Oh, wow. Well, if you strenuously object I should take some time to reconsider.
This years US Open 9 ball is has the strongest field ever assembled in history
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
Oh, wow. Well, if you strenuously object I should take some time to reconsider.
If you were able to find enough historical tournament results, I think Fargo could potentially compare ratings of past to today. It would be the same idea as to how Fargo compares players between different areas so long as there are connections.
But I don't think you can just use Earl or Johnny's fargo rating and compare their 80's competition against it. I think you would need to get a snap shot of how they were playing at that time. But, maybe that's a non-issue, I don't really know how this stuff works.
All of the top players have had peak times where they dominated. If you want to know how players would fair against each other in their primes, then check their prime accustats ratings. If you want to know ones career rating against their peers, then fargorate is the way to go.
For example- Archer dominated in the 90's. What was his accustat rating during that time? Hall had a great late comeback where he dominated for a year or two. What was his accustat rating during that period??
Likewise , SVB dominates today, check his acc. rating. You now have an average acc. rating of three players in their prime. It's now easy to see how they would have faired against each other in their prime. Regardless of era.
I know a few, like Strickland and Archer were averaging in the low .900's for a while. That is near perfect pool. A contender no matter the era or peer competitiveness.
I think it's time to get rid of the negativity in pool.....
....instead of object balls, we should shoot the ones that are agreeable.
Does that mean he objects while constipated on the crapper?
There's also the equipment variables that would play a factor in that gold crowns back then were not as tight as diamonds but vice versa, the plays of yesterday did not have the cue technology and health consciousness that players of today have.
Who knows how well Luther lassiter would've played if he was in shape, didn't smoke, and grew up with low deflection shafts.
I still believe Fargo rate could get more accurate if it utilized in some way, Dr. Dave's Table Difficulty Factor and incorporated it within the numbers somehow.
On a side note to this; I'd really like to see Rhay put the money where the mouth is .... ugh, like as in betting on every single Fargo favorite for this tourney. Not $5 buck either, keep it friendly at $100 a match. You SOOOO believe in Fagro, what say you Rhay?
I will bet this with you and am not a Fargorate fanatic, but I think It's not bad. Every match, I will take the Fargorate favorite. Starting from match 1. You let me know if we are betting $5-$100 per match. We can bet every match or just the streamed ones.
P.S. Pease don't take it as me attacking you. I just do not understand how what you are offering could not be stealing on Rhea's side. Now if you are talking about only betting the matches you pick, the same could ALWAYS be said of ANY rating system.
Last edited:
I'm saying Rhay won't back up all the bliss. As to me betting , give me a sec to count my pocket money
Attachments
Givin’ me a life time of devotion?
About comparing player present and past. I liken it to say weightlifting just to give a crude example.
Maybe a weightlifter in the 80’s hit 500 kilos. He won by lifting that amount of weight, and the way things work, he sort of knew he had to lift that amount to win so he trained targeting that amount.
If you placed him 20 years into the future, and now to win it would take 520 kilos. He’d train for that, and the truth is, nobody knows. Maybe he’d get there, and maybe he wouldn’t. But many great players are great because they have a tendency to rise to the occasion no matter the obstacle. It’s useless to speculate though.
All you can do is discern who was the best at any given point in time. You can’t legitimately say players are better now in my opinion. The way this stuff shakes out has more to do with how the performances of the entire field are fueling the performances of the great players at that point in time.
Maybe a weightlifter in the 80’s hit 500 kilos. He won by lifting that amount of weight, and the way things work, he sort of knew he had to lift that amount to win so he trained targeting that amount.
If you placed him 20 years into the future, and now to win it would take 520 kilos. He’d train for that, and the truth is, nobody knows. Maybe he’d get there, and maybe he wouldn’t. But many great players are great because they have a tendency to rise to the occasion no matter the obstacle. It’s useless to speculate though.
All you can do is discern who was the best at any given point in time. You can’t legitimately say players are better now in my opinion. The way this stuff shakes out has more to do with how the performances of the entire field are fueling the performances of the great players at that point in time.
I'd like to get in on this on Ibas end.
All we have to do is look at the whole chart when the tournament is over and start passing blues (100s) back and forth.
Chess has some serious inflation problems, and in some ways we are more sophisticated than they have been.
With that said, we don't have the longitudinal problem solved. 800 five years from now may not mean the same thing as 800 today. There are some things we could do the fix this, but they would come at the expense of rating players accurately relative to one another today--a tradeoff we are at this point not now willing to make.
So things may change in the future (we have all the raw data, so it'd just a matter of re-analysis) but at this point assume we say nothing about changes in the overall level of play in time.
I will say, though, that in every activity I can think of with an ABSOLUTE measure of performance--running--jumping--swimming--weightlifting... performance now is better that performance a few or several decades ago. My daughter in high school swam better times than did Johnny Weismuller--Tarzan and 1930's Olympian. To imagine activities like pool without an absolute measure are somehow different is romantic fantasy, imo...
Already bored. Got plenty of action, all good. Make it fun and win some,,,,,,,
Wait a minute...
Did you high-roll Rhea--who you have no reason to believe is into wagering at all
and then get called on it by a few others?
and you're suddenly bored?
It would be interesting to see what the results would be for the whole tournament.
I would have to guess at least 80% to the good. Should be over 300 matches total.
Our no!!!?? Justin or Rjay has hacked us!!!!? I'm all good, really. With the lengths I go when I go online all I can say is good luck and have fun lololol!
