Well if Shane came to Taiwan or China Im sure he could find people who would play him for 50k.
Shane Has Won World Titles
- Thread starter OLD NO 9
- Start date
Well if Shane came to Taiwan or China Im sure he could find people who would play him for 50k.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's a myth that the players there are 100deep in Shane level skills and they all have unlimited backing.
I have seen good foreign players ducked by good Chinese and Taiwanese players for not even $500. Oscar Dominguez had to give up the nuts just to get a $200 game in Shanghai once.
But you're probably right, the Chinese and Taiwanese LOVE to gamble and there is serious money there.
Yes, the gambling match where Shane won by the margin of nearly 2:1 on the scoreboard vs. the short set tournament matches that any halfway decent player can win.
Why don't people here understand that in any given race to 5,7, or 9 or even 11 any good player can have a great set and beat a better player. The longer the races get the less chance that a weaker player will win because it's harder to sustain a level higher than you really are over longer periods.
Each player has an average level that they play at consistently. Sometimes they will play above that average and sometimes below it. For a variety of reasons.
I can and have beaten top players in short sets playing well above my average. Conversely I have lost against much weaker players by playing well under my average.
Tournaments have their own set of tough conditions and they must be respected. People who win tournaments are to be respected. But it's a false comparison to take a tournament result and say that the winner is a better player than anyone else simply because he won a tournament. The fact is he was better during that event than everyone he faced.
In any sport the head to head matchup is the ultimate test between two people. Take out all the other competitors, all the other factors and pit two competitors against each other in a long enough match to eliminate virtually all luck variances and the person who really has the higher average gear will win most often.
I admire Nick for inviting Shane to come and play for $5000. That takes guts and I am sure Nick learned a lot for the experience. And third in the US Open as well as his Eurotour success shows that he is really rising as a player. But he isn't at Shane's level yet as far as I have seen it. That doesn't mean he can't win some sets though.
Apart from incorrectly using the term "false comparison", what you are saying is simply false. It absolutely is the case that whoever wins the tournament was the best player on the day.
SVB has competed in, and lost, numerous individual World titles. This means that on each and every occasion there was at least one player better than him on that day.
Someone cited a "study" that "proved" momentum in pool matches earlier in the thread. A subjective opinion of a tiny sample in an uncontrolled environment only proves the gullibility of some readers. Garbage.
I said that the player who won was the better player DURING THAT EVENT.
Shane has competed in numerous tournaments with the word WORLD in the title. He has to date not won any of them. However any of the winners of those events are invited to play him in the race to 100 format.
Is it your contention that every winner of these events is a consistently better player than Shane simply because they have a "World" title and Shane does not?
One of those years. Point being it is his ONLY world title and yet no one was ragging on him about how he couldn't win.
Busty was the most feared money player on the planet for most of his career. Although he had only a handful of titles and no world title he was universally respected and feared wherever he went.
Only a few players on the globe dared to tangle with him even up and they were champions as well.
Even now people are knocking down his door trying to play big money sets with him.
Shane, like Busty will eventually get the "no World Championship" monkey off his back. But until then Shane like Busty is both respected and feared by those who actually count, his peers. Only a handful of players around the world dare to jump in the box with Shane for significant money.
Any player will play him for low stakes just to see how they do. But very few will bet it up against him.
Yes, Shane hasn't won any world title yet, which really doesn't take anything out from his value as a player as already noted.
He is one living proof that Pool has advanced.
Actually in Athens another Greek champion won that tournament, Apostolis Aleksandris against Nick in the final.
You know my opinion on the alternate break formats, I don't like them, but that doesn't take anything out from the Greek players doing well in any tournament with players like Shane, Ralf, Niels, etc...
As far as the challenge match, it was definitely an exhibition of superior Pool by Shane, easy table but still one of the best sets we've seen in 10ball ever.
Shane practiced the break a lot there too, and rack your own may not be the crucial factor in breaking, especially with his break but it is important even when a magic rack is used.
During the tournament Shane didn't like the rule of racking for your opponent which stands in Greek tournaments if any of the players want to follow it, out of courtesy one of the Greek players that wanted to aplly it against Shane gave up on the idea against him. A magic rack was used in the tournament too.
So racking your own doesn't take anything out of Shane's game value, but be sure that as a pro Shane doesn't want to take out anything from his game too...
He is one living proof that Pool has advanced.
Actually in Athens another Greek champion won that tournament, Apostolis Aleksandris against Nick in the final.
You know my opinion on the alternate break formats, I don't like them, but that doesn't take anything out from the Greek players doing well in any tournament with players like Shane, Ralf, Niels, etc...
As far as the challenge match, it was definitely an exhibition of superior Pool by Shane, easy table but still one of the best sets we've seen in 10ball ever.
Shane practiced the break a lot there too, and rack your own may not be the crucial factor in breaking, especially with his break but it is important even when a magic rack is used.
During the tournament Shane didn't like the rule of racking for your opponent which stands in Greek tournaments if any of the players want to follow it, out of courtesy one of the Greek players that wanted to aplly it against Shane gave up on the idea against him. A magic rack was used in the tournament too.
So racking your own doesn't take anything out of Shane's game value, but be sure that as a pro Shane doesn't want to take out anything from his game too...
Last edited:
And ask Kazakis if he wants to play Shane in a race to 100 for $10,000 or more? If he can staked I am sure the answer is yes. If on his own money the answer might be no.
No, that's not what you said. It might be what you were thinking, or what you retrospectively wish you had said, but it's not what you communicated. Context is king. Don't get shouty with me because of your failure with the English language.
However, I'm glad that we now agree that every time SVB has played in a world title event there were a minimum of 4-7 players better than him.
Oh, and please don't put you words in my mouth - they taste particularly poor. If I have any "contentions" I'll make them known myself.
Shane doesn't play on his own money too, and I don't know if he would play in a rack for the opponent format. His manager was with him in Athens. Nevertheless he is surely a much better player than the 10 years younger Alex, he's one of the best the game has ever seen.
Shane 100% will play on his own money. He just doesn't have to. At this point in his career he has backers applying to back him. As well Shane is loyal to those who supported him while he was coming up and so gives them the opportunity to be in on the action.
The question goes like this.
Can you get staked to play Shane for a large amount in a race to 100?
A few players on Earth have that backing if they choose to use it for that. Most do not.
Most will not choose to play if they have to put up their own money.
I believe there isn't a living human that Shane would not play on his own money. I guess we just have to ask him.
Also the person who accompanied Shane isn't his manager, he is one of Shane's backers. Shane asked him if he wanted to take a vacation to Greece.
No, that's not what you said. It might be what you were thinking, or what you retrospectively wish you had said, but it's not what you communicated. Context is king. Don't get shouty with me because of your failure with the English language.
However, I'm glad that we now agree that every time SVB has played in a world title event there were a minimum of 4-7 players better than him.
Oh, and please don't put you words in my mouth - they taste particularly poor. If I have any "contentions" I'll make them known myself.
It is exactly what I said. You are the one who seems to be having trouble with the English language.
Let me spell it out a little better. In any tournament Shane plays in, every other player regardless of where they finish, has an open invitation to play Shane heads up. So if they played better than him that day they are invited to keep it going on the next day in a race to 100.
Because the race to 100 format takes almost all of the variables that exist in a tournament out of the picture and pits two individuals against each other in a long enough race to even out the lucky rolls.
And if I get "shouty" you will know it. That is expressed on the internet as using ALL CAPS. Otherwise it's simply your own projection.
So instead of resorting to word games why don't you pick your roster of 4-7 better players and offer to escrow $50,000 to stake any of them and see if your offer is not met immediately if not sooner.
You said "The fact is he was better during that event than everyone he faced."
You then said "I said that the player who won was the better player DURING THAT EVENT." (note the caps denoting shouting, your emphasis)
Being better than only people you faced and being the better player during that event is not the same thing. If you can't see these are fundamentally different statements your literary skills are poorer than I first feared and I would recommend you take an evening class to get up to speed.
It may be your confused presentation, but I'm still not clear how races to 100 have any relevance to a players ability to win world titles, which are contested over much shorter races. Perhaps you could explain, rather than trying to goad people into gambling?
Last edited:
Actually there were two guys together with Shane, anyway, that's not the main issue.
As far as the betting hypothesis, I want to offer a couple of arguments:
We can't know for sure what Shane will decide to do with his own money in every challenge match case.
The betting hypothesis has another relative side to it too:
Would Shane for eg go for an alternate break format, neutral racker or rack for the opponent, against Niels or Darren, with them being backed up by some millionaire that will offer a bet of multiple millions, and Shane having to struggle to raise that amount?....
He will surely be in more stress on his side, but it doesn't mean he wouldn't accept and it doesn't mean that if he doesn't accept that it will be because he doesn't believe in himself. It's just about odds in those things, and pros go for the odds.
All caps can also be used for emphasis. Context remember?
It is generally considered that the player who won the event was the best player during that event. Everyone I know in pool speaks that way when talking about the winners of tournaments. Not everyone agrees that the best player in the field wins each event but everyone agrees that the best player that week won that event.
Very simply this, if a player is CONSIDERED to be a better player by virtue of winning short set events then that player SHOULD be able to beat any challenger in a long set format.
Thus the current World Champion, Niels Feijen should be able to beat Shane Van Boening in a race to 100 if we go by the logic that Niels is the better player because he won a world title and Shane has not.
Has nothing to do with goading anyone. Pure logic dictates that in pool the shorter the race the more people who can win it. The longer the race the more time for rolls and skill differences to even out and become important to the outcome.
You guys are getting out of hand with this "betting hypothesis."
Shane can do what he wants with his money and we all know that anyone will play if they have a backer. How Shane chooses to use his own cash, should not detract his playing abilities. Shane can beat Darren and Niels, just as they can beat Shane. They are professionals and play well enough that anyone can win if their opponent makes enough mistakes. Even if Shane played Neils for $100,000 of his own cash, with Mosconi Cup rules, a neutral racker, and he wins by a huge margin, people will still banter about Shane not being a world beater.
We should operate in the realm of available money. Assuming that Shane has the money to risk and wishes to then I would be confident in saying that there are very few players if any that he would not put his own money into play against.
Shane by the way is backed by at least one millionaire who might take the bet if someone might really offer such a bet.
Shane has already proven in the past that he will play other people's games. He played Donny Mills in RYO 9 ball with pattern racking allowed and Donny was killing Shane for the first couple days. Shane tried to copy Donny's methods and wasn't having the same success and finally Shane resorted to the break he knows and emerged victorious.
And to Donny's credit, Shane has wisely refused to try that game again.
I think at this point though Shane isn't about to back down from challenges like magic rack but he might not want to do alternate break since packages are a big part of his game. But the only way to find out is for someone to challenge him to that game and see what happens.
the prophet?
But "corvette" says that Shane would dominate the world and it's a "FACT"!
How can you argue with a prophet who knows the future?
LOL Shane himself has said he has not won world title. He is a nice guy and saying that he has is an embarassment to him.
-1 Idiotic post of the day. Same poppycock. Just like a kid throwing tantrums when he does not have his way :thumbup:
+1
That is scotch doubles so can say he is 50% there. He will get his world title soon if he continues his top notch performance and excellent work ethic
But "corvette" says that Shane would dominate the world and it's a "FACT"!
How can you argue with a prophet who knows the future?
And then Niels may do the same thing against Shane in another similar occasion, like you wrote.
I don't think there's a lot of people questioning Shane's abilities, and to set the record straight as much as possible, the whole discussion started from Shane's fans who claimed perhaps prematurely or by overstating that "nobody is even close to him" etc...
I mentioned the bet hypothesis only to show that it doesn't apply 100% in every case.
In my good days when I reached A division in Greece, I once played in tournament a D player, racking for opponent, race to 7, and I lost after watching the 9 go in 6 times in different pockets after kiss offs.
If that player for eg offered to play me for 100.000 (his daily expenses if he would be a millionaire - a really important amount for me), I would think about it even if I knew I could beat him 99%.
Just as there are players who can outplay others, there are backers who can "outback" others, and I imagine that Shane like every pro could face some limits there.
All this kind of discussions are always interesting, but in the end you can never have a definite conclusion because they are based in theoretical scenarios.
Last edited:
Ahhhh I gotcha. I'm a fan of Shane, but I'm also a fan of Dennis O. and I do enjoy watching Neils play. Anyone who says that there is no one close to Shane is full of bull, there are plenty players that can play that well. While it's amazing that Shane has won 3 US Open titles back to back, it's also amazing for some of the other players, like Dennis O. with his wins at Derby City. The accu-stats recordings of Dennis and Shanes TAR match, will open some people's eyes to how well other players can play too.