Bergman vs DeChaine
- Thread starter krelldog
- Start date
Why do people think a race to 100 proves anything. If you want to see who the better player is the. I would suggest best out of 5 sets races to 17 or 21. BTW my money is in Dechaine
This is along the lines as what I say as well...
I like 5 races to 21.
You have to show up every 21 games.
Wutang
Last edited:
Justin Bergman is current 10 Ball Fight Night champion after winning the match in Vegas with Oscar D.
I think a Fight Night match with Justin and Mike would be a great match that would be very close.
Justin has really stepped up to the plate the last few months and played a lot a tough action with some top players no doubt he is one the best in the country plays all games on all size tables jam up.
Last edited:
My opinion is mike has the edge because of his break. But all in all I think it would be a great match.
I'll pick Bergman then
not me.............
race to 100
Why do people bash the race to 100? I get there isn't as much suspense for the fans.
Before you answer, have you played a race to 100 for high stakes? I've played a lot of pool sets and I have not. I am not going to knock it as a test of skill without having played it.
Personally if I thought I was the better player I don't think I'd be afraid of a race to 100. 3/5 sets to 21 I'd actually find dicier as I could win two sets 21-12 and 21-14 but then lose three hill-hills and end up losing while I was still "ahead" 13 racks.
Not sure, but I like the format.
Chris Bartrum- you've played these races on TAR. What are your thoughts?
Why do people bash the race to 100? I get there isn't as much suspense for the fans.
Before you answer, have you played a race to 100 for high stakes? I've played a lot of pool sets and I have not. I am not going to knock it as a test of skill without having played it.
Personally if I thought I was the better player I don't think I'd be afraid of a race to 100. 3/5 sets to 21 I'd actually find dicier as I could win two sets 21-12 and 21-14 but then lose three hill-hills and end up losing while I was still "ahead" 13 racks.
Not sure, but I like the format.
Chris Bartrum- you've played these races on TAR. What are your thoughts?
I like a race to 100 over 2 days .
You have nowhere to hide when someone is beating you .
And who ever wins the most games over 2 days wins .
No thanks
Life short, stuff move fast and don't have time to hang around watch just 1 match over few days
As others have said multiple sets of shorter races are better and they can play the sets over period of 1 year or more
The sets need not be played over few days
Long races seldom attract new viewers or new fans- it will only attract the hardest hardcore fans of the 2 players who will pay the PPV and that is just a handful
Plus long races as other have said a better test is multiple sets rather than 1 long race:grin-square:
If the ppv paid the players much money then maybe we would play for the ppv .
Until that happens we have to play what we think is best for ourselfs .
The ppv pays the players 500 to 800 most of the time .
What if its a tie? Then it was all for funzies?
Last edited:
I agree. I've lost money playing sets with a guy when I actually won more games than he did.
I'll take Scott Frost for a large sum of cash. He has the heart and a little more experience than Mike D and Justin B.
I've been arguing this on here for years. A best of several shorter races that would still equal about the same total number of games as a race to one hundred would is better for a lot of reasons, some of them mentioned below.
-There is much more pressure on both players. Every game is more important, and requires more effort and concentration and the ability to deal with that pressure.
-There is more quality play because nobody can ever give up or let up. In long races when somebody gets far ahead or far behind it is all too common to see them go into coasting mode or give up mode. I want to see the "fighting tooth and nail" mode from both players at all times.
-It is so much more exciting to watch because whoever is behind in any shorter race always has a very realistic chance of being able to come back and still win it. Races to 100 are invariably snoozefests after about a third to a half way in because one person gets too far ahead and the ending is anticlimactic and not close 95% of the time.
-Shorter races will get more viewers and therefore make more ppv money and that leads to more of these matches. Many people didn't buy races to 100 because they couldn't watch the whole thing, and they aren't going to pay to watch just the beginning or middle of a match. They probably would buy the end of a match (last day) if it were still close and not a foregone conclusion, but 95% of the time it isn't close by then and so they didn't end up buying the last day either. On the other hand, people that can't watch all the days would still buy the first, second, or last day of a match that was many shorter races because they get to watch entire races that meant something.
And for those that don't want a best of several shorter races because it is possible to win more total games but lose more races and therefore lose the match...well it is possible but would rarely happen. And in the cases where it did happen, the guy that couldn't come with it when he needed to lost. I see no problem with that at all.
Doing five races to twenty one (for a two day event), or seven races to fifteen (for a two or three day event), both equal about the same total number of games as a race to one hundred but are superior in absolutely every way possible.