This thread is funny to me. Perhaps football games should be 12 quarters so we can really see who is the best team. I've seen teams win and lose because there wasn't enough time for one team to catch up so let's extend it.
You see, this is one reason pool hasn't progressed. No one wants intensity, parody, and excitement. Ask yourself, would rather see one match with a 50-21 final score or a match with a 21-20 score with a rematch pending?
The match is set and we will do whats best for pool. Thanks for talking!
I happen to agree. With a really long set ( race to 50+), if it is a close match, it still tells you nothing about who is best since it was close. If it is not close, then the only thing definitive is who was better that day. On top of that, it becomes a bore fest. Yeah you may still see some great pool, but most of the excitement is gone. One or both of the players typically go into coasting or give up mode as well, no longer making an effort to play their very best since they are either so far ahead and know they already have the win sewn up, or too far behind and know that there is no hope to make up that much ground.
On the flip side, I like the idea of playing for a long time to determine the "true best". But the way to do it is with multiple medium races, preferably over several days to eliminate the fact that everyone has an off day. Races to 15 are probably about perfect. Do five of them, three sets the first day, and two the second day. Both players always know they have a chance to win the set at any time regardless of score so you always get their full effort. And the fans know a come back is always still realistic as well so it maintains more excitement. Plus the matches are closer for even more excitement.
It still leaves no doubt about who is better because of how many games and how long they played. It is probably even more conclusive since you know both were actually giving their full effort the whole time, and even more so when it is over several days to eliminate someone having an "off day". And for those that think the total number of games won is a better indicator of who was best as opposed to sets won, then just count up each of their total wins between all sets and you can use that in your own mind. With multiple shorter races there will be plenty of total games played for you to compare the two.
If it is only going to be one set though, 30 is enough to be a pretty good indicator of who was better that day. And 21 even gives a fairly reliable indication. Race to 30 is long enough to be pretty conclusive, but short enough that they both still give their best effort, and matches are more exciting since they are closer and also because a come from behind win is still possible.
The one thing that makes me laugh though is that 95% of the people crying about how the most important thing of all is a long race so that the best player can be conclusively determined want the format to be winner breaks. There is zero doubt whatsoever that alternate breaks gives a more conclusive result about who is better. Now whether that is what you prefer watching or not is a whole separate issue, but if the most important thing to you is truly to see who is best then it has to be alternate breaks. They both get equal opportunities at the table just like in baseball or tennis or football or basketball or most any other sport there is, and the best player will win in a longer race under alternate breaks guaranteed. That is why baseball has innings instead of just being a race to 10 runs for example. Because it better determines the best.