I agree completely.Efren the "GOAT": 5
No question.
Reyes is the all time non-stop BOSS of pool playing.
:thumbup:
I agree completely.Efren the "GOAT": 5
No question.
I think it would be pretty hard to argue that they would not coincide at least fairly closely. That aside, the former can be attained by having achievements (and/or skills) measured against others within certain eras, and the latter is what has to used to compare everyone across all eras to find the "Greatest of All Time".Greatness and skill level are not the same and may or may not coincide.
You are confusing and conflating "greatness" and "Greatest of All Time". To simplify, one possible measure of "greatness" is how you did against your peers in your era--aka achievement. That isn't the same as "Greatest of All Time" though, yet you want to continue to confuse and conflate the two and treat them as the same thing when they simply aren't remotely close to the same thing. If you are comparing achievements then you are discussing "Greatest of All Time for Their Era".Greatness is measured in a player's level of achievement...
This isn't really true either because there is a lot of luck involved in achievement. Francisco Bustamante is a good example of somebody who was far more skilled in his era than his achievements/titles would suggest. But for the sake of argument let's say your statement is true. It is still only one of the possible measures of their greatness in their era and has absolutely nothing to do with how their skills compare to others from other eras....and a player's level of achievement is measured in titles.
They absolutely look at performance, but performance alone, not performance compared to their contemporary peers. Taking the mile run as an example again, there is no question that one of the recent guys is considered the "Greatest of All Time". Now it may not be the current record holder, because maybe he only ran that time one and has never come within 5 seconds of it any other time and instead it is considered to be some other guy that runs mid and high 3:43's every single time, but it certainly isn't the 1855 guy or anybody similar.I don't know of any sport that looks at something other than performance in judging its all-time greats. Why should pool be the exception? Skill is not enough.
Again, skill/ability are all that matter in the "Greatest of All Time" discussion unless tie breakers are needed. On the other hand, for the "Greatest of All Time for Their Era" discussion, achievement is indeed one of the primary factors.Wu, a player whose great skill we all concede, has accomplishments that are far too few to merit his inclusion in a discussion of the all-time greats.
He has already proven that he can win big events against elite fields. Regardless, he is clearly more skilled that others with bigger resumes and so he has to be ahead of them in the "Greatest of All Time" discussion. Again, if I can beat you, there is zero point zero chance you are the "Greatest of All Time", period.If he has as much skill as you seem to believe, he'll have the titles soon enough, so perhaps our debate will end up being moot, but until his resume catches up to what one might call "the ability to win a whole bunch of the toughest events against the most elite fields," he can't be compared with those who have already done it.
They are part of the fabric of greatness (in their era). They have nothing to do with the "Greatest of All Time" though as that is something completely different. Stop confusing and conflating the two.We can agree to disagree, but performance and achievements are not a tiebreaker as you suggest. They are the very fabric of greatness.
Sometimes it's not possible to do this.
Imagine A, B, and C are the three best players, and whenever they play A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A.
Whoever is ranked number 1 will be someone one of the other two players beats.
This theory sounds like it could be feasible but I would submit that it rarely if ever happens and that in almost all cases where somebody thinks this is the case it is instead just a case of their having misjudged who would beat who. Even if you believe it can happen or is even common, it is immaterial to this discussion unless you think that it has happened here. If that is the case lay out who you think the top 3 greatest of all time players are and which ones beat which in that circular fashion.
If you don'think it is the case here, I would be interested to hear what examples you can come up that meet that criteria from among the top 3 greatest of all time in any other sport out there. I think it is about as rare as a 3 dollar bill.
Think about it this way. If it is wrong to rank one player higher than another player who beats them (let's say that means has a winning record against them), then the top-ranked player in any ranking must have a winning record against every other player on the list that they have played.
So, take Efren as the example. Efren has a losing record against both Mike Sigel and Nick Varner. This would mean that it would be wrong to rank Efren ahead of either of those two players.
An example from tennis would be Nadal and Federer. Federer is commonly considered the greatest tennis player of all time, despite the fact that his overall record against Nadal is currently 15 wins and 24 losses.
He has already proven that he can win big events against elite fields. Regardless, he is clearly more skilled that others with bigger resumes and so he has to be ahead of them in the "Greatest of All Time" discussion. Again, if I can beat you, there is zero point zero chance you are the "Greatest of All Time", period.
FYI, I added your name and score to the first post.Efren the "GOAT": 5
No question.
Corey was # 26 on my initial list, which had about 35 before I cut it down to 25. The main goal of this exercise is to come up with a Top 10, Top 5, and Top 1. Corey realistically would not have made the first cut down to the Top 10.How is Cory Deuel not even on the list?
The man changed the rules of professional 9ball with his cut break. All others on the list played within the rules.
If you want to officially vote, please list scores adding to 5, per the instructions in the first post.From a purely subjective viewpoint, 1. Efren, 2. Alex, 3. Shane
How is Cory Deuel not even on the list?
The man changed the rules of professional 9ball with his cut break. All others on the list played within the rules.
What is unsportsmanlike is purposefully using pattern racking when it is prohibited by the rules (even if your opponent or referees do not notice or are not knowledgeable). Corey and others have been known to do this at times. Although, I still give Corey a lot of create for discovering so many racking and breaking "innovations" over the years in both 9-ball and 8-ball. For more info, see:Figuring out a cool new break that tournament directors and some players hate,
doesn't make someone the greatest pool player of all time.
They changed the rules for Sean Avery too - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_2oKWe2Gw
he'd camp in front of the other team's goalie and harrass him, waving his stick and yelling to distract him.
Nobody thinks "they changed the rules for Sean Avery, that's what a great player he was."
Not that I'm calling soft breaking comparable to something that was clearly unsportsmanlike,
just saying that getting a rule changed doesn't mean someone's great.
Just means they're innovative.
FYI, I added your name and score to the first post.efren 5-best in my era-1965- present
FYI, I added your name and scores to the first post.Efren - 2
SVB - 2
Archer - 1
Efren - because he is the best.
Archer - because he influenced me the most when I started playing pool.
SVB - because he's influenced me the most since I've returned to pool
FYI, I added your name and scores to the first post.Alex- 2
Thorsten- 2
Orcollo - 1
But what I've been saying is to compare skill levels. If I am more skilled than you then you aren't the greatest of all time. Yes, to try to illustrate my point I have also referred to it as "if I can beat you then you aren't the GOAT" but I am talking about a skills comparison. Of course a lesser skilled player can beat or even have a winning record against a more skilled player due to luck or various other reasons.
Look at it this way. If I can consistently run close to but no better than a 3:44 mile, and you can run close to but no better than a 4:28 mile consistently, then here is zero chance you are the "Greatest of All Time". None. Doesn't matter who you have beat. Doesn't matter who I have lost to, including you. You don't have the skills that I do. You aren't the "Greatest of All Time".
What I can't fathom is how anybody could rank somebody higher than somebody else who would beat them.