A plea to CSI regarding SVB vs Ko

[Jaden]

don't know that I can agree with Shane not being dominant here Jay...

Look guys, it's a pool match and that's not an exact science. When Tiger was the best player, did he win every tournament? Well maybe it seemed like he was winning all the time, because he was winning 8-10 times a year. But with 40+ events he was winning a healthy percentage, but certainly not all by any means. Is there a dominant player in golf today? NO! Is there a dominant player in pool today? No, not really even if Shane dominates here. When all the top foreign guys are here, it's quite a bit tougher for Shane, i.e. Dennis O. winning the U.S. Open One Pocket from him. It will not be easy for Shane to win one, let alone two, of the upcoming U.S. Open events in Vegas with the strong fields they have assembled.

My point being that not Shane or anyone else can be expected to beat another great player match after match. And that my friends is a proven fact! Shane has lost several challenge matches - to Dennis, Francisco and Alex for starters. But this is what makes a Race to 21 so compelling. Ko can win! This is a horse race between two thoroughbreds and it should be a good one. More than long enough to test them both. A race does not have to be a marathon to be compelling! That's my point. And whoever loses could win next time as well. This could be the start of another great series of matches like we had with Shane and Alex. In this respect pool is like boxing, they can go at it over and over to find out who is truly best. And even then there may be debate about who prevails. One it's one guy and on another day it's someone else.

At that same tournament Dennis O was playing in the tenball and nineball that Shane crushed too...

Jaden

 

[jay helfert]

At that same tournament Dennis O was playing in the tenball and nineball that Shane crushed too...

Jaden

Correct. He also finished like 17th-24th in the Eight Ball. He may have been worn out by then. Winning two out of four (plus a second) in those events was an awesome accomplishment and everyone acknowledged that fact. Shane never ceases to amaze me, and what I really like is that he keeps getting better.

 

[Poolplaya9]

You're correct. There is no logic in the statement that whoever wins the last game of the set is the winner. :thumbup:

It would make much more sense to flip a coin.

And here we go with another guy with no reading comprehension changing subjects mid stream. You said Alex might feel that his race to 21 against Shane was too short and posted a link to the race to 100 rematch which he won. Clearly your insinuation is that the longer race in the rematch determined the true better player. I pointed out how that longer race determined no such thing because it was too close and with swings in the lead. Now you come back with the above ridiculousness that changes the subject and has nothing to do with what we were discussing? A race to 1 will give you a clear winner but that is not what we were discussing. We were talking about determining the better player (which you actually brought up to begin with), not determining a winner. Get with the program man.

 

[gxman]

So Ko is going to fly in from taiwan, then play shane the next day? Does he have any buddies here?

I'm not sure how that affect elite pros. Probably a lot easier to play a relatively short race than 50-100.

 

[Black-Balled]

So Ko is going to fly in from taiwan, then play shane the next day? Does he have any buddies here?

I'm not sure how that affect elite pros. Probably a lot easier to play a relatively short race than 50-100.

If he knows what's good for him, he will be her 2d+ prior to play. That 14 hr difference is brutal.

Even though he will arrive here before he leaves there...

 

[one stroke]

And here we go with another guy with no reading comprehension changing subjects mid stream. You said Alex might feel that his race to 21 against Shane was too short and posted a link to the race to 100 rematch which he won. Clearly your insinuation is that the longer race in the rematch determined the true better player. I pointed out how that longer race determined no such thing because it was too close and with swings in the lead. Now you come back with the above ridiculousness that changes the subject and has nothing to do with what we were discussing? A race to 1 will give you a clear winner but that is not what we were discussing. We were talking about determining the better player (which you actually brought up to begin with), not determining a winner. Get with the program man.

Yes there are more than one of you





1

 

[corvette1340]

This thread has gotten way out of bounds. Everyone here (except those estranged by the ozzy guy) are still interested and appreciative in the race to 21. I can't speak for everyone else, but I would like them to play a longer race because they may never play one of these again, who knows.

As for who is best in 10-ball, the answer is Shane and that's a fact. Jay, I respect your opinion more than anyone, but you can't honestly tell me that you'd bet your money on anyone else in the world against Shane in a race to 100. If so, then you and I can get down if anyone ever plays him that way again. The bottom line is that there are a few people that can beat or hang with Shane in a race to 21 10-ball, but there is nobody, let me repeat that, nobody in the world that can beat him in a race to 100 10-ball right now. End of that discussion.

The other major part of this thread was the response by Ozzy. If he simply said "we've considered all factors, time restrictions, viewership numbers, etc, etc and a race to 21 is what they will be playing for this match. Thanks to everyone for their input and we'll certainly consider all possibilities for future matches and events" everything would have been fine. Instead he chose to pretty much state that it didn't matter what anyone on the largest pool site in the world thought it was their way or the highway.

Having held a VP of marketing position for a big marketing firm I can tell you that his response was the exact opposite of what it was supposed to be, but anyone with common sense already knew that.

 

[Poolplaya9]

The longer race will ALWAYS show the better player on that day/days. Shane was better for most of that race, NOT all of it.

If you don't understand just how dumb and utterly devoid of all logic that is (that a long race ALWAYS determines the best player that day) there just isn't any helping you. But I'm a sucker for punishment, I'll try again.

If the Shane/Alex match had been a race to 90, Shane would have won. And you would be sitting here saying "see, that race to 90 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Shane was the better player that day because he won." But since it went to 100, and Alex won, you are saying "see, that race to 100 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Alex was the better player that day because he won." And if the race had gone to 110, Shane may have won and you would be sitting here saying "see, that race to 110 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Shane was the better player that day because he won." And if it was to 120, Alex may have won, and you would be sitting here saying "see, that race to 120 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Alex was the better player that day because he won."

Get it yet? In a relatively close match, particularly when there are lead swings, all it proves is who happened to be ahead at the moment they hit the arbitrary number that was decided upon to stop play and call a result. It does nothing to prove who was the better player that day because you play for a few more minutes, or a few less minutes, and the other guy might have won instead.

 

[Jaden]

Not that it shows the best player...

If you don't understand just how dumb and utterly devoid of all logic that is (that a long race ALWAYS determines the best player that day) there just isn't any helping you. But I'm a sucker for punishment, I'll try again.

If the Shane/Alex match had been a race to 90, Shane would have won. And you would be sitting here saying "see, that race to 90 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Shane was the better player that day because he won." But since it went to 100, and Alex won, you are saying "see, that race to 100 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Alex was the better player that day because he won." And if the race had gone to 110, Shane may have won and you would be sitting here saying "see, that race to 110 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Shane was the better player that day because he won." And if it was to 120, Alex may have won, and you would be sitting here saying "see, that race to 120 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Alex was the better player that day because he won."

Get it yet? In a relatively close match, particularly when there are lead swings, all it proves is who happened to be ahead at the moment they hit the arbitrary number that was decided upon to stop play and call a result. It does nothing to prove who was the better player that day because you play for a few more minutes, or a few less minutes, and the other guy might have won instead.

It's not that it necessarily shows the better player, but it BETTER shows who's playing best.

IOW, a longer race better shows the best player. Or, in case that is still confusing, A longer race will better determine the better player than a shorter race will.

There is never a definitive best player, but a longer race better showcases it versus a shorter race.

Jaden

 

[pescadoman]

If you don't understand just how dumb and utterly devoid of all logic that is (that a long race ALWAYS determines the best player that day) there just isn't any helping you. But I'm a sucker for punishment, I'll try again.

If the Shane/Alex match had been a race to 90, Shane would have won. And you would be sitting here saying "see, that race to 90 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Shane was the better player that day because he won." But since it went to 100, and Alex won, you are saying "see, that race to 100 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Alex was the better player that day because he won." And if the race had gone to 110, Shane may have won and you would be sitting here saying "see, that race to 110 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Shane was the better player that day because he won." And if it was to 120, Alex may have won, and you would be sitting here saying "see, that race to 120 was longer than the race to 21 and it proves that Alex was the better player that day because he won."

Get it yet? In a relatively close match, particularly when there are lead swings, all it proves is who happened to be ahead at the moment they hit the arbitrary number that was decided upon to stop play and call a result. It does nothing to prove who was the better player that day because you play for a few more minutes, or a few less minutes, and the other guy might have won instead.

Just how many other "guys" have problems comprehending what you are actually trying to say, given your lack of skills with punctuation and grammar? Probably many. I doubt YOU even know what you are saying.

Furthermore, if you could take your head out of your ass long enough to get your facts straight(improbable), you'd know SHANE won the rematch.

If you think, which you probably do because you..well, that races to 9 in an open tournament don't favor a better player then there is no hope for you. If they were races to 2 then about 10% of the pool world would have a chance knocking out professionals in a tournament.

Lastly, since you are CLEARLY a genius, I suggest you get together with the rest of professional sports and set them straight as to how long games should be played.

The OP would like to see a longer race and so would I. That's all I have to say. I will be avoiding this thread from hereon out due to the fact you are an ass and I have no time for the likes of you.

 

[one stroke]

It's not that it necessarily shows the better player, but it BETTER shows who's playing best.

IOW, a longer race better shows the best player. Or, in case that is still confusing, A longer race will better determine the better player than a shorter race will.

There is never a definitive best player, but a longer race better showcases it versus a shorter race.

Jaden

I can't for the life of me understand why this is so hard to understand

1

 

[Spimp13]

As for who is best in 10-ball, the answer is Shane and that's a fact. Jay, I respect your opinion more than anyone, but you can't honestly tell me that you'd bet your money on anyone else in the world against Shane in a race to 100. If so, then you and I can get down if anyone ever plays him that way again

Pre reserve me half of your action please! Window is WIDE open!

 

[poolhustler]

I am only asking for a longer race because I am a selfish bastard and I want to see two of the best players play more pool.

The better player is only the player who played better that given day.

 

[corvette1340]

I can't for the life of me understand why this is so hard to understand

1

I've tried to explain this in a way that everyone, even the "special" people, can clearly understand several times and it's of no use.

I'll try it one more time. Think of it like poker variance. Anyone that has a limited understanding of higher level poker can win a tournament which is like short races in pool. However, the better players get the stew over the long run in cash games. Just like poker, a longer race has the ability to level out the variance of short races. The bad rolls, slight position errors, etc...All of that is evened out over a long race and the better player gets the cheese most of the time.

This also explains why Shane hasn't won a so-called "world title" overseas. They are short race tourneys and Shane hasn't played in enough of them to overcome the variance. Hell, Bustamante has played in 100 of them and I think he's won 1 or is it still zero? I don't know because pool doesn't have the same 4-majors like golf where you can actually tell how many someone has. If you can't understand it in those terms then you are awarded no points and god have mercy on your souls.

 

[sjm]

Somewhere, there may be a guy who is the best runner at a race length of 100 miles. Perhaps he feels he a better distance runner than the world's top marathoner, who runs just 26.2 miles when competing.

Thing is, though, that the running distance of 100 miles is fundamentally trivial and has never had anything to do with measuring excellence in the sport of distance running. The race would be long, boring, and unwatchable, which, by the way, is how I find 10-ball races to 100 to be.

Nobody trains for 100 mile races and, similarly, nobody save one, regularly trains for races to 100 in 10-ball. There's really no reason to do so, as pool excellence is, and always has been measured, by one's ability to knock off champion after champion.

The field in this year's US Open 10-ball is stronger than that found at any of the Bigfoot/Fatboy Challenges at the Derby. Winning that event will take sustained excellence, the kind that defines the greatest champions. In assessing the play of Shane and Ko, I'll be watching their efforts in the CSI US Open 10-ball event far more than in their head to head race.

I see the head-to-head match as a side dish, certainly not as the main course.

 

[corvette1340]

Somewhere, there may be a guy who is the best runner at a race length of 100 miles. Perhaps he feels he a better distance runner than the world's top marathoner, who runs just 26.2 miles when competing.

Thing is, though, that the running distance of 100 miles is fundamentally trivial and has never had anything to do with measuring excellence in the sport of distance running. The race would be long, boring, and unwatchable, which, by the way, is how I find 10-ball races to 100 to be.

Nobody trains for 100 mile races and, similarly, nobody save one, regularly trains for races to 100 in 10-ball. There's really no reason to do so, as pool excellence is, and always has been measured, by one's ability to knock off champion after champion.

The field in this year's US Open 10-ball is stronger than that found at any of the Bigfoot/Fatboy Challenges at the Derby. Winning that event will take sustained excellence, the kind that defines the greatest champions. In assessing the play of Shane and Ko, I'll be watching their efforts in the CSI US Open 10-ball event far more than in their head to head race.

I see the head-to-head match as a side dish, certainly not as the main course.

lmao, are you really trying to compare distance running to pool or any other competitive sport as it pertains to lengthening the contest or playing multiple games to find out who the better player/team is?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahah

there's a short bus outside honking the horn for you.

 

[leto1776]

I see the head-to-head match as a side dish, certainly not as the main course.

That's really what it is. As more names are confirmed, I think we'll see a shift towards talking about the potential match ups in the invitationals.

 

[BeiberLvr]

It's not that it necessarily shows the better player, but it BETTER shows who's playing best.

IOW, a longer race better shows the best player. Or, in case that is still confusing, A longer race will better determine the better player than a shorter race will.

There is never a definitive best player, but a longer race better showcases it versus a shorter race.

Jaden

Well then, it's a good thing a race to 21 isn't a short race.

 

[poolhustler]

I've tried to explain this in a way that everyone, even the "special" people, can clearly understand several times and it's of no use.....I'll try it one more time.[/QUOTE]

Definition of Insanity right here...... :sorry:

 

[corvette1340]

I've tried to explain this in a way that everyone, even the "special" people, can clearly understand several times and it's of no use.....I'll try it one more time.[/QUOTE]

Definition of Insanity right here...... :sorry:

lol, yep, kind of like people playing Shane a long race of 10-ball. Same outcome every time.