Don't forget raj and oscar played on the same table of SVB and alex but they played on a worn table. The table was playing drastically harder than the one used on the alex vs svb... I agree with you with the comment that oscar and raj are not at the same level of svb, alex, mika, ecc. Some mistake by raj were shocking.
What do you think of this absurd comment
- Thread starter jimmy-leggs
- Start date
Don't forget raj and oscar played on the same table of SVB and alex but they played on a worn table. The table was playing drastically harder than the one used on the alex vs svb... I agree with you with the comment that oscar and raj are not at the same level of svb, alex, mika, ecc. Some mistake by raj were shocking.
there is no such thing as a perfect game in golf. par is the yardstick goal, however shooting a 59 or to birdie every hole would be the closest to a "perfect" game. even then you'd probably walk off thinking that you could have done better...lol:grin-square:
i don't think there have been many people that have scored 1000 on an accustat rating before either.
i'd pay TAR if they'd stream 18 holes with earl.:thumbup:
i think he'd be a blast to golf with...
Do ya'll think it's harder to be a top 100 golfer or pool player in the world?
Matt <- played Earl in both games and I am a former +2 handicapper and A- pool player who knows it'd be easier to be top 100 pool player (but what is the measuring stick that Earl might use in this comparison? We're guessing...) Apples to orangutans.
Matt <- played Earl in both games and I am a former +2 handicapper and A- pool player who knows it'd be easier to be top 100 pool player (but what is the measuring stick that Earl might use in this comparison? We're guessing...) Apples to orangutans.
Very interesting perspective.
Perhaps the same could be said for pool player talent as well. There are top level local pool players that would get hammered in a long race if they played a pro, not even a player as good as Earl, but a decent pro, say like Bartram or Eberle
Every golf game is a race to 18.
The pool equivalent of a PGA tournament would be races to 18, best 2 out of 3 sets, on tough equipment in a round robin format. If you put a scratch golfer against any tour pro on a normal course and they only played 5 holes...would you still give the million to one odds that the amateur won't get there?
That's why amateurs routinely win major pool tournaments. Earl Strickland is light years better than your local shortstop. It's not even close, even remotely.
Last edited:
Where will I find the list of: Danny Harriman's "Nittiest nockin poster ever award"?
Dave Nelson
Dave Nelson
While I agree that the world class pool player is much better than a shortstop level player, the difference in talent (imo) is not as large as it is in golf.
And I don't necessarily agree with arbitrary assumptions about equating games in a set of pool to holes in a round of golf or "if the golf match was played on a muni" to make the point. The fact is a standard round of golf is 18 holes and a professional tournament consists of 4 rounds on a tough course usually over 7000 yards. In professional pool the standard ("average") match is 7 to 11 games, double elimination on a 9 foot table with 4.5" pockets. You need to take both professional games for what they are and not change them in order to make your point. I don't think it's valid, for instance, to say "let's make the US Open 9 Ball tournament races to 100 and see what chance a shortstop has of winning."
I play both games and believe me, I don't dispute nor underestimate how good a world class pool player is. I play the game well enough to understand how difficult it is to play pool at the top level. It's extremely difficult. When was the last time someone outside the top 100 or so won a significant professional pool tournament? So please don't misconstrue that just because I think the difference is greater in golf that I don't think also think there is a huge difference in pool between the top level and the rest.
But I agree with Kool Kat's analogy that it is definitely harder to crack the list of the top 100 golfers. And by the way, a significant part of the difficulty in being a top professional golfer has to do with the ability to handle the extreme pressure not found in pool. This is not just the result of the large sums of money involved but also due to the fact that if you don't finish the year in the top 125 or so, you also lose your privilege to earn a living on tour.
Last edited:
I'm not changing the game, just the tournament format. I can't be the only person who thinks a blind draw bracketed tournament is horrible. A seeded tournament is better, but there are way too many crybabies for that to ever work.
If pool tournaments looked more like golf tournaments, then it would be much easier to rank players and you would really know the difference between SVB and Joe-Housepro. There would be 10 guys in the world who win every major tournament and maybe a hundred or so below that picking up the scraps. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion because the top 10 at DCC would look like the top 10 at any PGA stop: 10 champions...rather than 3 champions and 7 guys that had a lucky draw.
I agree. I don't think it will ever happen like that though. Aren't the "scraps" in the PGA the same same as the first place prize money in major pool tournaments?
On a slightly different note, I (along with everyone else around here) have been in the discussions of ways to make the pro game of pool more marketable. The comparison to golf is interesting in that golf also historically was played match play format. But golf has an inherent way to allow for each player to play against the rest of the field without changing the basic game. I can't help but wonder that if there was a way to do this in pool it might help move the game forward.
Hopkins had that model for the Million Dollar Shootout. Every match the players had to play 21 games (win or lose, didn't matter) to ensure each player played the same amount of games per round. From there, he tracked games won on a golf-like leader board after each round.
After two rounds, he made a "cut" and eliminated 1/2 of the field. Ties were settled by a player's break-and-run total. At the end of the event, the best player definitely won.
If I recall, Corey won with Shane in a close second. Corey, Shane and Busty were head over heels better than the rest of the field. Corey, I believe, beat the 9ball ghost throughout the tournament (without taking BIH, obviously). He had over 1/2 of his games end in a break and run.
You'd never know these stats in any other format, I think. That's why I hope that format catches-on.
Dave
You could do a straight pool tournament race to 1000. No opponent, fewest innings wins....but I don't think that particular format would move the game forward. On TV it would be cool because you could cut from player to player just like golf or poker. Then you could broadcast the exciting shots and skip all the boring ball running.
I've long thought TAR is the future. Screw golf. We shouldn't be trying to make pool look like golf. Let's make it look like boxing. Head to head. Champion vs. challenger. You could tier the players based on skill. So you have a AAA champion, a AA champion, and a A champion. The AA champion could challenge a AAA player to graduate up to AAA. Mic the players for some great TV and hold a press conference for sh1t-talking (woofing is my favorite part of pool).
I went to a tournament at the Bell Gardens casino in Bellflower in early 2005 in which Deuel won the tournament by having a 70% break and run for the entire tourney! Unbelievable!
A pool table is 4 feet by 9 feet, a golf hole from tee to green at the pro level is anywhere from just under 200 yards for a par 3 to well over 600 yards for a par 5. Comparing the size of the hole used on the PGA to the size of the pocket used on a pool table as if they are somehow comparable is quite absurd. There are a slew of factors which make them completely un-comparable.
I agree with your general idea in this post but I disagree with this particular statement. I think there is a HUGE difference in the talent of SVB, Alex, and Earl when you compare their game to Oscar or Raj and I think it was very apparent when we finally saw them play on a table that properly tested the professional level.
This issue pool has always had is that the tables most pro events are played on are easy enough that ALOT of players can look good, even those with lesser skills then the top players. Oscar or Raj can catch a gear on the break and run alot of racks on a 4.5 inch pocket diamond and people go "wow, that guys is good" but in reality his talent level relative to other players in the event is simply not being properly tested.
I absolutely suck at darts, but if the game were to hit "the dart board" instead of hit tiny sections "of" the dartboard then I am suddenly one hell of alot closer to professional level darts, as are about a billion other people in the world. ATM that is what pool is in effect doing, it is making the game too easy with slack equipment and it is letting alot of people compete at the top level who might not actually have a talent level or the skill to justify their being a professional when compared to others in the game.
In a game of race to 9 try to hit "the dartboard" I might beat a pro, if we flip a coin to see who shoots first I have a real good chance of doing it. If I lose the toss I might get lucky on the pro hitting a wire and win that way. Pool has quirky things that take place in the break, people who miss sometimes luck into a safe they completely did not play, and the ease of the game due to the equipment combined with those things gives alot of people with alot less skill then the top players a solid chance of winning regardless of their lesser skill.
That's an illogical analogy. Shooting par is what would be a perfect game.
EDIT: Maybe not par but the two games can't be compared IMnsHO.
Last edited:
Fair enough. BTW, I'm not saying there isn't a big difference when you get to the top of the pool food chain. There is.
Par is not a perfect score nor is it supposed to be considered as such. The term "par for the course" is generally used to refer to something usual or normal, not perfect. Par is what a "scratch" golfer should expect to average. I maintain a perfect score in golf has not yet happened in a competitive professional PGA tour round and it is doubtful it will. That being either 18 under or 22 under, depending on how you want to look at the par 5's. Since par 5's are for the most part reachable for the pros (in many cases with a medium to short iron) I think the perfect score is closer to 22 under.
Last edited:
Lol,too funny:killingme:
