How will you defend SVB this time?
- Thread starter dundeewizard
- Start date
How many tournaments have each of them played during that span? I would imagine there are quite a few tournaments Darren plays which are not listed on AZ money list whereas almost everything SVB enters is in the United States and listed. How about a statistic showing money won per event entered? This year SVB has played almost twice as many events as the other guys listed in the top 3.
A breakdown of this is all on the AZ main page. Im not good at the maths, so I will leave the won per event stat up to someone else.
So if the other guys don't play as many tournaments then that is an unfair advantage to Shane?
They cant win everything if they dont enter everything.
But if not SVB, then who? If the OP's intent was to discredit SVB because of his recent 8-3 loss to Daz, then he must have some idea who he thinks is the better player and provide us with a name for us to reflect upon?
Who? Who is currently winning everything in sight like Mika or Daz was awhile back?
Oh, and OP...please try to include credible reasoning and facts as to why he/she is better than SVB! Because if you notice, anyone who believes that it's Shane does exactly that.
To the OP ---NAME(s)...ready?...GO! Name _______ ______
That is why I brought up possible events Darren has played overseas which may not be reflected in AZ's calculations of money won. Not saying it is an unfair advantage but believe it should be taken into consideration. Say someone enters 10 high profile tournaments and wins 5 of them. Another player wins 10 tournaments but has entered 30. Can you honestly say that the person who won 10 tournaments is indeed the better player because he won twice as many tournaments even though he played 3x as many tournaments?
My point is,if a guy beats another,lets say 10 sets and they were all a race to 8 single elimination,would the wins still be less credited because of the short races,even though he has still won 80 games?:scratchhead:
Did Willie Mosconi ever lose a match? I mean seriously who is hotter than SVB right now.
Thats how I remember it.
Shane had a shot clock foul in One pocket that I believe cost him the match. At that time our rule was if you foul on the clock the incoming player comes in and plays from that spot.
Shane came back a few months later and brought up the very valid point that the rule is flawed. If the player fouls he should lose a ball but not his turn as position is so vital in one pocket the penalty is too severe. I believe he is correct and so now the rule we use is that when a player fouls on a clock violation a ball will spot at the end of his turn.
The eight ball set they played was amazing.
I would absolutely like to do a rematch.
Pathetic Shark
Banned
Ooo, he's soooo dreamy!
It's almost as if all this man love for SVB is because you have no one else!
Svb
Let's wait until Shane is Earl's age now, and see if he can beat the "best player in the world" on a 5x10. Shane has the momentum going to be one of the greats but some of his praise is outright ridiculous. Some people are acting like no one in the world can beat this guy, yet it HAS to be a race to 100. A truly great player should come out of the gates hard and win a short race just as much as a long race, as long as it isn't winner breaks and he gets completely run out on from the word go.
Let's wait until Shane is Earl's age now, and see if he can beat the "best player in the world" on a 5x10. Shane has the momentum going to be one of the greats but some of his praise is outright ridiculous. Some people are acting like no one in the world can beat this guy, yet it HAS to be a race to 100. A truly great player should come out of the gates hard and win a short race just as much as a long race, as long as it isn't winner breaks and he gets completely run out on from the word go.
Win Loss record better metric
An average money won per tournament (i.e. total money won divided by number of tournaments) is better metric than an absolute number of total money won.
eg. Player A 50 tournaments and wins total $50K (average $1K per tournament) while Player B plays 2 tournaments and wins $50K (average $25K per tournament). I would think then Player B is better player (in tournaments anyway).
But I never like money won as a metric cos it varies and is inconsistent..
A better metric would be Win-Loss record (used in many sports like boxing). This is a long term measure and will average out luck element. Head to head measure like comparing SVB vs Darren is only relevant for bragging rights.Doesn't tell you who is better player against almost everyone. eg. Efren has poor head to head with Parica but has better head to head with other players and probably has one of best win-loss record in his prime.
Maybe someone can find win loss records for both players
An average money won per tournament (i.e. total money won divided by number of tournaments) is better metric than an absolute number of total money won.
eg. Player A 50 tournaments and wins total $50K (average $1K per tournament) while Player B plays 2 tournaments and wins $50K (average $25K per tournament). I would think then Player B is better player (in tournaments anyway).
But I never like money won as a metric cos it varies and is inconsistent..
A better metric would be Win-Loss record (used in many sports like boxing). This is a long term measure and will average out luck element. Head to head measure like comparing SVB vs Darren is only relevant for bragging rights.Doesn't tell you who is better player against almost everyone. eg. Efren has poor head to head with Parica but has better head to head with other players and probably has one of best win-loss record in his prime.
Maybe someone can find win loss records for both players
Also while we are on short race to reduce the luck element, winner should win by at least 2 racks. It is nonsense that the person who wins the lag breaks first and has advantage if it is alternate break. In tennis, whoever serves first has advantage so you need to win by 2 games.
But if not SVB, then who? If the OP's intent was to discredit SVB because of his recent 8-3 loss to Daz, then he must have some idea who he thinks is the better player and provide us with a name for us to reflect upon?
Who? Who is currently winning everything in sight like Mika or Daz was awhile back?
Oh, and OP...please try to include credible reasoning and facts as to why he/she is better than SVB! Because if you notice, anyone who believes that it's Shane does exactly that.
To the OP ---NAME(s)...ready?...GO! Name _______ ______right there
Nobody is. That's the point.
I looked it up:
8-Ball -- Shane won 15 - 11
1-Pocket -- Dennis won 7 - 4
10-Ball -- Dennis won 25 - 23
Money -- Dennis won $3,500 - $2,500
How funny that when a guy is at the top that everybody wants to knock him down. It is what it is. Shane is human. Nobody is totally unbeatable...he'll get beat every now and again by large or small margin but the truth is, his win percentage is way higher than the rest of the field...
Sent from my SPH-D710BST using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my SPH-D710BST using Tapatalk 2
One thing is for sure if you're going to gamble with Shane Van Boening, try to get him to play the shortest race you can, because in a long race the best player is not going to lose very often. In a short race the best player doesn't have to win. Play him races to 2 for 10k, win the lag, and give yourself a chance!!!