Worlds Greatest Player vs. the Peoples Champion

[realkingcobra]

We're only talking about 6" wider and 12" longer, same difference between an 8ft table and a 9ft...we're not talking about a 6'x12' snooker table

One inch is a big deal to a pro pool player...............[/QUOTE]

Only when they're trying to get laid..."it's all in the stroke honey...not in the poke"

 

[Celtic]

why dont they bet any of their own money when they play?

What money? We "are" talking about professional pool players right? I am sure they would be betting their own coin if they actually had some to lose.

Most people at your level are getting their money they bet from other places Chris. Pro pool players who do nothing but play pool for a living are not making much past their mortgage/rent, food, and a car payment. And I am talking top 10 players. God forbid they have a family and a kid they want to send to university.

 

[realkingcobra]

QUOTE]One inch is a big deal to a pro pool player...............

I've been around pool for over 45 years, and I can tell you without a doubt, the cloth, the table, the balls, banks, cues, loud music...nothing matters...nothing is of concern to the "winning" player...Pro or not...just as long as they're NOT the one losing....and if they are...then it's the fault of everything...yet still, the wining player...still has no complaints...accept that the other player quit to soon...and still has SOME money left to be taken

Glen

 

[Luxury]

I really do learn a lot from this site about pool. Different perspectives are very interesting.

 

[GetMeThere]

I think I stated the reason for the table size and the rules; decrease the amount of luck by increasing the skill requirement. Try to make the conditions that will reward the "better player", not for personal advantage (though I'm positive Earl considers himself the "better player"). I will also repeat he loves the game, and wishes it was better at differentiating the good from the great. He is definitely a "purist" in that respect (and having said that, I have always wondered at the contradictory behavior of his with the weights and gloves and tape and extensions - but he still claims to be a "purist").

You guys seem to know quite a bit about what Earl thinks. If he told you something different, I would be surprised, but I guess he could have changed his view. I'm just relating what he's told me in the past (way before this match was ever conceived).

That's right. But it's still "trying to get an advantage." If Earl is dead even odds against another player on a 9' table, but has odds to win on a 10' table, if doesn't actually make Earl a "better" player--because all relevant play today IS on 9' tables.

Earl's case is "well, if we could be put to the ultimate test, you would find I AM better than everybody else--I could make shots on a TWELVE foot table that they would miss." While that may be true, it's a "fantasy" comparison. The game is played on 9' tables, and the "best" player is the one who can win the most on the 9' tables.

Incidentally, Earl's tendencies are similar to some chess players who once were world beaters, and who then started to get beaten by the new crop. There have been several such guys throughout chess history who wanted chess to go to a "bigger board" (more squares), or multi-levels, etc.--obviously with the hope (correct or not) that they would become "unbeatable" again.

 

[GetMeThere]

Its my understanding that almost all the elite top players think the same way... they are the best in the world.

And you're right. And they're right. They all can play "perfectly" for somewhat extended periods. Matches these days are won by the guy who ends up playing "perfectly" at the right time, or playing "perfectly" for longer than another guy, or getting a couple of good rolls when they could have just as easily gotten a couple of bad rolls.

Anybody who KNOWS they have 99% odds to make all reasonable shots and get "perfect" position would naturally think of himself as "the best." (and nobody has 100% odds on those things)

So from that perspective, Earl's match idea is kinda cool: Let's push the boundaries and see who's the best THEN.

In some ways it's similar to the situation in snooker: thirty years ago, players simply did not take long shots, and instead always played them safe. The newer crop of players has worked out to the point where they now have decent odds to MAKE long shots, and they take them and win. By doing so they have set a new standard, in which someone who never played long shots could no longer consider himself "the best."


....and this is all another reason why it would be nice to see pool go back toward an emphasis on 14.1 rather than luck-ball (er, I mean 9-ball).

 

[Williebetmore]

If Earl is dead even odds against another player on a 9' table, but has odds to win on a 10' table, if doesn't actually make Earl a "better" player--because all relevant play today IS on 9' tables.

Earl's case is "well, if we could be put to the ultimate test, you would find I AM better than everybody else--I could make shots on a TWELVE foot table that they would miss." While that may be true, it's a "fantasy" comparison. The game is played on 9' tables, and the "best" player is the one who can win the most on the 9' tables..

GMT,
Very good points. I'm going to agree with all of them.

I hope it is still okay to pine for the days when all relevant play was on 10 footers (that period lasted a hundred years, the new 9 foot fad probably only 50 or so); I think Earl is sincerely one of many who believes this. If you had heard his "lecture" on the virtues of the 10 footer I think you would be quite convinced he is sincere...I certainly was.

P.S. - It is a GRAND game on the 10 footer.

 

[tigerseye]

I wonder how this match had come into existence...??.?? Who barked first?

 

[GetMeThere]

GMT,
Very good points. I'm going to agree with all of them.

I hope it is still okay to pine for the days when all relevant play was on 10 footers (that period lasted a hundred years, the new 9 foot fad probably only 50 or so); I think Earl is sincerely one of many who believes this. If you had heard his "lecture" on the virtues of the 10 footer I think you would be quite convinced he is sincere...I certainly was.

P.S. - It is a GRAND game on the 10 footer.

I absolutely agree. I think there are MANY people who agree that the people who win the big tournaments are not always UNQUESTIONABLY the absolute best players. I think the truth is that the winner of most tournaments (especially in 9-ball) is likely to be any arbitrary one of at least 6-7 guys--probably the one who got the luckiest rolls that day, or the one who really happens be DEAD-ON at a key point when it happened to count most.

It would be nice to raise the bar a bit. Ten footers is one way. A greater interest in 14.1 is another.

It would be interesting to get a history lesson from some in this crowd: What is the history of table sizes in pool?

Certainly, there were more ten footers to be found in pool rooms thirty years ago than today. Why has interest DECREASED in big tables? (one reason, no doubt, is that they're just that much harder to fit into most homes). Mosconi made his record on an eight foot table. What's the history on table size, regarding tournament play and pool room play, and what has caused the changes?

 

[GetMeThere]

I wonder how this match had come into existence...??.?? Who barked first?

I'm pretty sure it's an outgrowth of Mike Gulyassy's "Earl's new cue" thread. He was saying in that thread that he'd be willing to back Earl with his new cue, etc.

 

[Island Drive]

GMT,
Very good points. I'm going to agree with all of them.

I hope it is still okay to pine for the days when all relevant play was on 10 footers (that period lasted a hundred years, the new 9 foot fad probably only 50 or so); I think Earl is sincerely one of many who believes this. If you had heard his "lecture" on the virtues of the 10 footer I think you would be quite convinced he is sincere...I certainly was.

P.S. - It is a GRAND game on the 10 footer.

Ten footers;
1. Make it tougher on short people
2. ESPN's cameras would have to be higher off table
3. Balls would be tied up less
4. RKC says 6'' isn't that much
5. With our economy, room size is not a concern NOW
6. Make longer table lights
7. RKC's back would probably be shorthened 5 yrs/slate weight
8. Be tought getting these bad boys on to the truck/elevator
9. Have to use taller trees to make rails/aprons
10. More difficult seening Jay from a long camera shot down table.:angry:

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

That's right. But it's still "trying to get an advantage." If Earl is dead even odds against another player on a 9' table, but has odds to win on a 10' table, if doesn't actually make Earl a "better" player--because all relevant play today IS on 9' tables.

If Earl has played on a 10' table before and Shane hasn't, then that would give Earl a significant advantage. To minimize Earl's advantage, I would expect Shane to spend at least one week before the match practicing on a 10' table.

Shane certainly has his youth in his favor. Earl's game isn't what it used to be as time takes its toll, both physically and mentally. At Earl's age, a race to 100 may be pushing Earl's limits more than Shane's.

 

[JAM]

...At Earl's age, a race to 100 may be pushing Earl's limits more than Shane's.

Good point, PoolSharkAllen. :wink:

I am reminded of what Wade Crane said about making the transformation from action games to tournament play. As a road man, he had no fear of being 8 or 9 games stuck in an ahead set, but in tournament play of short races, you had to come out of the gate fast to snatch that almighty win.

In a long race to 100, Earl doesn't have to like it. In fact, *recent* history dictates that Earl doesn't do so well coming from behind. He does shine, however, when he's leader of the pack by a long shot.

That said, though, if they're playing for that 10 dimes, well, I guess everybody wants to get their money's worth.

These long races may be appealing to some, but another school of thought is that some folks don't have time to devote to sweating a 3-day match. Of course, if this match isn't for the sweaters and is more for bragging rights and pocketing this big chunk of change, then I guess that's the way to go for the participants and stakehorses.

As far as the 5-by-10, unless it's a gaff table, I just don't get how it can favor either player. After this set, maybe they can entertain the thought of engaging in a set of long-rail banks on a snooker table for 3 days. :grin-square:

 

[Island Drive]

I really do learn a lot from this site about pool. Different perspectives are very interesting.

I feel the same way about avatars....

 

[cleary]

As far as the 5-by-10, unless it's a gaff table, I just don't get how it can favor either player.

I don't think it really favors either player either other than Earl's brain. Earl 100% feels that table favors him, as he has been quoted... "I would rob the world on a 5x10". When it comes down to it, its still a level playing field and Earl will still have to deal with Shane.

I also don't think luck is really a factor in call shot 10ball. Earl got crushed last time and it wasn't luck. You don't get lucky and beat someone 100-60. That is a lot more than a few lucky rolls.

My point was, this seems Earl and Gulyassy are out to prove something. Hes said several times, "see who the greatest player is" and even the title of this thread. If 'proving who is better' is really the case, then do it on a 7' or 9' table. In 2011, those are the only two sizes that mean anything in rotation pool. So as I've said, if Earl wins, it just proves he has to have everything his way to win anymore.

Earl was a great player and is still playing good in 2011. Saying 2011's Earl could give 1990's Earl the 6... well, everyone on this forum knows that is just down right laughable.

All this said, even with Earl getting his way, Shane will still beat him.

 

[schon267]

Why does it have to be a diamond table? there are many 5x10 gold crowns around the country that could be brought in to contest this match. shim the pockets to players likings and have at it! Gold Crowns are better tables anyway in my opinion.
The bad thing about diamonds is that they bank short, the pockets are gaffe, and it's a guessing game to get speed down, reason being is that rails are so lively! the bed cloth speed is predictable, but the rail speed is not, it's a guessing game as to have far the balls will roll off the rails at a med speed or higher. certain shots are just not available trying to play position, so then you have to go the extra rail or 2, now you have no idea how to predict rail speed! god forbid if it's humid at all!

You never have this 2 speed combination problem with gold crowns. just my opinion, you diamond supporters don't flame me! lol

 

[bignasty]

kinda proves clearys point right here

Why does it have to be a diamond table? there are many 5x10 gold crowns around the country that could be brought in to contest this match. shim the pockets to players likings and have at it! Gold Crowns are better tables anyway in my opinion.
The bad thing about diamonds is that they bank short, the pockets are gaffe, and it's a guessing game to get speed down, reason being is that rails are so lively! the bed cloth speed is predictable, but the rail speed is not, it's a guessing game as to have far the balls will roll off the rails at a med speed or higher. certain shots are just not available trying to play position, so then you have to go the extra rail or 2, now you have no idea how to predict rail speed! god forbid if it's humid at all!

You never have this 2 speed combination problem with gold crowns. just my opinion, you diamond supporters don't flame me! lol

this post kinda proves what cleary said earlier, the tables are this the tables bank that, but in the end its still the same 5-10 players winning all the tournaments! no matter what table no matter what the dates, no matter what the bet, lets hope it comes together and we get to see earl play comfortabley on his table with his rules! earl is a legend and the greatest 9 ball player to live "imo" and he is one of svbs idols and busty is the other 1. but i for one wanna see some racks run on a 10 foot table. this should be fun!:grin:

 

[KoolKat9Lives]

So as I've said, if Earl wins, it just proves he has to have everything his way to win anymore.

Tony, I love ya buddy, but it seems to me you've been a bit negative about this exciting challenge. I get your overall point, even if I respectfully disagree. This made game IS different, but IMO is as huge a test of skill as has maybe been made in many decades.

Earl's obviously very happy with his cue. Shortly after getting it he won the giant-ladened Mizerak, and a T6 at Turning Stone. He's been working hard at his game and conditioning. This eccentric genius is knocking at the door.

It's too early to crown Earl as being all the way "back", but hats off to him, Mike G, and their ample nuggets. I don't think Mike is mad at his money (assuming he's backing) and I doubt Earl would have him throw it away. These guys believe the magic is recaptured, ain't that much obvious?

BTW, how many professionals ya think will be watching this match and taking notes? :yeah:

 

[Rick S.]

his health robbed him (and us)

I don't think it really favors either player either other than Earl's brain. Earl 100% feels that table favors him, as he has been quoted... "I would rob the world on a 5x10". When it comes down to it, its still a level playing field and Earl will still have to deal with Shane..

If it favors Earl's brain, that's a definite advantage. He's positive he can beat anyone at that game. (obviously playing Shane right out of the gate)

I also don't think luck is really a factor in call shot 10ball. Earl got crushed last time and it wasn't luck. You don't get lucky and beat someone 100-60. That is a lot more than a few lucky rolls..

You're right....it wasn't luck at all. He wasn't healthy.

Earl has had his share of sickness over the last 15-20 years. Kidney stones have cost him quite a bit. He's had numerous surgeries, lipotripsy treatments, and other procedures associated with the disease.

I roomed w/him at 2007 Mosconi Cup. He had kidney stones so bad he should have been in the hospital. Severe pain, high temp fever, pissing blood so bad he barely had the strength to walk downstairs.

Yet....he went down and kicked the newly crowned world champion 9 ball (Darryl Peach) player's ass 6-3 his last match.

He's a different animal when healthy, I'll guarantee you.

Earl was a great player and is still playing good in 2011. Saying 2011's Earl could give 1990's Earl the 6... well, everyone on this forum knows that is just down right laughable.

All this said, even with Earl getting his way, Shane will still beat him.

Earl still IS a great player as you saw in Florida. Running over Rodney, Thorsten, and Mika wasn't an accident.

He could have possibly had a couple more US Opens, or World titles to look back on if he'd been healthy all those years.

We are going to have to see what happens....:wink:

It's gonna be GOOD!

 

[Island Drive]

If it favors Earl's brain, that's a definite advantage. He's positive he can beat anyone at that game. (obviously playing Shane right out of the gate)






You're right....it wasn't luck at all. He wasn't healthy.

Earl has had his share of sickness over the last 15-20 years. Kidney stones have cost him quite a bit. He's had numerous surgeries, lipotripsy treatments, and other procedures associated with the disease.

I roomed w/him at 2007 Mosconi Cup. He had kidney stones so bad he should have been in the hospital. Severe pain, high temp fever, pissing blood so bad he barely had the strength to walk downstairs.

Yet....he went down and kicked the newly crowned world champion 9 ball (Darryl Peach) player's ass 6-3 his last match.

He's a different animal when healthy, I'll guarantee you.



Earl still IS a great player as you saw in Florida. Running over Rodney, Thorsten, and Mika wasn't an accident.

He could have possibly had a couple more US Opens, or World titles to look back on if he'd been healthy all those years.

We are going to have to see what happens....:wink:

It's gonna be GOOD!

Earls in his forties, in the PGA masters at Agusta, players in their forties have won before, Fred Couples and Tom Watson are good examples of players like Parica.