It's definitely more difficult to become the top-ranked player in the world than it is to win a world championship.
SVB's world titles
- Thread starter Slasher
- Start date
It's definitely more difficult to become the top-ranked player in the world than it is to win a world championship.
Is it fair?
How are we to judge that South Dakota Kid? Where does he stand in amongst the greats?
Can't really compare the tournament money to days gone by, as the money ain't there.
Is his competition better or worse then years ago, especially in rotation with the Asian players that are so strong today.
Is his 8 and 9 and 10 Ball game as good as the legends of days past? Is the over all competition better now and has the world stage changed in pool?
Are we to judge him by world titles if the competition is different now?
The Mosconi Cup is not a measure of his talent. Any honest person admits that
I am left with this. He is the best 10 Ball player, the best long set 9 Ball player and no one breaks like him.
He is way beyond good, he is great.
.
How are we to judge that South Dakota Kid? Where does he stand in amongst the greats?
Can't really compare the tournament money to days gone by, as the money ain't there.
Is his competition better or worse then years ago, especially in rotation with the Asian players that are so strong today.
Is his 8 and 9 and 10 Ball game as good as the legends of days past? Is the over all competition better now and has the world stage changed in pool?
Are we to judge him by world titles if the competition is different now?
The Mosconi Cup is not a measure of his talent. Any honest person admits that
I am left with this. He is the best 10 Ball player, the best long set 9 Ball player and no one breaks like him.
He is way beyond good, he is great.
.
That is admittedly far closer than I thought it would be. Would be interesting to see across other disciplines too as I was thinking of snooker in my head when I said that, where its more pronounced.
Would be interesting to see other pool disciplines and see if the trend is the same.
Do any of the top players like to gamble against each other, without a backer?
I would be surprised if thats unique to SVB?
This may be a repeat of some prior discussions, but any major championship is a top prize. There is some disagreement as to what tournaments make up the majors, but any world championship, a US Open, Master of the table at DCC ( which I believe is the hardest one to win and the most prestigious) and either the China or Japan Open, puts the winner a cut above the rest. Those who win those titles can honestly say they are the elite of the game. It's not just this tournament or that one.
I find it fascinating the gravitas people put on a single-elimination race to 11
tournament with a couple races to 9 leading into it. It is so easy for the best, most pulled together, most skilled, most focused, most committed player in the field to fail to make the elimination phase or be knocked out 1st round. Sure, you have to be one of the top players to win. But which one of those top players wins is more like a pull on a slot machine than a true head-to-head test
There are such statistical swings it is ridiculous....
Look at these two matches a couple hours apart from last year's Turning Stone. Here you have two of the best players in the world. In the long haul they're pretty close. But here you've got a decisive win in one direction, hit the reset button, and then a decisive win in the other direction. There is not some massive change in who has heart, who holds up to the pressure, who got a good night's sleep, or who is more skilled. These are just swings.
Attachments
If you asked any Snooker player you would find the opposite, the World Snooker title simply carries the most prestige and most players would probably trade 20 ranking events for one world.
Back to the original point of my question, it was that at Turning Stone he was introduced as "multiple world champion" and to me it seems somewhat disingenuous if it's not true.
I think you are right if you look at the US Open on average over many years. But the new US Open 9-Ball with the $1000 entry is a different beast. Last Fall it had 27 of the top 30 rated players in the world. We have not found another tournament in the last three years that had as strong a field. Here is a comparison to World 9-Ball
Attachments
When it comes to World Championships, players will practice heavily before the tournament. While in Open tournaments they will come regardless if they made any preparations or not. Hence the outcome is different.
Again, we're not talking about prestige, we're talking about difficulty.
Ok, let's use your logic that US Open is more difficult. So if it is then why did SVB won more than one US Open crown and never a World Championship if it is easier to win?
Well...you can argue about that statement.
It is true that the Snooker WC carries the most prestige and all the great players have won it.
But it also has been won by others like Graeme Dott, Stuart Bingham, John Parrot, Ken Doherty or Peter Ebdon. These are or were very,very strong players, but not the names that come to your mind when you think about the best snooker players of all time.
Therefore the number one spot in the world rankings is at least as prestigious than a WC titel, especially if you mange to defend that spot for a long period...as I think about it, I don`t think that there were more than 10 different number one players in the modern era, so maybe that explains, why being number one has such a high value for Snooker players.
If you want to use that kind of logic, then why has a 16 year old won a World 9-Ball Chapionship, but never a US Open.
He’s probably played in a lot more US Opens. Maybe a dozen US Opens and 4 W9Bs.
This was a facebook note on this issue https://www.facebook.com/notes/farg...-for-a-pool-tournament-ever/1632712436781091/
When you consider with what frequency superior skill is actually the determining factor of the medal color won in a typical Olympic event, you have to ask yourself, "How does total medals won not determine victory at the Olympics?".
But to be fair, doesn't the US always report medals that way?
The rest of the world views the most Gold's as the 'winner', but the US is consistent (I believe), it wasn't just because it made it look better for US viewers.