Best US player: Archer or SVB?

[jwilliams]

What has Johnny Archer done lately? Obviously he's got a resume that can't be argued with, but I don't recall a good finish in a major event from him in the past several years. I'm sure that's more a statement of my ignorance than Johnny's lack of productivity, so someone post up some recent pool accomplishments.

-Andrew

Well...since you asked...and I'm sure this isn't complete...this year he has won:
Great Southern Billiard Tour Stop
Turning Stone Casino Classic X
Jay Swanson Memorial
UPA Desert Shootout
SE Open 9 ball Tour Stop

I also believe he won a straight pool tournament here recently...and does his 10 ahead match against Nevel count?

He also just got 2nd in the 8-ball division in Galveston I know...and placed 3rd in the Las Vegas BCA/Generationpool/whatever they call it now tournament in Vegas...

I'd say he's still holding his own...lol

 

[Nostroke]

Please God, no "one race to 100"....

Other than that I'll line up to pay for the PPV.

A lot of these races to 100 turn out to be boring and a route. Please TAR, rethink that-50 is plenty. In a race to 100, there is no interest when the score is 20-12. To 50 however, the end is always in sight and interest remains high. I know Im not explaining this well but to me 100 is just way too much.

 

[Eric.]

IMO, I have to give the nod to Archer.

Teh Archer or SVB debate kinda looks like the Tiger Woods or Jack Nicholas thing. Tiger, early on, had all the skill and potential to dominate like Nicholas had. In fact, Tiger is well on his way to be one of Golf's greatest. Keywords are "on his way".

I think SVB is "on his way" to being one of Pool's greatest. We'll see. Archer is already there.


Eric

 

[JCIN]

A lot of these races to 100 turn out to be boring and a route. Please TAR, rethink that-50 is plenty. In a race to 100, there is no interest when the score is 20-12. To 50 however, the end is always in sight and interest remains high. I know Im not explaining this well but to me 100 is just way too much.

If the players want to play race to 50 over two days we are fine with that. Or race to 13 best three out five sets or just about any format but an ahead set. So far everyone wants to play the long sets. Ahead sets don't work for us so the long races are whats left.

Our matches are real action not exhibitions. We can't dictate what two guys are going to play when they are putting up the money. I guess I look at it like college football you get some blow outs and some great games. I know it can be drag when someone has a 15 game lead and it never gets close but sometimes you get amazing things.

It's a slippery slope IMO. Pretty soon you end up with ESPN type gaffe games like 7 ball and ball in hand after every miss. It is exciting for a viewer I guess but it is not real action pool. There are many reasons we do them the way we do and I have covered it several times before. We are open to anything the players want to do.

If enough people hate the race to 100 format and stop buying it we will either have to convince players and backers to do something different or go do something else I guess.

 

[gpeezy]

If the players want to play race to 50 over two days we are fine with that. Or race to 13 best three out five sets or just about any format but an ahead set. So far everyone wants to play the long sets. Ahead sets don't work for us so the long races are whats left.

Our matches are real action not exhibitions. We can't dictate what two guys are going to play when they are putting up the money. I guess I look at it like college football you get some blow outs and some great games. I know it can be drag when someone has a 15 game lead and it never gets close but sometimes you get amazing things.

It's a slippery slope IMO. Pretty soon you end up with ESPN type gaffe games like 7 ball and ball in hand after every miss. It is exciting for a viewer I guess but it is not real action pool. There are many reasons we do them the way we do and I have covered it several times before. We are open to anything the players want to do.

If enough people hate the race to 100 format and stop buying it we will either have to convince players and backers to do something different or go do something else I guess.

Keep the status quo

 

[Jayson]

like to see a race to 50 on a gold crown then the second 50 on a diamond, couldnt get much more fair then that. shane will get where johnny is one day just because of his drive. i also agree that corey has more ability than anyone on the planet. if he had the drive that shane does i dont think anyone could touch him.

 

[PoolBum]

In a race to 100, there is no interest when the score is 20-12. To 50 however, the end is always in sight and interest remains high. I know Im not explaining this well but to me 100 is just way too much.

I don't know, Earl had a huge lead late on Efren in their race to 120 and Efren came back to beat him. Alex was down 22 games to Shane on day 3 of their race to 100 and came back to beat him 100-94. Maybe some of the races to 100 turn out boring, but some are classics.

 

[Nostroke]

If enough people hate the race to 100 format and stop buying it we will either have to convince players and backers to do something different or go do something else I guess.

Thanks for your reply. My suggestion would be to do a 50/60 or the races to 13 thing you mentioned and then compare the numbers which wont be easy i know. You should be able to convince someone-I mean I hadn't heard of too many races to 100 before you guys came along. TCOM is all i can recall.

Regardless, i appreciate TARS efforts and will continue to purchase the matches if im home.

 

[Nostroke]

I don't know, Earl had a huge lead late on Efren in their race to 120 and Efren came back to beat him. Alex was down 22 games to Shane on day 3 of their race to 100 and came back to beat him 100-94. Maybe some of the races to 100 turn out boring, but some are classics.

and if it went to 150, Earl might have come back and Shane too. Enough is enough. Just my opinion and i guess an unpopular one.

I contend that if alll tournaments were races to 3 or 100, we would have the same players at the top of the rankings. No i dont want to see tar races to 3 but if they were for the same $$, Id buy it no doubt!

 

[PoolBum]

Tiger, early on, had all the skill and potential to dominate like Nicholas had. In fact, Tiger is well on his way to be one of Golf's greatest. Keywords are "on his way".

I think Tiger Woods is more than "well on his way" to "being one of golf's greatests." He is already 3rd all time in PGA Tour wins, and 2nd all time in major wins. I think the only question now is whether history will call him the greatest ever, or 2nd greatest ever behind only Nicklaus (the former looks much more likely as he will almost certainly top both the career titles list and the majors list by the end of his career).

 

[shinobi]

1) While it is true that Shane's break is legendary, Archer is also known for an incredible break. Power and control. To me the difference is that Shane looks like he's not giving it much effort, and Archer looks like he is exploding :grin:

2) I honestly wonder if any player (Shane or otherwise) wants to race Archer in a long race, give his lullaby tempo. It might freeze their arm. It might hurt DVD sales, too.

3) I don't mind the races to 100 at all. Hard to blame bad rolls/luck in such a long race (even though some people tried to in the SVB/Frost blowout).

4) The multiple races to 13 isn't a bad idea to try, though.

 

[Gerry]

I like the TAR events no matter what the race. The best part is knowing like a week before its on!.....something to look forward to I guess.

I REALLY would like to see some more 1 pocket action. I know many people say its paint drying, but I'm talking Frost, Efren, Gabe, Schmidt, Daulton, etc....there's no paint drying in those guys matches!

or maybe another all around?

G.

 

[Eric.]

I think Tiger Woods is more than "well on his way" to "being one of golf's greatests." He is already 3rd all time in PGA Tour wins, and 2nd all time in major wins. I think the only question now is whether history will call him the greatest ever, or 2nd greatest ever behind only Nicklaus (the former looks much more likely as he will almost certainly top both the career titles list and the majors list by the end of his career).

Geez, don't get hung up on semantics.

(I think we are on the same page :wink


Eric

 

[frankncali]

I would be in camp Archer on this one even though Shane plays great and I really like what I know about him.

Whats really ashame is that theres not a true american company that would sponsor a match between these two. Seems like a good fit for a marketing campaign. Take what is considered the best two in a few sports and have an American Challenge.

Shane vs Johnny
Phil vs Tiger
Top two tennis
top two bowling

Maybe even guys like pitchers and quarterbacks. They could do some types of skills tests in their respective sports.

In most sports/games there is always the debate regarding who is better between a couple guys. America loves this stuff.

I would tune in for sure.

 

[somms69]

If enough people hate the race to 100 format and stop buying it we will either have to convince players and backers to do something different or go do something else I guess.

I hope this doesn't happen. I buy your product no matter who is playing or whether I'm able to view it or not, in hopes of ensuring its always there for me when I want or am able to enjoy it. TAR brings the pool fans a product that no one else does at ever increasing quality and those of us who are capable should do everything possible to contribute. And for the record....Johnny.

Todd

 

[easy-e]

I don't know, Earl had a huge lead late on Efren in their race to 120 and Efren came back to beat him. Alex was down 22 games to Shane on day 3 of their race to 100 and came back to beat him 100-94. Maybe some of the races to 100 turn out boring, but some are classics.

Just for clarification, Alex was down 22 on day 2, not 3. I think he was only down 9 or 10 going into day 3. Still pretty impressive.

 

[Celtic]

I think if you asked most of the pro's who have been around for abit they would side with Archer.

I was in Vegas one year and was betting with a friend on a match between Archer and Hatch, my friend was going on and on how awesome Hatch was and how Archer was no favorite in the match. So a guy sitting down in front of us turns around and asks if he wants to bet a few hundred more, my friend had to tell Nick Varner no, that he did not want any more action and then turned to me and said he was not so sure he liked his end anymore.

SVB is in alot of action and his name is out there alot but from what I have seen Archer is alot like Parica of the 1980's, he does not get the same amount of press because people just tend to leave him alone. I think most players know that the action they can get from him is probably a little too tough.

Keep in mind, Efren had his best decade in his tournament playing life in the 1990's, Archer ended up being the player of the decade for the 1990's. He was ridiculously good and I am not sure the game has really slipped all that much. You get into it with him in a huge long race where he can simply get into a rythm and you are going to be sitting on your butt for a very long time watching him run rack after rack after rack.

 

[billychips]

I would be in camp Archer on this one even though Shane plays great and I really like what I know about him.

Whats really ashame is that theres not a true american company that would sponsor a match between these two. Seems like a good fit for a marketing campaign. Take what is considered the best two in a few sports and have an American Challenge.

Shane vs Johnny
Phil vs Tiger
Top two tennis
top two bowling

Maybe even guys like pitchers and quarterbacks. They could do some types of skills tests in their respective sports.

In most sports/games there is always the debate regarding who is better between a couple guys. America loves this stuff.

I would tune in for sure.

I am pretty sure that golf has already decided who is the best.

 

[fan-tum]

Sounds like it's pretty well decided that 9 or 10 ball are the only games being considered, but shouldn't 'America's best player' have a track record in all games. Then you bring in other players--Schmidt-- off the top of my head.

 

[spoons]

I think it's interesting that these are really the only two being mentioned here. I know the OP named those two, but are we talking best active player or best ever? If we're talking best the US has ever produced, which some here have asserted, don't we have to include Mosconi and his peers? Or, I suppose, are we just answering who is better between those two?