Is Josh Filler the World's Best Pool Player?

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
As you (and Jay) may recall, I really dislike statements like "the cream always rises to the top" as a justification for things like slop rules and short races. I view it as a specious argument. From 5 years ago, here is one of my rebuttals to such statements. Especially note that my concern is not regarding just the event winners, but everyone trying to earn a living in this game. https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4525290&postcount=30

For this most recent event, with races to 8 in Stage 1, you said "most of the cream had no trouble rising to the top in Stage 1. ... ." I think quite a few bottles of cream (e.g., Van Boening, Biado, Kaçi, Gorst, Aranas. Ouschan, and more) were spilled on the floor and went down the drain. Of course, some of that sort of thing always happens, regardless of race length, but the shorter the race the more likely it is.

The races to 8 on stream for the World 10B averaged just 74 minutes (only 2 matches went over an hour and a half), whereas they were scheduled at 2½-hour intervals. When we're asking players to spend this long at an event, I think it's appropriate for the races to be longer than to 8 for determining who recovers their expenses or even profits a bit.

A couple weeks ago I learned (or was reminded) that they played races to 5 in the group stage of the WPA World 9B Championship in 2004. But I guess that was fine, because the cream (Pagulayan) rose to the top.

I see professional pool becoming more and more like professional golf in that there is less separation among the pro level players than ever before. On the PGA tour just this year we have seen several new players (two just out of college) win tour events. The best players still manage to make their presence felt and are at their best in the most important tournaments (Brooks Koepka this year!). This holds true for pool as well. We keep seeing new faces emerge from the proving grounds of the Euro Tour and Taiwan and the Philippines have young talented players still waiting in the wings to make their presence felt.

Pool continues to grow in popularity worldwide and as this happens and the tournament prize money increases you can expect to keep seeing new young players who are challenging and beating the name players. That said, if you look at the final sixteen players in the recent World Ten Ball, at least half of them are long standing champions of our sport. There is only one (Yoshioka) unfamiliar name on the list and a couple of the less well known Euro players, who have done well in Europe and are not unknown to the other top players.

There is more parity in pro pool today and it should be no surprise if a relative unknown goes deep or even wins a big tournament (although I have yet to see that happen - an actual win by an unknown or little known player). That happens far more often in golf, even in fields full of big name players (Mathew Wolf, fresh out of college, won a recent full tour event!). Nothing like that has happened in pool as yet. Ko P. Chung is a very well known player who has been knocking on the door for a long time now.

Somehow in pro pool, the final six to eight players always seem to be among the elite in the game. There has been an occasional surprise (Yoshioka again) but that is an outlier, especially in major tournaments.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
A couple weeks ago I learned (or was reminded) that they played races to 5 in the group stage of the WPA World 9B Championship in 2004. But I guess that was fine, because the cream (Pagulayan) rose to the top.

Yes, remember it well, and if you do, too, then you remember it wasn't double elimination in the group stage.

The group stage back then was round robin. Groups were drawn with the seeded players separated. I believe two of the seeded players were placed in each of the 16 groups and the other players were drawn into the groups at random. You played a race to five against every other player in your group and your record at the end of the round robin relative to those in your own group determined whether you advanced to the next stage.

The round robin consisted of a whole lot of matches and took quite a long time, but I enjoyed that format. For the elite, getting out of the round robin was largely a formality, but seeding was at stake and always proved important in the knockout stage. It was important to win your group to end up with a good draw in Stage 2, the knockout stage.

As you noted, Alex played pretty sporty in 2004. Earl won with the same format in 2002.

Today, it's a little harder to reach the knockout stages, because there are so many elite players, so more great players miss out on getting to the knockout stages of the toughest events, but most of the elite tend to get there. This will remain true no matter how long we make the races.

Which format do you prefer, the old way or the new way? Not sure why the round robin was abandoned. Might be because it took so long to get through it.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... There is more parity in pro pool today and it should be no surprise if a relative unknown goes deep or even wins a big tournament (although I have yet to see that happen - an actual win by an unknown or little known player). ...

I guess Wu Jiaqing would be the one. He had some high finishes on the San Miguel Tour, but I'm not aware of any wins before his two world championships in 2005.

[would Tommy Kennedy or Reed Pierce qualify? I see Reed won the 1994 Dallas Open before his US Open win in 1995.]
 
Last edited:

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
I guess Wu Jiaqing would be the one. He had some high finishes on the San Miguel Tour, but I'm not aware of any wins before his two world championships in 2005.

It can, similarly, be argued that Thorsten Hohmann was largely unknown and came out of nowhere when he prevailed over Alex Pagulayan in the final of the 2003 World 9-ball Championship. I know I'd never heard of him until then. I believe he was 24 when he shocked the world.
 

rossaroni

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I guess Wu Jiaqing would be the one. He had some high finishes on the San Miguel Tour, but I'm not aware of any wins before his two world championships in 2005.

[would Tommy Kennedy or Reed Pierce qualify? I see Reed won the 1994 Dallas Open before his US Open win in 1995.]

Wu was also 9 years old (not really) when he won, so there couldn’t have been a lot known about him up to that point.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Yes, remember it well, and if you do, too, then you remember it wasn't double elimination in the group stage.

The group stage back then was round robin. Groups were drawn with the seeded players separated. I believe two of the seeded players were placed in each of the 16 groups and the other players were drawn into the groups at random. You played a race to five against every other player in your group and your record at the end of the round robin relative to those in your own group determined whether you advanced to the next stage.

The round robin consisted of a whole lot of matches and took quite a long time, but I enjoyed that format. For the elite, getting out of the round robin was largely a formality, but seeding was at stake and always proved important in the knockout stage. It was important to win your group to end up with a good draw in Stage 2, the knockout stage.

Yes, it was round robin in 16 groups of 8, with 4 from each group moving on to the last 64. So the difference between winning or losing a single race to 5, e.g. a 4-3 record vs. a 3-4 record, could have determined whether you were in or out for a chance at a decent payday. [I don't know what the actual qualifying records were.]

As you noted, Alex played pretty sporty in 2004. Earl won with the same format in 2002.

Today, it's a little harder to reach the knockout stages, because there are so many elite players, so more great players miss out on getting to the knockout stages of the toughest events, but most of the elite tend to get there. This will remain true no matter how long we make the races.

Agree, perhaps with the word "most" changed to "many."

Which format do you prefer, the old way or the new way? Not sure why the round robin was abandoned. Might be because it took so long to get through it.

I prefer a format that allows for fairly long races throughout. By "fairly long" I mean something in the range of 11-15. That might not be doable with a round-robin stage involving 128 players. But even with today's format (races to 9 in double elimination, 11 in single elimination, 13 in finals) I think the races could be a bit longer. They waste a lot of time in the Qatar events.

I think it might be good to limit the world championships to 64 players, as was done this past week. But there should be well established, performance-based qualifying criteria to get there rather than giving a certain number of slots to each WPA member federation.

If pool ever got "big," then the best big events would probably be single elimination with long races (or multiple shorter races per match) with the players seeded using their performance-based rankings.
 
Last edited:

pooladdict

no doubt about it
Silver Member
... Not sure why the round robin was abandoned. Might be because it took so long to get through it.

I believe it was abandoned because pool players couldn't help being themselves, and started manipulating the results in the last round robin matches - either to help a buddy go through or, since betting companies were present - to win money on a surprising match result.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
I think it might be good to limit the world championships to 64 players, as was done this past week. But there should be well established, performance-based qualifying criteria to get there rather than giving a certain number of slots to each WPA member federation.

Excellent post.

We're much closer philosophically here than I thought. Although what criteria should apply for invitations can always be argued, I'd really like to see pool go in this direction in all its majors, with the proviso that there should be loads of qualifiers all over the world, perhaps as many as 16 for a field of 64. Capping the fields at 64 in all the majors might just work under this arrangement, and, as we saw at the world 10-ball Championships, the quality of the matches is high from start to finish.

A year ago I'd have said that using the WPA rankings would have been unfair to American players as so few WPA ranking points were available on American soil, but with the addition of the WPA Players Championship, International 9-ball, and the World 10-ball to the American pool calendar, that has changed very much for the better and, at last, Americans have sufficient access to earning a high WPA ranking.

I also agree with you that much time is wasted in administering the tournament schedules, with the exception being the US Open 9-ball, in which Matchroom completed 488 matches in three days. Good management and coordination was a big part of why it worked, but gobs of time were saved with the "neutral racker, no inspection of the rack, no reracks" rule used for the entire Stage 1. Inspection of the rack by the breaker was permitted in Stage 2.

If we can learn to administer all tournaments as well as Matchroom has demonstrated possible, we can lengthen the races without lengthening tournaments. That's a win-win if we can pull it off and it should be our goal. Count me in.

I also agree that if pool ever became big, single elimination with longer races would be best, but we're a long way from there.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A LOT of great players right now. Filler is definitely in top-5. What i don't get is why people always have to nominate/pigeon-hole someone as "The Worlds' Best". Is he the best banker? Best 1p player? Best 14.1 player? He's obviously one of the best rotation and straights players but "World's Best"?? Why worry about this? Just enjoy one immense talent while he's around.
 

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Capping the fields at 64 in all the majors might just work under this arrangement, and, as we saw at the world 10-ball Championships, the quality of the matches is high from start to finish.

This is something that might be overlooked by those that want larger fields.

As the field gains in size, the quality of play will have to diminish.
 

RiverCity

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This is something that might be overlooked by those that want larger fields.

As the field gains in size, the quality of play will have to diminish.

Dont forget the inevitable rule changes that bastardize and diminish the game to help speed things up.

For every problem, there are multiple solutions. The best solution is the one that causes the least amount of problems in return.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
Dont forget the inevitable rule changes that bastardize and diminish the game to help speed things up.

For every problem, there are multiple solutions. The best solution is the one that causes the least amount of problems in return.

Don't forget that making the game exciting comes first.

Why is it that only Matchroom fully understands this? You do have to keep the matches and the tournament moving along, even if it means tweaking, or if you prefer bastardizing, the rules, if you want people to watch and get enthused about pool.

I attended the US Open in April. Very few players complained about the "neutral racker, no rack inspection, no reracks" rule used in Stage 1. The biggest breakers, like SVB, Jayson Shaw, Wu Jiaqing. and Ko Pin Yi weren't slowed down in the least, going a combined 20-2 in their Stage 1 matches and all advancing to Stage 2. It is your every right to call the use of this rule as "diminishing pool" but I'll call it making pool more entertaining. Those who attended this event were abuzz over the level of entertainment this new edition of the US Open 9-ball provided. I know because I was there.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Don't forget that making the game exciting comes first.

Why is it that only Matchroom fully understands this? You do have to keep the matches and the tournament moving along, even if it means tweaking, or if you prefer bastardizing, the rules, if you want people to watch and get enthused about pool.

I attended the US Open in April. Very few players complained about the "neutral racker, no rack inspection, no reracks" rule used in Stage 1. The biggest breakers, like SVB, Jayson Shaw, Wu Jiaqing. and Ko Pin Yi weren't slowed down in the least, going a combined 20-2 in their Stage 1 matches and all advancing to Stage 2. It is your every right to call the use of this rule as "diminishing pool" but I'll call it making pool more entertaining. Those who attended this event were abuzz over the level of entertainment this new edition of the US Open 9-ball provided. I know because I was there.
Totally agree. To sell it to someone other than us addicts its gotta be exciting/entertaining. If you want just "pure" pool go to a 14.1 tournament and watch it with the other 20 people there.
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Don't forget that making the game exciting comes first.
Why is it that only Matchroom fully understands this? You do have to keep the matches and the tournament moving along, even if it means tweaking, or if you prefer bastardizing, the rules, if you want people to watch and get enthused about pool.
I attended the US Open in April. Very few players complained about the "neutral racker, no rack inspection, no reracks" rule used in Stage 1. The biggest breakers, like SVB, Jayson Shaw, Wu Jiaqing. and Ko Pin Yi weren't slowed down in the least, going a combined 20-2 in their Stage 1 matches and all advancing to Stage 2. It is your every right to call the use of this rule as "diminishing pool" but I'll call it making pool more entertaining. Those who attended this event were abuzz over the level of entertainment this new edition of the US Open 9-ball provided. I know because I was there.
"Neutral racker, no rack inspection, no reracks"...is a very good thing. :thumbup2:
All that jerking around over the rack has always been a big nuisance , in my opinion.
 

Mich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Don't forget that making the game exciting comes first.

Why is it that only Matchroom fully understands this? You do have to keep the matches and the tournament moving along, even if it means tweaking, or if you prefer bastardizing, the rules, if you want people to watch and get enthused about pool.

I attended the US Open in April. Very few players complained about the "neutral racker, no rack inspection, no reracks" rule used in Stage 1. The biggest breakers, like SVB, Jayson Shaw, Wu Jiaqing. and Ko Pin Yi weren't slowed down in the least, going a combined 20-2 in their Stage 1 matches and all advancing to Stage 2. It is your every right to call the use of this rule as "diminishing pool" but I'll call it making pool more entertaining. Those who attended this event were abuzz over the level of entertainment this new edition of the US Open 9-ball provided. I know because I was there.
If making the game exciting means short races like the Mosconi Cup then No. If you want good matches go with Alternate the Break like Tennis with the Serve. Call Shot and races to at least 11. I also like 10 Ball better than 9 Ball for the Pro's. What about another Major Title utilizing the DCC Big Foot format? Take the Winners of say the International, US Open 9Ball, WPA 9Ball and 10Ball then invite/qualify to make a field of 16. Play this at the end of the Calendar year at the Mosconin Cup Venue?
 

Mich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If making the game exciting means short races like the Mosconi Cup then No. If you want good matches go with Alternate the Break like Tennis with the Serve. Call Shot and races to at least 11. I also like 10 Ball better than 9 Ball for the Pro's. What about another Major Title utilizing the DCC Big Foot format? Take the Winners of say the International, US Open 9Ball, WPA 9Ball and 10Ball then invite/qualify to make a field of 16. Play this at the end of the Calendar year at the Mosconin Cup Venue?
That would be on a 10 Foot Table.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
Take the Winners of say the International, US Open 9Ball, WPA 9Ball and 10Ball then invite/qualify to make a field of 16. Play this at the end of the Calendar year at the Mosconin Cup Venue?

I'd definitely enjoy this.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
That would be on a 10 Foot Table.


Yes, the Bigfoot, with its Texas Express 10-ball format, and its 10-foot table is a fantastic event. I'm not a big fan of ten ball, much preferring nine ball, but when its Texas Express I love ten ball.
 
Last edited:
Top