race to 25 2 out of 3 sets

All good points by everyone. A few of my perspectives:

There will always be upsets, no matter the race length.

The betting own cash (or backer's) vs the current TAR format is speculative. Assuming no funny business, how the money is handled can put different pressures on different players. Its not universal. For example, we have all seen on the local level players who play jam up getting backed, but horrible on their own dime, and vice versa. Or players great in tournaments, horrible in gambling, and vice versa again.

Finally, what if every race was a race to 1000, or 100 ahead. Then lets say with certainty that proved who the better player was. What would that do for action? You'd never get a second set with a player. Is that what we want to see? Or is it better to have shorter sets where if a guy loses, he will pick himself up and try again in the future?
 
real bartram said:
ahead sets have been played since i started playing.
im saying that players will win in the new tar format
that people dont think should.
Click to expand...

To support Mr. Bartram's theroy, adding up all the scores for all three days have Archer and Shane tied at 66.

To argue against Mr. Bartram's theroy, when figuring who should win, someone must take everything into account. In this case, Johnny practiced hard on his super tight table and worked on his break for weeks to bring himself up to Shane's 10 ball level.

Johnny, Shane, Bustamante, Orcullo - they are all champions. On a given day whoever gets rolling, or whoever gets the rolls, is going to win.
 
Last edited:
1on1pooltournys said:
Yes you are right. When they not betting anything it all fun and games. I can assure you with this format there will be savors made if there haven't been already.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. They already have $1,000 saver built in. If players are not truly putting the money on the line, then pool will be forever doomed. Why do we even bother, pool is already doomed. I appreciate TAR for what they do but these statements put in perspective how poor pool really is.

It's only $3,000 difference. A saver in this case just shows no heart at all. People bet thousands at casinos everyday with no free roll, no guaranteed money, and always taking the worst of it.
 
iba7467 said:
I would have to disagree. They already have $1,000 saver built in. If players are not truly putting the money on the line, then pool will be forever doomed. Why do we even bother, pool is already doomed. I appreciate TAR for what they do but these statements put in perspective how poor pool really is.

It's only $3,000 difference. A saver in this case just shows no heart at all. People bet thousands at casinos everyday with no free roll, no guaranteed money, and always taking the worst of it.
Click to expand...

First I never said they made a savor. I said with this format there will be savors made in the future. You must not know some of these pros to well is all I can tell you. $3,000 difference is a lot of money to people that have no guaranteed income. TAR is paying them to entertain the viewer, and if they do there job who really cares what they do with the money, imo, under this format.
 
real bartram said:
to find out who is really the best player
you have to play like a race to 300 or 30 or 40 ahead.
the reason players are playing this 2 out of 3 sets
is they are not betting anything.
Click to expand...

Another variation could be, race to 300 or any player who gets ahead 30 wins.
 
A true champ?

As far as evry sport having a true champ and pool needing one..., Pool had one for many years, Efren. He won all the One Pocket tourny's he played in and stayed at the top of the leader board.

As far as the best player goes, these guys just need more opportunities to play. I love what TAR is doing, great job, but the game needs more money more tourny's so that these guys will have a chance to mix it up more, then we could see who is really king of the hill.

A few short races, 1 long race or a long heead set..., if two guys play enough, somebody will get there or they will find out that no one has the edge.
 
TATE said:
To support Mr. Bartram's theroy, adding up all the scores for all three days have Archer and Shane tied at 66.

To argue against Mr. Bartram's theroy, when figuring who should win, someone must take everything into account. In this case, Johnny practiced hard on his super tight table and worked on his break for weeks to bring himself up to Shane's 10 ball level.

Johnny, Shane, Bustamante, Orcullo - they are all champions. On a given day whoever gets rolling, or whoever gets the rolls, is going to win.
Click to expand...

yeah i wondered what the excuse for johnny winning would be now i know it was the 2out of 3 races not that he played better.
 
1on1pooltournys said:
First I never said they made a savor. I said with this format there will be savors made in the future. You must not know some of these pros to well is all I can tell you. $3,000 difference is a lot of money to people that have no guaranteed income. TAR is paying them to entertain the viewer, and if they do there job who really cares what they do with the money, imo, under this format.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. I understand that $3,000 is good money to a lot of people, but with a saver it's likely more like $1,000 extra. Second is short-term versus long-term reward. Now that they have a ranking system and call back winners there is advantage to winning even if they have a saver.

I just want to see the whole system to succeed. Once players are chopping and giving up during the matches the whole thing is doomed. It's all about work ethic and where these guys want their sport to go.

Nothing negative towards your opinion, I just hope it does not happen that way.
 
Let's just give Johnny credit. He won fair and square. I didn't think he'd win, but he did. Kudos to Johnny.
 
What would be the point of a format that ensures the better player always wins? Isn't the uncertainty what attracts audiences?

pj
chgo
 
real bartram said:
no
why would you ask?
Click to expand...

Might have been the way I read it then. I just thought Shane didn't play his best in this one, he was self-admittedly distracted. If it had been a race to 100 I doubt it would have turned out any different and I thought Shane would win in a tight race for this one. I'm happy to see Johnny can still do a little steamrolling.
 
TATE said:
To support Mr. Bartram's theroy, adding up all the scores for all three days have Archer and Shane tied at 66.

To argue against Mr. Bartram's theroy, when figuring who should win, someone must take everything into account. In this case, Johnny practiced hard on his super tight table and worked on his break for weeks to bring himself up to Shane's 10 ball level.

Johnny, Shane, Bustamante, Orcullo - they are all champions. On a given day whoever gets rolling, or whoever gets the rolls, is going to win.
Click to expand...

true
in this format archer and svb can beat orcullo.
play a race to 200 no chance.
this is good for people to watch for sure.
but not really to say who the best is thats
all im saying.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
What would be the point of a format that ensures the better player always wins? Isn't the uncertainty what attracts audiences?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Maybe, but in most all sports the public expect want to see the best players in the final, not nobodies. Except maybe for the nobodies friends. There is nothing worse then seeing the best players getting knocked out in early rounds. The only uncertainty most want, is which of the best will emerge winner, or will no.2 finally knock off no.1 to win.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
What would be the point of a format that ensures the better player always wins? Isn't the uncertainty what attracts audiences?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I'm with you 100%. I don't want to always see the statistical "Best" player or team win all the time. I want to see the player or team that plays the best on that day win. Otherwise why even play the Super Bowl, or NBA Championship, or any other sporting event.
 
On ESPN they shortened races (and tried shorter games) for the sake of the viewers, but I thought TAR matches wouldn't do that... I thought they'd be about what's best for the players, even though ultimately the viewers are how they make their money. Maybe that's dumb to think that way.

On the other hand, I don't know if TAR forces any format on the players, maybe the players could get the race-to-100 format if they really insisted.

There's such a small difference between the top players, it seems like even race to 100 is too short. We've had it boil down to a race to 15 or even a race to 5 after 2½ days. So maybe if you wanted a set long enough to matter, you'd have to play to 200 or something. Not only would the viewers get tired of it... maybe even the players would start to feel like they're punching a clock.
 
Race to 300???

I have backed a lot of games, low and high, but I have never been there for a race to 300. I want my guy to get the cash or not and we'll fight another day. No othere sport or game has a never ending story, at some point its over and we'll meet down the road.

If there are more chances to play, then it will all come out in the wash, today was JA's day, good for him, next up, Busta!

Way to go TAR!
 
Some of you Posters

are getting ridiculous with your race to 200 or 300, or ahead set 30 games. The best players will always stand up over time and many competitions, this has always been the historical truth. There are just too many factors that affect a player on a certain day.

Race to 25, best 2 of 3 sets are fine with me. I wouldn't watch anything longer than that. I love Pool, but after so many hours of watching, you get tired of it. Besides not knowing who will win, is half the fun of the competiton anyway. I bet about 70-80% of the posters thought Shane would win, but Johnny played up to his old form, and he has a gear or two.

There is such a thing that is called 'Time in rank' in Pool. It is a psychological advantage some players have in matchups. Johnny has been a champion player for years, and dominated the 90's, so he has more time in rank over Shane. Or say, a young player brings up his game a lot to where he is really good, but if he plays the older or more experienced player that used to give him the 7, or some such spot, and beat him, the younger player will always have a tendency to falter against that player more than normal.

The players know the format going in, and they know during the competiton when they have to make a move to win.
 
macguy said:
Especially if it becomes one sided. Even at the Super Bowl if it gets too one sided people will begin to leave to beat the traffic. Also, who wants to see two players suffer through such a long match only have it decided by possibly 1 or 2 games. They played 198 games and in my opinion neither is a loser.

One exciting format could be so many games ahead in multiple sets. For example 5, ahead 2 out of 3 sets. The ebb and flow of an ahead set can be very exciting, it is never over till it is over.

I remember seeing Mike Sigel play 7 ahead against Strickland with Strickland winning the first 6 games. "Man" was Strickland cocky. Well, he didn't make a ball on rack 7 seven and in a few hours Sigel was back to even. At that point Earl begged to quit because he said he had to play a match early the next day and it was getting late. Sigel just laughed and let him out of the $3000.00 bet. It was sort of a grudge match that started with some arguing and I guess Sigel felt he had made his point as Strickland slunk out of the room. In those days Sigel would have gone through Strickland playing any game. Sigel was really something to see when he was at his best.
Click to expand...

When I covered the Seminole/Empire State Championship, Mike Sigel won 31 games in a row before losing to Mike Dechaine. It was quite a site.

Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top