Ask this question in 4 years from now when Shane has 8 US Open titles.
Earl's 5 US Opens vs Shane's 5 US Opens: Who's was more difficult?
- Thread starter Cardigan Kid
- Start date
SVB was not the player then he is now. That was circa 06-07 when, despite playing really strong, he didn't have the gambling experience he has now. I don't know that it would be possible for a player to make a comeback like that again.
That said, I don't think it's fair to judge Earl harshly by what happened. As I said in my last post, pool greatness is measured by achievements, not failures. If SVB melts down and loses his next finals 11-10 after being up 10-0, missing multiple money balls...does that take away what he did today? I don't think so.
Look at Mika Immonen. He hasn't been very dominant over the last few years, nor the earlier part of the 2000s...he was a top player, but not THE top player. But he caught a gear and hit a few years where he was almost unstoppable. And he gets credit for those years, even if he didn't sustain it across decades. Although we might not have seen the last of him!
I don't think that wins a row matter at all, each tournament is a seperate event.
I do feel the open has a MUCH stronger field now, and the fact that Shane only has 10 years of Open play compared to Earls 30 or so? Makes Shane the leader between the 2.
This is similar to the argument about Tiger woods and Jack N. I feel if Tiger stayed healthy he would have easily passed Jack.
Like with baseball, basketball, football and all other sports, the answer will always be, "you can't say for sure because they played in different eras."
I still have a feeling Earl was "asked" not to win by somebody.
Two points. Today's fields are way deeper and as others mentioned probably 80 guys with a legit shot.
Yesterday's sloppier equipment made for greater ability to go for those shots. Especially table length thin cuts. Today's equipment is too tight and fast.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yesterday's sloppier equipment made for greater ability to go for those shots. Especially table length thin cuts. Today's equipment is too tight and fast.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've never heard anything like that about the Color of Money match. I watched it and it seemed like Earl went into his patented meltdown mode and Efren started to play great pool.
His head did.
You think Shane has an advantage with CUETEC shaft ?
Earl won with his CUETEC cue b/c he had an advantage ?
The other players are free to use any shaft they want as well.
Equipment has no bearing here b/c the other players can play with any equipment they want .
Any world champion today can play with regular maple shaft.
Cuetec R-360 is a LDS. His shot making was just as good as it was with his old standard shaft cue. Johnnyt
PS: I've been able to watch both play at their top speed. It's close, but I'll give Shane the nod by a nose. Johnnyt
If this is your argument then you dont have one.
The equipment is the same for the entire field for both eras... wasnt like Shane was using a low def shaft and playing on 860 and the rest of the field wasn't.
Then explain the racks used, i might be reaching but was the Nine on the spot when Earl won them ? I know the racking system was not the same.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
No, and Earl snapped the 9 in as often as anyone back then.
Spotting the 1-ball made the break and run-outs easier for power breakers like Earl AND Shane.
Last edited:
We can check this. I looked at the Accu-Stats results from the last three U.S. Opens before this year (so, 2013-2015), where the TPA's for each match were recorded.
The player with the higher TPA in the match won 59 times and the player with the lower TPA won 6 times. That's almost 91% accuracy in predicting the outcome of the match.
If the player with the higher Fargo Rating won 59 out of those 65 matches I would accept that as pretty good evidence that a player's Fargo Rating is as good an indicator of their level of play as their TPA.
Yet TPA of the match comes after it is finished. The Fargo Rate is known before the match starts.
TPA is figured during and after the match, not before. So not sure how it could predict the outcome.
Fargo isn't meant to predict anything. It's just a rating that fluctuates based on whether the player performs at, below, or above their rating in conjunction with their opponent's.
In most of Earl's US Open and World championships he was mostly competing against the best the US had and a couple of Filipinos and Europeans. Shane truly has to compete against the best from all countries, therefore, I believe Shane's wins are more impressive.
Here's Earl's path to victory in the 2000 US Open 9-Ball event:
1. Keith Walton 11-8
2. Clint Malicoat 11-6
3. Vincent Marcellino 11-2
4. George SanSouci 11-7
5. Tom Karabatsos 11-4
6. Vegar Kristiansen 11-9
7. Corey Deuel 11-5
8. Jon Kucharo 11-2
9. Takeshi Okumura 11-5
10. Takeshi Okumura 11-5
Total 110-53 (winning percentage 67%)
[Note: This information is from Billiards Digest, Nov. 2000. I do not know whether the list is complete.]
The relevant BD and Pool & Billiard articles for 1997 and 1993 mention only his late matches. In 1997, Earl lost to John Horsfall on the winners' side 7-11, then later beat Horsfall 11-8, then beat Reyes in the final 11-3. In 1993, Earl beat Tony Ellin in the hotseat match 13-5, then beat Ellin again in the final 11-8 (shortened for TV coverage).
1. Keith Walton 11-8
2. Clint Malicoat 11-6
3. Vincent Marcellino 11-2
4. George SanSouci 11-7
5. Tom Karabatsos 11-4
6. Vegar Kristiansen 11-9
7. Corey Deuel 11-5
8. Jon Kucharo 11-2
9. Takeshi Okumura 11-5
10. Takeshi Okumura 11-5
Total 110-53 (winning percentage 67%)
[Note: This information is from Billiards Digest, Nov. 2000. I do not know whether the list is complete.]
The relevant BD and Pool & Billiard articles for 1997 and 1993 mention only his late matches. In 1997, Earl lost to John Horsfall on the winners' side 7-11, then later beat Horsfall 11-8, then beat Reyes in the final 11-3. In 1993, Earl beat Tony Ellin in the hotseat match 13-5, then beat Ellin again in the final 11-8 (shortened for TV coverage).
Pretty sure Jack didn't have PED's at his disposal like Tiger did. Tiger didn't stay healthy because he started using. C'mon, everybody knows that. Tiger's legacy will always be tainted because of his usage. Much like Barry Bonds.