The snooker world championship used to have extremely long races. In the 1940s it was a race to 73 for a few years.
I would never watch a match that took a few years.
The snooker world championship used to have extremely long races. In the 1940s it was a race to 73 for a few years.
I would never watch a match that took a few years.
Wow, too bad the people who run the sport haven't figured out this point that is so obvious to you. We're only 40 years into the nine ball era, after all. Perhaps they'll figure this out sometime in the next 40 years.
The snooker world championship used to have extremely long races. In the 1940s it was a race to 73 for a few years. Settling on a race to 18 in 1980 and sticking with it contributed to the growth of snooker as a televised sport. The best players still win it and all of those who have won it more than once are widely regarded as greats of the game and are known for their snooker skills beyond the annual world snooker tournament. Steve Davis won it 6 times, Stephen Hendry 7, Ronnie O’Sullivan 5 - all when it was race to 18. They are all regarded as head and shoulders above their rivals in their respective eras. Ronnie O has actually underperformed because he is so talented that he is, funnily enough, better at shorter races
Because players don't train or prepare for this, nor should they. You might feel that a 26.2 mile marathon is an insufficient test of marathon running, but I'm not really not interested in whether the winner would still win if the race were 100 miles, because the sport of marathoning is defined by the 26.2 mile distance. The race to 100 has no more relevance to pool than the 100 mile run. It's no more than a novelty.
[...]
Where we start moving down different paths is when I feel you start dismissing long sets as a novelty. Yes, it is different. Quite different. But it is still a meaningful contest to a lot of people. Allowing momentum to shift back and forth multiple times, making adjustments with shot selection based on match dynamics and mindset, a test of will and consistency, of who can keep the momentum the longest when they have it, and who can wrestle it away the quickest when they don't. I enjoy this so much.[...]
Hey Stu!
I think tournament formats are great. I can understand the impatience that comes from SVB fan boys that dismiss the dominance of players from the far East and Europe by saying 'they're just flipping coins, let's see 'em post up and play for the dough', all while playing regional bar table tournaments and plateauing at semi-pro speed. Totally fair. I think anyone that would dismiss accomplishments of the magnitude of the world championships, US Open, and even Mosconi Cup are really missing the boat.
Where we start moving down different paths is when I feel you start dismissing long sets as a novelty. Yes, it is different. Quite different. But it is still a meaningful contest to a lot of people. Allowing momentum to shift back and forth multiple times, making adjustments with shot selection based on match dynamics and mindset, a test of will and consistency, of who can keep the momentum the longest when they have it, and who can wrestle it away the quickest when they don't. I enjoy this so much.
I understand it's not your thing, but why does it have to be considered a gimmick? It's just a different game that many people like. Kind of like One Pocket, or Straight Pool. If someone said they liked 14.1 and wanted to see a 14.1 tournament, would that be a novelty? It's a different game and has nothing to do with 9 ball. But longing for a 14.1 tournament isn't meant to dismiss 9 ball the way Mosconi did (it's for bangers, it's not real pool, etc), it's just because some people like straight pool.
I can understand casting your vote on what you think is the most prestigious format. And I can definitely understand why you wouldn't want to see that dismissed or minimized. I also happen to think there is enough room in pool for various formats, and there are enough players that enjoy longer matches that it's a meaningful test that should be respected.
Yes, you need to become a more well-rounded player to succeed against a variety of players.
Against a great defensive player, you better be a great kicker. Against a poor kicker, you'll be more successful if you play a little more defense, so it will help if you have all the defensive skills. Against a great shotmaker, you must offer less when you push out, and leave more distance when forced to leave a shot. You can afford to leave bank shots to some players but there are tactical adjustments needed against the elite bank pool players. When a shot can played two ways, the defense, should it occur, needs to be a little stronger against some opponents than others. Etc., Etc. , Etc.
For these and many other reasons, only the true greats can navigate the waters needed to win the toughest titles.
Snooker is a much harder game and it doesn’t take nearly as long to separate the best from others, and it’s still a race to 18.
Jason
Hey Stu!
I think tournament formats are great. I can understand the impatience that comes from SVB fan boys that dismiss the dominance of players from the far East and Europe by saying 'they're just flipping coins, let's see 'em post up and play for the dough', all while playing regional bar table tournaments and plateauing at semi-pro speed. Totally fair. I think anyone that would dismiss accomplishments of the magnitude of the world championships, US Open, and even Mosconi Cup are really missing the boat.
Where we start moving down different paths is when I feel you start dismissing long sets as a novelty. Yes, it is different. Quite different. But it is still a meaningful contest to a lot of people. Allowing momentum to shift back and forth multiple times, making adjustments with shot selection based on match dynamics and mindset, a test of will and consistency, of who can keep the momentum the longest when they have it, and who can wrestle it away the quickest when they don't. I enjoy this so much.
I understand it's not your thing, but why does it have to be considered a gimmick? It's just a different game that many people like. Kind of like One Pocket, or Straight Pool. If someone said they liked 14.1 and wanted to see a 14.1 tournament, would that be a novelty? It's a different game and has nothing to do with 9 ball. But longing for a 14.1 tournament isn't meant to dismiss 9 ball the way Mosconi did (it's for bangers, it's not real pool, etc), it's just because some people like straight pool.
I can understand casting your vote on what you think is the most prestigious format. And I can definitely understand why you wouldn't want to see that dismissed or minimized. I also happen to think there is enough room in pool for various formats, and there are enough players that enjoy longer matches that it's a meaningful test that should be respected.
There is a difference in finding the true best and running tournaments.
Btw, look at the sport again and tell me how great the people “running” it are doing.
This should be good.
Jason
Josh is a fabulous player. Is he the best player in the world IMO, well not yet.From December 2017 to April 2019, Josh Filler accomplished the following:
December 2017: A 5-0 campaign at the Mosconi, earning him the Mosconi Cup MVP.
June 2018: Won the World Pool Series 10-ball event with some of the straightest shooting I have ever seen.
Dec 2018: Won the World 9-ball Championship against a stellar field.
Jan 2019: Ran 285 balls in straight pool to set the high run record at Derby City.
Jan 2019: Beat JL Chang 17-14 in 10-ball in a high stakes action match at Derby City.
Feb 2019: Won the Eurotour event at Leende in the Netherlands
April 2019: Topped an elite field of 256 at the US Open 9-ball
So here goes. Is Josh Filler now the World's best pool player? What's your opinion?
As for me, I'm still deciding.
Ah, so it isn't enough that you label tournaments as insufficiently conclusive for determination of the best, you also see a need to bash those who have built and administered our sport. I wonder why you watch pool at all.
I have every right to think a race to 9 or 11 is insufficient to determine the best player, but I have never once said those titles are not legitimate. If you want to start making shit up, go ahead.
Jason
... no, but you have implied that the sport doesn't run the kind of events that will determine who the best players are. I have never heard anyone suggest that this was the case in my 53 years around the game, but maybe this is the case. I can, do and will continue to disagree.
Best we part ways in this debate. You can enjoy the sport as you please and I'll do the same. Wishing you the best.
<SNIP>
If you want to really know who a better player is on any given day, there is no need to Race to 100. Just play Ten Ahead at 9-Ball or Five Ahead at One Pocket and you will find out. Winning a match 100-96 doesn't really tell me who the better player is. But when one guy gets ten games ahead of another that to me is telling. Right then he's the best of the two!
<SNIP>
We just have differing viewpoints on how the best should be determined.
I enjoy all the events as much as you do, and look forward to your trip reports.
Keep up the great posts:thumbup:
Jason