How can you say that someone who constantly and repeatedly is beaten by another is still the superior player. In boxing, sometimes it is more about the matchups. However, last time I checked, the better player in 1 pocket had to pocket 8 balls first. Take Scott Frost and Corey D. for example. All the one pocket gurus, I am guessing yourself included, are going to say how much better of a one pocket player Scott is than Corey. Scott plays the game the way "they" expect the game to be played. Corey on the other had, while a genius at the game in his own right, is very unorthodox and basically just runs out from everywhere. He has thoroughly DOMINATED Scott every time they have played. Do you mean to tell me that Scott is still the better player. Maybe Corey's way of viewing the game and style of playing is just simply better than Scott's, or that of conventional one pocket wisdom.
Another example could be this years Miami Heat. They have 2 dominant superstars on their team. The Detroit Pistons have 4 All Stars and a very good (maybe ther best) player, Tayshawn Prince. Detroit, according to the so called experts, were supposed to a better team, yet in the playoffs, they were crushed by Miami. Would you still suggest that Detroit is the better team, despite the results???
