perhaps, but we don't know that for a fact about Tiger
Earl's 5 US Opens vs Shane's 5 US Opens: Who's was more difficult?
- Thread starter Cardigan Kid
- Start date
perhaps, but we don't know that for a fact about Tiger
From a statistical standpoint
Accu-stats lists 53 videos including SVB throughout the 9 years from his most recent US Open victory and his first. Using the 9 years prior to Earl's last US Open victory, Accu-stats has only 7 videos. Shane has 15 TPA averages during his wins while Earl only has four during one year. Using these two 9-year periods with all available comparable data, the results are as follows:
Average Shane .884 Earl .873
Max Shane .971 Earl .958
During US Open Shane .900 Earl .892
Opponents Shane .842 Earl .750
This clearly shows that Shane plays at a remarkable high level with a significant number of samples. The data for Earl shows just slightly lower numbers but there is obviously a lack of data. Earl's performances could be better or worse. The most certain difference is the level of performance of their opponents. Shane's road almost certainly had to be the harder.
Accu-stats lists 53 videos including SVB throughout the 9 years from his most recent US Open victory and his first. Using the 9 years prior to Earl's last US Open victory, Accu-stats has only 7 videos. Shane has 15 TPA averages during his wins while Earl only has four during one year. Using these two 9-year periods with all available comparable data, the results are as follows:
Average Shane .884 Earl .873
Max Shane .971 Earl .958
During US Open Shane .900 Earl .892
Opponents Shane .842 Earl .750
This clearly shows that Shane plays at a remarkable high level with a significant number of samples. The data for Earl shows just slightly lower numbers but there is obviously a lack of data. Earl's performances could be better or worse. The most certain difference is the level of performance of their opponents. Shane's road almost certainly had to be the harder.
Last edited:
I'm almost certain that Sigel's averages were higher than anybody's.
I think Shane is right there with the greatest players of the past, including Sigel and Earl.
IMO what puts guys like Sigel and Varner ahead of Shane were their all-around abilities. Sigel is the only player in the history of the game whom you could make a case for as being the best at both world-championship games, 9-ball and 14.1.
Sorry but Lassiter was the best in both games for quite a while.
I don't think Lassiter was as strong at 14.1 as he was at 9-ball though.
Wade Crane shot 1.000 at Resorts in Atlantic City in the finals against Buddy. A lot of people make a big deal about it too. The caveat - it was a Race to Seven!
BUT, Wade still had to win another Race to Seven, since the finals was two out of three sets. He won the second set pretty handily as well, something like 7-3 or 7-4.
Lassiter dominated the 14.1 tourneys of the 60's even more so than the 9-Ball events. In one of the Johnston City events, he ran a 90 or more in every match he played, all of them races to 125!
Parica shot a thousand against Ellin at the last Legends of 9-ball in Commerce Casino iirc.
Parica was on fire in that tourney.
Yeah, just now looking up the results of the Stardust and Johnston City events Lassiter was just as prominent in the winner's circle in both 9-ball and 14.1.
Right, but I was just talking about the three years or so of Accu-Stats statistics I was looking at.
That is a rumor I have heard as well. And I do not think he was given much choice if that was the case...
Lol every time Shane wins a tournament, or goes fishing, a thread like this is created that extends over 10 pages. And I love every minute of it.
The 10 years before 2007 when Shane won his first, there were 9 different winners with Earl the only one winning two in that time (97 and 2000).
Since then there were only 5 different winners, with Shane winning 5, Mike 2 and Darren 2, with just Cheng sneaking in there.
I think the era that Earl played had a lot more parity between the players. I mean up to Mika winning twice, in the history of the US open there was only one repeat, then Mika gets 2, Darren gets 2, Shane gets 3, plus another a year later.
Too much cream at the top. It's like a local tournament where there is one A player and a bunch of B- and C players. Everyone knows they are just playing for second.
Even Earl admitted that the depth of talent is more now than during his prime. He even claimed that's why he doesn't win any more- that his talent level is the same as it was back then, but the competition has gotten better. I'm not sure I totally believe that- I think his talent level has dropped off somewhat- although he can still beat the best in the world, he just can't hold it together mentally over a long tournament.
I feel like in the old days, people were not break scientists like they are today, they had to settle for hit'n'hope. People weren't making a ball 90% of the time in 9-ball, or if they did, they couldn't do it at every event, and plan for any kind of look at the 1.
What that boils down to is a little bit more luck overall... and yet, Earl still beat them all. To me, that might mean his accomplishment is a little more impressive. The more luck there is, the harder it is for the same player to rise to the top consistently (and run packages of 5,6,7 or the infamous 11)
On the other hand, with the latest set of break rules in the us open, it's still pretty tough to guarantee any kind of opening shot... not quite as random as hit-hard-and-hope but still no sure bet. And shane still has taken the past few. Hard for me to put Shane on any teir below Earl despite Earl's big list of accomplishments. Earl played in an era when we could still beat the Europeans at 9b.
What that boils down to is a little bit more luck overall... and yet, Earl still beat them all. To me, that might mean his accomplishment is a little more impressive. The more luck there is, the harder it is for the same player to rise to the top consistently (and run packages of 5,6,7 or the infamous 11)
On the other hand, with the latest set of break rules in the us open, it's still pretty tough to guarantee any kind of opening shot... not quite as random as hit-hard-and-hope but still no sure bet. And shane still has taken the past few. Hard for me to put Shane on any teir below Earl despite Earl's big list of accomplishments. Earl played in an era when we could still beat the Europeans at 9b.
Earl
He did some of that on real cloth.
Nick
He did some of that on real cloth.
Nick
A little off topic, but all greats are doubted as being the "all-time best" mid career. Once their accomplishments pile up and their challengers are defeated, the skeptics are quieted and we start seeing their legacy. The discussion then begins in earnest. A few years ago, Shane's name wasn't even in the discussion. Today he has proven he is the U.S. Open's best player and defensible as being the all-time best ever 9 ball player. (To me there is no doubt he is the all-time best 10 ball player).
Like watching a Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods, let's enjoy and celebrate his greatness with each new win.
Like watching a Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods, let's enjoy and celebrate his greatness with each new win.
Last edited:
