Turning Stone XXIII finals: Shaw vs Shane thread

[easy-e]

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.

If you want to argue what I'm going to prefer in the future, then you can go ahead and do that. I'll just sit over here and laugh. You straight up told me that I don't prefer alternate break. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Rhea tells me that the "Best player on Earth hasn't been born yet", and now you're telling me what type of pool I a going to prefer in the future. This is AWESOME!!!:rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1:

 

[Poolplaya9]

Without winner-breaks, the pinnacle of the game would be running one rack.

No, it would be however many you broke and ran in a row. The fact that your opponent got to use the table in between doesn't change how many you broke and ran in a row.

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.

If he broke and ran 11 racks in a row, he broke and ran 11 racks in a row. The fact that somebody else got to alternate breaking some racks in between doesn't change that he broke and ran 11 racks in a row. If the fact that there was a little longer delay between the racks he ran diminishes it for you somehow it is only because you aren't looking at it logically.

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.

You failed to point out anything about pool that makes it different or special, and some of the stuff like "getting the possession of a ball is not inherently an advantage in most sports" was especially silly. All of the arguments you are making for scorer retaining offensive possession would apply just as easily to football or basketball or most other sports. There is nothing about pool that makes it any better suited to "scorer retains offensive possession" than football or anything else.

 

[easy-e]

No, it would be however many you broke and ran in a row. The fact that your opponent got to use the table in between doesn't change how many you broke and ran in a row.


If he broke and ran 11 racks in a row, he broke and ran 11 racks in a row. The fact that somebody else got to alternate breaking some racks in between doesn't change that he broke and ran 11 racks in a row. If the fact that there was a little longer delay between the racks he ran diminishes it for you somehow it is only because you aren't looking at it logically.


You failed to point out anything about pool that makes it different or special, and some of the stuff like "getting the possession of a ball is not inherently an advantage in most sports" was especially silly. All of the arguments you are making for scorer retaining offensive possession would apply just as easily to football or basketball or most other sports. There is nothing about pool that makes it any better suited to "scorer retains offensive possession" than football or anything else.

You may not see this, because you're so logical, but you are the one who looks silly in this thread. You're comparing football to pool because YOU want to, not because it should be. Pool has been like this for a long time, you're wanting it to be different.

 

[Poolplaya9]

If you want to argue what I'm going to prefer in the future, then you can go ahead and do that.

I can tell you, and be right, and just not be able to prove it until it happens. Or you could end up being an anomaly, like the guy that wants the scoring team to receive the next kickoff in football. Not likely though.

You straight up told me that I don't prefer alternate break. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Must be because that isn't what I've been saying. Let you rephrase in a way you may understand better. You prefer winner breaks right now because your bias won't allow you to prefer something more superior in every way simply because you are too used to what you are used to. If everything went to alternate breaks and you got used to it, your bias would eventually diminish, you would see the superiority in every way, and would end up preferring it. As said before until we go exclusively to alternate breaks for a while I can't prove that you preference will change, nor can you prove that it won't. Doesn't change that one of us is still right though even though we can't prove who yet.

 

[easy-e]

Must be because that isn't what I've been saying. Let you rephrase in a way you may understand better. You prefer winner breaks right now because your bias won't allow you to prefer something more superior in every way simply because you are too used to what you are used to. If everything went to alternate breaks and you got used to it, your bias would eventually diminish, you would see the superiority in every way, and would end up preferring it. As said before until we go exclusively to alternate breaks for a while I can't prove that you preference will change, nor can you prove that it won't. Doesn't change that one of us is still right though even though we can't prove who yet.

I said I prefer winner break. You replied "No you don't, otherwise you would be campaigning for football and basketball to go to the same format". Football and pool are extremely different in my opinion.

And FYI, I will ALWAYS be right when it comes to what I prefer, regardless of WHY I prefer it.

 

[Poolplaya9]

You may not see this, because you're so logical, but you are the one who looks silly in this thread. You're comparing football to pool because YOU want to, not because it should be. Pool has been like this for a long time, you're wanting it to be different.

Just because pool has been a way for a long time doesn't mean it is the best way, or the way people would prefer if they had time to get used to another way. And nobody yet has shown why pool is somehow different and best suited for scorer retaining offensive possession when no other sport in the world is best suited for it and doesn't share any of pools attributes. The only difference between my position and others is precisely that I am using logic and only logic. People that can't use purely good logic obviously aren't going to see things the same way, but logic is what will give you the right answers. Anyway, come back and see me after we have gone exclusively to alternate breaks for a while and lets see what people end up preferring and see who ended up the most right, the guy using the good logic, or the "feels this way" people.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I said I prefer winner break. You replied "No you don't, otherwise you would be campaigning for football and basketball to go to the same format".

It's another way of saying you only prefer it because you are biased and haven't had the opportunity to truly get used to alternate breaks and see it without that bias yet and that you would actually prefer it another way.

Football and pool are extremely different in my opinion.

Everything is different but nobody has shown yet why nothing in the world is best suiting for scorer retaining offensive possession except for pool, nor has anybody yet shown that pool is best suited for it.

And FYI, I will ALWAYS be right when it comes to what I prefer, regardless of WHY I prefer it.

I mean, in the sense that you might like shrimp best because you have never tried lobster yet, then yeah, I agree. If you mean that there is no chance you would ever prefer something else even after you were adequately exposed to it, then I disagree.

 

[easy-e]

I

Just because pool has been a way for a long time doesn't mean it is the best way, or the way people would prefer if they had time to get used to another way. And nobody yet has shown why pool is somehow different and best suited for scorer retaining offensive possession when no other sport in the world is best suited for it and doesn't share any of pools attributes. The only difference between my position and others is precisely that I am using logic and only logic. People that can't use purely good logic obviously aren't going to see things the same way, but logic is what will give you the right answers. Anyway, come back and see me after we have gone exclusively to alternate breaks for a while and lets see what people end up preferring and see who ended up the most right, the guy using the good logic, or the "feels this way" people.

I'll argue that you're being 100% illogical. You're trying to change the way something is. Who cares if something can be, in your opinion, "better"? Clearly, many people agree that winner break is a better way to play. Isn't "better" a subjective word? I'll be done with this argument. It's too frustrating reading your posts when you keep telling everyone how intellectually superior you are. Try listening to people every once in a while instead of waiting to tell them why they're wrong, you might learn something.

 

[easy-e]

It's another way of saying you only prefer it because you are biased and haven't had the opportunity to truly get used to alternate breaks and see it without that bias yet and that you would actually prefer it another way.


Everything is different but nobody has shown yet why nothing in the world is best suiting for scorer retaining offensive possession except for pool, nor has anybody yet shown that pool is best suited for it.


I mean, in the sense that you might like shrimp best because you have never tried lobster yet, then yeah, I agree. If you mean that there is no chance you would ever prefer something else even after you were adequately exposed to it, then I disagree.

You're so smart.

 

[HawaiianEye]

Just because pool has been a way for a long time doesn't mean it is the best way, or the way people would prefer if they had time to get used to another way. And nobody yet has shown why pool is somehow different and best suited for scorer retaining offensive possession when no other sport in the world is best suited for it and doesn't share any of pools attributes. The only difference between my position and others is precisely that I am using logic and only logic. People that can't use purely good logic obviously aren't going to see things the same way, but logic is what will give you the right answers. Anyway, come back and see me after we have gone exclusively to alternate breaks for a while and lets see what people end up preferring and see who ended up the most right, the guy using the good logic, or the "feels this way" people.

Using my logic, I would "assume" that "most" people don't like someone telling them what they should "think".

With that in mind, I assume that people like "me" would consider you an obnoxious blankety-blank who "thinks" he "knows it all".

If you don't think that is the case, stick around people like me for a while and see who ends up the most right, the person who "thinks" you are an obnoxious blankety-blank or the guy who "thinks" he "knows it all".

 

[poolscholar]

For every winner break match where the guy runs 4+ racks to win, there are about 100 boring blow out matches where one guy gets way behind, has little chance of winning and loses. Look at the scores from all the Turning stone finals, many blow outs.

Alternate break makes for closer matches, which is exciting.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I'll argue that you're being 100% illogical.

Then put forth a logical argument to support that.

Who cares if something can be, in your opinion, "better"? Clearly, many people agree that winner break is a better way to play. Isn't "better" a subjective word? I'll be done with this argument. It's too frustrating reading your posts when you keep telling everyone how intellectually superior you are.

I may have demonstrated that but I certainly never said that. Look, I put forth quite a few different ways that alternate breaks is superior, and not in opinion, but objectively, provably. Nobody has put forth anything objective showing that winner breaks is superior in any way at all, even one.

As far as what we "like", I laid out a logical explanation for why you may think that you prefer something one way, but that you could easily prefer another way if not for your bias that prevents you from really seeing how the other way is actually superior but you are just too used to something else to be able to see it and the only way you will ever be able to see it is if you were able to get used to it.

But quite simply it comes down to this as I mentioned earlier. Which is really more likely? That you prefer and think that some form of alternate possession after scoring is best for every sport on earth but somehow pool is the lone exception? Or that you are just so used to pool being another way that you are simply incapable of seeing how pool would be also be superior just like all the other sports if it had some form of alternate possession after scoring? It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which of the two is more likely and therefore keeps an open mind about it.

Try listening to people every once in a while instead of waiting to tell them why they're wrong, you might learn something.

You can only learn from people using good logic.

And consider that the same argument goes both ways. If you were willing to listen, you might learn something. Obviously one of us is wrong about who is not listening (or understanding) and who isn't using the good logic. You need to be willing to consider if it's you.

 

[BeiberLvr]

https://cuescore.com/tournament/World+9-Ball+Championship+2016/1105024

http://www.azbilliards.com/tours_an...016/brackets/132-us-open-9-ball-championship/

Here's a comparison of the 2016 World 9 Ball (Alternate Break) and the 2016 US Open 9 Ball (Winner Break). Both events were races to 11, except the finals for both was a single race to 13.


2016 World 9 Ball

63 Matches
7 went Hill-Hill (11.11%)
0 were Shutouts (0%)
Average margin of victory - 4.10 games


2016 US Open 9 Ball

290 Matches
26 went Hill-Hill (8.97%)
4 were Shutouts (1.38%)
Average margin of victory - 5.13 games



Shutouts 1.38% is not particularly high, and it's not surprising to not have any shutouts in an alternate break format when momentum isn't as big a factor, and the players do get an almost equal number of breaks. Point to both.


Average margin of a victory. Only a 1.03 difference.. One could even make the argument, that since the US Open does have it's share of amateur players. That is why the average margin of victory was a bit higher. I would have a tough time countering that argument without actually breaking down the matches even further. A task I don't care enough to do. Point to both

Hill-Hill Nothing much to say here. The numbers speak for themselves. Point to Alt break.


So in just comparing these two events, neither format is superior to the other. IMO

It would be interesting to see more comparisons as more data could obviously change that conclusion.

 

[skip100]

AtLarge, what packages were put up in the Shane vs. Shaw final?

 

[Tin Man]

Do we know for sure that the shut outs in the US Open weren't forfeits?

 

[SE7EN]

Haven't read the whole thread..but

Winner Break Forsure..

Watching Shane do to Jayson what Jayson was doing to the rest of the field :thumbup:

 

[AtLarge]

AtLarge, what packages were put up in the Shane vs. Shaw final?

A 5-pack by Shane; no other B&R's by either player.

In all 23 streamed matches, there were only 2 packages longer than 2 games. One was Shane's 5-pack in the finals, the other was a 3-pack by Jayson against Shane 4 hours earlier in the hotseat match.

 

[AtLarge]

https://cuescore.com/tournament/World+9-Ball+Championship+2016/1105024

http://www.azbilliards.com/tours_an...016/brackets/132-us-open-9-ball-championship/

Here's a comparison of the 2016 World 9 Ball (Alternate Break) and the 2016 US Open 9 Ball (Winner Break). Both events were races to 11, except the finals for both was a single race to 13.


2016 World 9 Ball

63 Matches
7 went Hill-Hill (11.11%)
0 were Shutouts (0%)
Average margin of victory - 4.10 games


2016 US Open 9 Ball

290 Matches
26 went Hill-Hill (8.97%)
4 were Shutouts (1.38%)
Average margin of victory - 5.13 games



Shutouts 1.38% is not particularly high, and it's not surprising to not have any shutouts in an alternate break format when momentum isn't as big a factor, and the players do get an almost equal number of breaks. Point to both.


Average margin of a victory. Only a 1.03 difference.. One could even make the argument, that since the US Open does have it's share of amateur players. That is why the average margin of victory was a bit higher. I would have a tough time countering that argument without actually breaking down the matches even further. A task I don't care enough to do. Point to both

Hill-Hill Nothing much to say here. The numbers speak for themselves. Point to Alt break.


So in just comparing these two events, neither format is superior to the other. IMO

It would be interesting to see more comparisons as more data could obviously change that conclusion.

Good info, BL. I've had a reminder note in front of me for a while to do something similar, i.e., comparing the margin of victory under winner breaks vs. alternate breaks.

 

[Poolmanis]

Winner break is always what makes watching pool more exciting. Also Winner breaks is making unique aspect to pool. Why try make watching it more boring? Should we try emphasize that what makes pool different? It is not Tennis u know?

 

[HawaiianEye]

Winner break is always what makes watching pool more exciting. Also Winner breaks is making unique aspect to pool. Why try make watching it more boring? Should we try emphasize that what makes pool different? It is not Tennis u know?

It is good to know that somebody in Finland knows the best way it should be played.