Earl's 5 US Opens vs Shane's 5 US Opens: Who's was more difficult?
- Thread starter Cardigan Kid
- Start date
I don't. Shaw is a great shot maker but Earl was not just great at potting, he made crazy hard pots with spin no other pro would even attempt to get weird Multigrain shape on the next ball.
Earl in the first two days of "The Color of Money", which I think the entire match can be seen on YouTube, was ridiculous. His shot making was nuts.
I think for pure accuracy and firepower on normal shots Yang in his prime blew them all away, but even Yang never stepped up and took on some of the insane shots Earl made regularly when he was in his prime and in stroke.
For crazy accuracy on normal tough shots I would take Dennis Orcullo from roughly 10 years back and Yang over Shaw. But Earl in his prime is the only guy who took on those tough shots and decided to play them with inside low and spin around 6 rails to fall perfect through a window on the next ball.
Today I think Ko is every bit as accurate as Shaw on tough shots, and he misses fewer easy ones due to brain facts which Shaw occasionally still has.
Great analysis here! From my perspective, Earl in his prime moved the cue ball better than anyone else, except Parica. Earl was the superior player because of his break. In the more recent era Yang was the best I've seen at making incredible shots to get position for the next shot. He ran racks where everyone else (including Jayson) would be playing safe. Yang ran out when there was no run out there!
No question that Jayson may be the best pure shot maker ever. He pops in long tough shots that most players will play safe on. How about that one he made in his last match against Chang. Incredible. Only Louie Roberts ever made shots like that with regularity. Louie actually cut long shots from extreme angles down the rail better than anyone ever. Lee Vann is the master of these shots today.
For making a tough shot under extreme pressure (like hill-hill) Buddy was the best in his era and Dennis is today. For my money though Wu Chua Ching and Shane are the two best players today. These two have a higher level than anyone else. Once upon a time I said the same thing about Earl. When everyone played their best, Earl was one speed above them all. Twenty years ago!
The new era of pool has become less of a power game and more of a finesse game.
It used to be slower cloth and less bouncy rubber. Back then you had to strike the ball harder to to swing the cue ball. Today, it's like playing on a sheet of ice and on many shots you just dink the cue ball real soft and cheat the hell out of the pocket.
I believe the last two era's had different skill sets and mind sets to win. Now that I think about I'm changing my mind, Earl's 5 were tougher. Heck, I'm not really sure. Prolly can't compare the era's now that I think about it one last time. Actually, no, Shane's 5 were tougher.
It used to be slower cloth and less bouncy rubber. Back then you had to strike the ball harder to to swing the cue ball. Today, it's like playing on a sheet of ice and on many shots you just dink the cue ball real soft and cheat the hell out of the pocket.
I believe the last two era's had different skill sets and mind sets to win. Now that I think about I'm changing my mind, Earl's 5 were tougher. Heck, I'm not really sure. Prolly can't compare the era's now that I think about it one last time. Actually, no, Shane's 5 were tougher.
Lmao I'm howling ...earl can still win another open ? You on crack ? Guy got no chance
Earls was impressive but Shane's is by far harder no question
Plus be irrelevant when SVB gets his 6 Snd 7th
The closest thing we can get to an "objective" comparison of players from different eras is to look at TPA's. We have TPA's going back to at least the mid-80's, and we still have them today.
The TPA's don't tell us how difficult the playing conditions were relative to different eras, but they do tell us how well different players played the game, regardless of the equipment and the level of competition, from different eras.
Looking back at some of the TPA's from the mid 1980's, it's pretty clear that Mike Sigel performed the best from that era with respect to his overall TPA, averaging over a .900 TPA for entire tournaments a few times. The only other two players from that era that averaged over .900 TPA for an entire tournament were Reyes and Varner. Coming close were Strickland and Hall, but none of those players TPA's were as consistently high as Sigel's (though Reyes had the highest overall for one tournament, with an astounding .923 for an entire Sands Regency event).
So, does anyone know what Shane's overall TPA was for this U.S. Open?
Note: This would not be the average of his TPA's for each match, but rather his aggregate TPA counting all balls made and all errors made for the entire tournament.
The TPA's don't tell us how difficult the playing conditions were relative to different eras, but they do tell us how well different players played the game, regardless of the equipment and the level of competition, from different eras.
Looking back at some of the TPA's from the mid 1980's, it's pretty clear that Mike Sigel performed the best from that era with respect to his overall TPA, averaging over a .900 TPA for entire tournaments a few times. The only other two players from that era that averaged over .900 TPA for an entire tournament were Reyes and Varner. Coming close were Strickland and Hall, but none of those players TPA's were as consistently high as Sigel's (though Reyes had the highest overall for one tournament, with an astounding .923 for an entire Sands Regency event).
So, does anyone know what Shane's overall TPA was for this U.S. Open?
Note: This would not be the average of his TPA's for each match, but rather his aggregate TPA counting all balls made and all errors made for the entire tournament.
I think average TPA is interesting, but isn't a good overall measuring stick.
Which is tougher, a .910 TPA against an elite player that is putting tons of heat on your and where each mistake might cost you the tournament, or a .928 against a local that has no chance where it's more of an exhibition match?
Which is more important, playing error free, or getting the job done and finding a way to get across the finish line?
The game has gotten much more aggressive. People have to go for shots these days they would've played safe on in years past because they can't simply get ball in hand for hiding the cue ball. So TPA will fall, because the level of play is HIGHER. Case in point, Shaw vs. SVB, some of the kicks were amazing. SVB had Shaw locked up and instead of getting ball in hand, he was hooked back. Later SVB took on an amazingly difficult cut shot with uncertain position that I'm sure Siegel would've played safe on.
I could go on, this is just to say that in pool only one thing matters- who wins. It's not a performance for a panel of judges. It's about doing what needs to be done to cross the finish line. Statistics about performance can be interesting, but they can never replace the measure of wins and losses.
As for the relative performance, I think they are both incredible champions that have set tremendous milestones that may never be duplicated. Saying one is better than the other diminishes what they have done in my mind, because in their time and place they were both simply incredible. Personally I think the fields have gotten tougher over the years with the advancement of top level play and the thick field of elite international professionals...but that's just a sign that the game is evolving and improving. In no way does that minimize what Earl was able to do, which was dominate over a group of Hall of Famers that were my idols growing up. It's like critiquing Star Wars. Sure, the CGI effects have improved, but that isn't a good measure of the movie as the originals were mind blowing and a cultural icons. Earl was the first to take the game to that level of offensive dominance. SVB continues this tradition and does so over a field of champions the likes of which hadn't been seen in the 80s. But both are true pool heroes and can share the throne of 'greatest evers' in my mind...
Which is tougher, a .910 TPA against an elite player that is putting tons of heat on your and where each mistake might cost you the tournament, or a .928 against a local that has no chance where it's more of an exhibition match?
Which is more important, playing error free, or getting the job done and finding a way to get across the finish line?
The game has gotten much more aggressive. People have to go for shots these days they would've played safe on in years past because they can't simply get ball in hand for hiding the cue ball. So TPA will fall, because the level of play is HIGHER. Case in point, Shaw vs. SVB, some of the kicks were amazing. SVB had Shaw locked up and instead of getting ball in hand, he was hooked back. Later SVB took on an amazingly difficult cut shot with uncertain position that I'm sure Siegel would've played safe on.
I could go on, this is just to say that in pool only one thing matters- who wins. It's not a performance for a panel of judges. It's about doing what needs to be done to cross the finish line. Statistics about performance can be interesting, but they can never replace the measure of wins and losses.
As for the relative performance, I think they are both incredible champions that have set tremendous milestones that may never be duplicated. Saying one is better than the other diminishes what they have done in my mind, because in their time and place they were both simply incredible. Personally I think the fields have gotten tougher over the years with the advancement of top level play and the thick field of elite international professionals...but that's just a sign that the game is evolving and improving. In no way does that minimize what Earl was able to do, which was dominate over a group of Hall of Famers that were my idols growing up. It's like critiquing Star Wars. Sure, the CGI effects have improved, but that isn't a good measure of the movie as the originals were mind blowing and a cultural icons. Earl was the first to take the game to that level of offensive dominance. SVB continues this tradition and does so over a field of champions the likes of which hadn't been seen in the 80s. But both are true pool heroes and can share the throne of 'greatest evers' in my mind...
Thanks Jay.
Sometimes these comparisons make me laugh. Deep down we all know that the best of any era are so because they put the most in it plus natural talent. Anyone who believes SVB wouldn't be as good on old equipment or Earl as good on today's equipment when both were at their primes is just silly.
Today there are more really good players because the guys from Earls time shared the little secrets which can now be found anywhere on the net. Doesn't mean one time is better, it still takes the same level of dedication and talent to become great, but, with a bigger class of really great players today, I believe the ceiling today is higher. Greatness motivates yet even a higher level of greatness, almost all records fall when the brains sees the possibility of achievement(yup that's mine lol)
This does make good conversation amongst buddies however... Earl will forever have a place in my heart for shooting the liver out of his opponents, but SVB is the man!!! Lololol
What's a more objective measure of a player's overall level of performance?
How many players have played an error free match and not won?
Do you have the statistics to back this up? I actually think there may be more safety play in today's game than there was in, say, the 1980's.
he has the ability still. He took 2nd recently in the World Straight pool and beat Orcullo in the Gotham City tournament. He can still play with anybody. He just can't seem to keep it together mentally for more than a few matches. If he somehow could do that (yes, quite unlikely), he could win another Open.
You are joking, right?
No stats, but I do think the game is very aggressive today (at the top level), which is why I always laugh when people say 2 foul would increase aggression.
I watched the last two days, and don't recall seeing a bunch of safes. It seems like players today will only play safe when there is no way to make the ball.
Two shots that stick out the most were
Shaw's straight back on the 8 against Shane.
The super thin cut Chang made on the 1 ball in the finals against Shane.
But, Shane would definitely have not choked at 104-87 lead going to 120.
The GC3 table they used in TCOM had factory pocket openings. They were huge .
People don't realize how crazy good Shane's safety game and kicking game now. He beat Orcullo by his safety game.
Perhaps he wouldn't have choked, but he did lost something like a 20 game lead against Pagulayan years ago didn't he?
To make that call, all you have to do is look at the fact that Shane not only won the US Open 3 times in a row....but the fact that he WON it 4 times out of the last 5 years...THAT'S in itself as a record may just stand forever! Earl never even won it 2 times in a row.
To me Fargorate is a better measure of a player's overall measure because it measures wins and losses.
TPA is like amateurs playing league 8 ball and competing for points. If you have a lead you might just cinch up 5 open balls and accept losing that game. Or you might safety break. It's a goofy system that mutates the entire game. Fargorate is like playing a race to 13. The game itself won't change because you have to always do what gives you the best chance for an overall win.
Listen, I like TPA. I grew up watching accu-stats. Of course there aren't any 1.000s with players losing matches, but that's just saying wins and losses are correlated. The player that shoots a 1.000 will also get credit for a win, which I maintain is more important.
Another problem with TPA is it doesn't take into account the equipment. Is Mike Siegel's TPA comparable to SVB's when they're playing on different cloth, with different sized pockets, with racking templates, and who knows how many other variables? All of these things can drastically impact overall performance. You know what still holds true? Wins and losses, because everyone is fighting in the same arena.
Listen, wins and losses aren't perfect either, as there is a luck factor involved. Sometimes a player can miss and get safe repeatedly, and their TPA would decrease but they would still get a win. In that case the TPA is a better gauge of actual performance. But here's the thing- that's part of the game too. Because in the end the win is everything, and the only thing that truly matters.
The best advice that I have ever gotten in pool was to make more mistakes. I used to play way too tight, too controlled. I live in MN where Jimmy Wetch was our top player, he was a game manager extraordinaire. I played that type of style. But another player came along that was running TONs of racks, with offense like I'd never seen. He told me "It's not about how many mistakes you make, it's about how many racks you run". I still try not to make mistakes, but I'm more focused on playing to win rather than not to lose.
How can anyone dispute that winning is more important than anything else in competition? There was an entire movie made about it, 'You want to hustle pool, don't you? This isn't football, you don't get credit for yardage...' While it's interesting and occasionally beneficial to take a look at the various strengths and opportunities of the top players, when I bet on players and matches I'm much more concerned about their win-loss record.
All this said, wins and losses, fargo rate, and TPA are all correlated, it's not that one is bad, I just have a preference as to which I think is the highest priority.
As for safety play over the last 30 years, I don't have any statistics to back this up, and I didn't see you provide any either, I think we are both just using our own recollection. What has surprised me the most is those races to 15 'take what you make 8 ball' in which I might watch an entire match on tight equipment and only see 1 or 2 games where defense is tried, even when the balls looked unrunnable. Totally different from what the 8 ball bible said, and what was common decades ago. In rotation it's tough due to the amount of balls that go in on the break with the magic rack. I loved the US Open stream yesterday but I mourned for the day when people occasionally came up dry on the break, and there were tough clusters to contend with as balls grouped up in the rack area on occasion. Yesterday I don't know if I remember a dry break and there were never two balls touching. The game has changed, and if it seems more offensive to me, maybe that is partly because there are less times a safety needs to be played.