has been the only logical position in this entire argument so far.

Jaden

Pool history proves you are both in the minority here.
9 ball, always has been and meant to be winner breaks.

Have to respect the game first before we can enjoy it.
 

easy-e

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Pool history proves you are both in the minority here.
9 ball, always has been and meant to be winner breaks.

Have to respect the game first before we can enjoy it.

I agree man, this whole debate seems silly to me. What if we can find a "logical" reason to change the rules of baseball, should we do it? No, it's f-ing baseball! I understand that there are changes from time to time that are made for safety reasons, but that's not what we're talking about here.
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
Then say that.

Pool history proves you are both in the minority here.
9 ball, always has been and meant to be winner breaks.

Have to respect the game first before we can enjoy it.

That's not what you have been arguing...lol

If that's your argument, it's a valid one.

It's not the most reasonable, nor is it logically sound as a merit based argument. Don't try to argue it as such or you prove poolplaya9's point about you not being smart in your argument.

Say that's the history, that's the way it's been and leave it at that. That's your only argument. When you try to use a convoluted refutation like you have been, you sound foolish and petty.

Jaden
 

PoppaSaun

Banned
Well, Jaden doesn't think we are being logical.

Thus I will counter that in every other sport, the team that scores relinquishes the scoring opportunity to the team which failed to defend.

Thus logically, playa and jaden should be arguing for loser-break format.

And how stupid would that be when one opponent ties the match at hill-hill and his reward is to see his opponent break and run? Huzzah's all around.
 

Cardigan Kid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
That's not what you have been arguing...lol

If that's your argument, it's a valid one.

It's not the most reasonable, nor is it logically sound as a merit based argument. Don't try to argue it as such or you prove poolplaya9's point about you not being smart in your argument.

Say that's the history, that's the way it's been and leave it at that. That's your only argument. When you try to use a convoluted refutation like you have been, you sound foolish and petty.

Jaden

Lol to not reading the entire thread....

Here I'll highlight for you....

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).


What you do not realize is that pool is a stationary sport and one that should be compared to other stationary sports. A stationary sports is much different than reactionary sports in that you aren't reacting to something the other side does. So really pool should only be compared to other stationary sports, like golf.

In golf, you really don't play your opponent, you play the course and in the end you compare scores.

Pool in it's purest form 14.1 and then 9 ball, historically, you aren't playing your opponent, you are playing the table.

If a golfer makes a hole in one, or an eagle, serious golf fans will toss accolades and wait to see what he does on the next hole. Can he keep his marvelous play going? He has momentum leading into the final round. Etc etc all ways golf can be engaging to the viewer.

This is how I watch winner's break 9 ball and how I believe it is, at this moment in time, a very pure way to showcase pool, where the player plays the table, and if he plays well enough, he can keep hold of the table for as long as he can.

What Shaw and Shane were doing on Sunday was so good, only a handful of players in the world can reach that level in competition. They were playing what the table gave them off their stellar breaks, and the anticipation in seeing if they could go from rack to rack and take it to the finish was not just anticipating them defeating each other, but the possibility of them defeating the table in the game of pool.

We all know this game is infinitely impossible to master in every way shape and form. Even the best players in the world get defeated by the different variables this game will throw at them. But to stand under the lights, live stream, and audience eyes and win against the table if only for 4 or 5 racks in a row, is such an amazing display of talent to play, it should be honored and commended...not rule changed out of existence.

When I talked to Shaw after his loss to Shane, you could see it in his eyes, that this is the game he plays and when an opponent reaches that level as Shane did, there's nothing he could do. And he accepted it, because that is pool.

I have accepted the fact that the world as a whole is changing in regards to pool. Rules will be modified and games will be changed to make things more like other sports. However, like 14.1, winner's break 9 ball, is a pure form of pocket billiards and I will enjoy it the most of all.


Because every one of us who pick up a cue, from Shane and Shaw, to even you reading this...we are all Icarus, with wings made of feathers and wax on the break. There are moments when we can sore high and far but eventually, we will get close to the sun, the wax will melt and we will fall back to earth. Humans cannot defeat the table forever. But, boy is it sure fun to watch the very best give it a try.
 

Cardigan Kid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well, Jaden doesn't think we are being logical.

Thus I will counter that in every other sport, the team that scores relinquishes the scoring opportunity to the team which failed to defend.

Thus logically, playa and jaden should be arguing for loser-break format.

And how stupid would that be when one opponent ties the match at hill-hill and his reward is to see his opponent break and run? Huzzah's all around.

I'm not sure he read ALL of poolplaya's diatribes. He's a sharp guy, and I'm sure he would say they are foolish and pretty. Pool to football was kinda silly.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
I would like to see the format elsewhere. In fact it is relatively common in street basketball.
In street basketball both sides are competing at the same time and have a lot of control over keeping their opponent from being able to score. Either side can also steal the ball at any time to get offensive possession so that they can score. Every time someone shoots at the basket it also gives the other side the opportunity to block the ball and take offensive possession, or to get a rebound and take offensive possession, and I presume there is usually a shot clock that also makes both these last two type opportunities occur literally every few seconds although they would still occur regularly enough on their own. Basketball games also consist of many, many, more scores than pool matches typically do, so the “scorer retains offensive possession” format has a whole lot more time to even out and have no effect--winner breaks doesn’t make nearly the difference in races to 100 either. As you can clearly see, for lots of reasons street basketball is not even remotely similar to winner breaks pool in regards to how much opportunity to compete each side is guarantee to have.

There is a sport that the scoring team keeps the chance to score. It's a new-fangled fad called baseball, pal.
Wrong. Like pretty much every other sport in the world, its format guarantees each side about an equal opportunity to compete. As you said the other side still gets a chance to equal the score, plus both sides always have an active role in being able to put a stop to the other side's run so that they can get offensive possession again.

I argue that I've only heard of a few matches where both players didn't get to the table...and that doesn't include the lag.
If one of your main objectives is to identify the better player, which is always the case in tournaments, then a few times is a few too many when there is no need for it. Besides, you are only looking at the times where one side doesn’t get to compete at all, and conveniently ignoring all the times where one side doesn’t get to compete nearly as much which is almost as bad and is not just common but is actually the norm. To accurately determine the better player or team in anything (especially when matches are not extremely long) requires that both sides get about the same opportunity to compete which is why competitions in pretty much every other sport in the world have a format in place that through one means or another guarantees that.

You aren't nearly as intelligent as you think you are
To be able to accurately appreciate and identify someone's intelligence level requires at least an equivalent or better intelligence level. Let's just say your failure here is not unexpected.

I also notice that once again you chose not to answer all four questions since they would expose the lack of logic in your arguments. You still have a chance to try answer them though.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
When you are playing other sports, there are other players playing defense AT THE SAME TIME and ON THE SAME playing surface as you are while you are playing your offense.
There are tons of glaringly obvious sports where this isn’t the case at all unlike what you clearly try to imply. If you are still stumped just think about the summer or winter Olympics either one for tons of examples just right there. You don’t seem to make even the most half hearted of attempts to think things out before posting do you? I mean I guess it could be more about ability than effort but I just don’t think ability alone fully accounts for the obvious silliness of statements like this one, at least I hope not. You really should try the whole thinking before you post thing sometime.

When you play pool, you are the ONLY person at the table.....It is irrelevant if your opponent put you in whatever position the table layout may be.
It is not irrelevant at all because unlike what you are trying to claim, in pool an opponent is participating and able to have a very significant impact on your game and you are not in fact just playing the table. Clearly there are games or sports that are even more interactive between opponents, particularly when the interaction is concurrent, but that doesn’t change that there is still an opponent in pool who interacts in your game and can have a very significant impact on it. There is absolutely an element of playing the table in pool as well, but it isn't the only element. You are intentionally choosing to ignore the interaction from your opponent and the impact it can have on your results (except in the rare case where you can manage to win the coin toss and run out the set).

If you aren’t playing an opponent as well as playing the table then why will you fare differently competing against SVB than you do against an APA 2? If you were only playing the table then who your opponent was would never make a difference. And what on earth do you call a safety exchange if not playing an opponent? One of the secrets to understanding or "getting" something is that you first have to stop and actually give it some good honest deep thought. Yeah, I know, what a novel idea huh. With my previous explanations I think even your average eight year old would understand that pool has elements of playing an opponent along with playing the table so if you can’t see it you are either unable, or unwilling, or both, so I don’t know what else I could tell you that could help you in either case.

I also noticed that you once again chose not to answer my four questions since they would expose the lack of logic in your arguments. You still have a chance to try to answer them though.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
I don't think he really has experience in playing other sports because when you get more experienced in that sport you learn the other formats that the sport can be played in.
You are the one that is obviously unfamiliar with and unable to understand other formats in other sports because you still fail to see that what they pretty much all have in common for tournaments and competition is that they all have a format in place that allows both sides about an equal opportunity to compete. You also fail to understand the beneficial reasons why they have specifically and intentionally chosen to do it that way.

Your baseball analogy is a good one in that you don't stop batting until three outs. No matter how many runs scored.
Actually it was a horrible analogy. If you stop and think about it baseball has a format that allows both sides about an equal opportunity to compete and score, and as a result it would be impossible for a team to lose in baseball without having even been at bat. Plus you have a lot of control over ending the other team's offensive possession and getting offensive possession back yourself. It is nothing like winner breaks pool in regards to guaranteeing that both sides get about an equal opportunity to compete because like just about every other sport baseball intentionally ensures it and winner breaks pool doesn't even try.

No matter what, you can't watch earl run those racks, or witness Shane or Shaw put packages together and not be in awe, entertained, and thirsty for more. As long as that is happening winner break 9 ball is what I prefer and enjoy.
You still get to see those same packages with alternate breaks so you aren’t losing that. Breaking and running 9 racks in a row is breaking and running 9 racks in a row regardless of which format it happens under. It’s still a 9 rack package of break and runs either way.

I also noticed that you once again chose not to answer my four questions since they would expose the lack of logic in your arguments. You still have a chance to try to answer them though.
 
Top