Gareth Potts vs SVB.. who wins?

JB Cases said:
No. It's not. World class is a standard of performance. A ranking list only serves to rank the performance of the world class participants in CERTAIN events. Just because a player isn't on the rank list doesn't mean they are not a world class player it only means that they didn't participate in any or many of of the events.

World class means being able to legitimately compete at that level.

There are many players without world titles who can compete on that level.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'd say you can only legitimately be considered world class when you have won a world event. Otherwise, every man and his dog can claim to be world class. I've seen players that play world class in their clubs, yet cannot cut it against genuinely world class players in world championship events.

There is a VAST different between players who can win world events and those that cannot.

Ultimately you have to view these things in an historical context. In 50 years time, will SVB be considered to have been a world class player if he fails to win a single world championship? I would say his achievements on TAR or at gambling or whatever will fade very quickly from the pool player's consciousness, whilst Archer and Strickland will continue to be considered as world class players in perpetuity.

Archer and Strickland were genuinely world class players, and have the record to back it up. That they are not playing at a world class level now is irrelevant to how they will be judged.
 
JB Cases said:
Since pool players around the world use long races to test themselves against each other. Every player wants to win events but all of them know that the true test of one player vs. another player is a long race where the rolls become irrelevant.

All the players you named Boyes, Melling and Appleton love to gamble and yet they won't touch Shane.
Click to expand...

A race to 100 becomes an endurance test. Little more. A player's performance over a number of years in events containing the world's best players tells you more than a race to 100 ever will.

JB Cases said:
And again the US Open is a word class event and a world title. Sorry if you don't think so but the best of the best show up to it and Shane has won twice, Strickland won five times, Sigel won four times, Varner won twice, and well more Americans have won it over the 30 year history.

The players consider it a huge achievement to win the US Open. ALL OF THEM.
Click to expand...

See TheThaiger's response on this.

It's a great event. It's obviously not a world title. To claim otherwise is absurd.
 
JB Cases said:
If they played an all-around English Pool, Chinese 8 Ball, 10 Ball, 9 Ball, One Pocket, Banks, 14.1 and American Rotation then Shane wins in my opinion. And that's with giving each player 6 months to learn the other one's games.
Click to expand...

If they play an all-around America 8 ball, Chinese 8 ball, snooker, billiards, blackball, world rules English pool, EPA and old EPA 8 ball, cribbage, tiddlywinks, shove ha'penny and carpet bowls, then Potts wins in my opinion. And that's with giving SVB the rest of his life to learn the other's games.

Do you see how loaded you lot make this? :rolleyes:

American pool is ONE game, just like English and Chinese 8 Ball.
 
Add John Schmidt to my list.

I forgot to mention he's won the World Straight Pool Championship. But that was a few years ago. And since we aren't counting players with past wins from years ago. Karl Boyes hasn't won a World championship since 2010. Guess he's no longer a World Champion if Johnny Archer isn't.
 
ask them then

TheThaiger said:
Sorry, but I'd say you can only legitimately be considered world class when you have won a world event. Otherwise, every man and his dog can claim to be world class. I've seen players that play world class in their clubs, yet cannot cut it against genuinely world class players in world championship events.

There is a VAST different between players who can win world events and those that cannot.

Ultimately you have to view these things in an historical context. In 50 years time, will SVB be considered to have been a world class player if he fails to win a single world championship? I would say his achievements on TAR or at gambling or whatever will fade very quickly from the pool player's consciousness, whilst Archer and Strickland will continue to be considered as world class players in perpetuity.

Archer and Strickland were genuinely world class players, and have the record to back it up. That they are not playing at a world class level now is irrelevant to how they will be judged.
Click to expand...

So if Archer and Strickland are World Class, why don't you ask them if they think Shane is. I can guarantee you they say he is. You, as a nobody in the pool world, do not have the ability to distinguish who is World Class or not. Bring on any World Class player in the pool world and ask? Do you think Efren is World Class? How do you think he would judge Shane as World Class?

World Class, by definition, is ranking AMONG the world's best. It is not only the World's best
 
All this angst is a clear indication of why you should not drink coffee in the afternoon.

The fact that, as a nation, DO drink coffee in the afternoons is in no way related directly to the fact that the USA is also the only nation to use weapons of mass destruction in combat - but the two facts are an amazing coincidence.
 
voiceofreason said:
Step away from the keyboard. Do it. Do it now.

Also, consider carefully before consuming any more of your Granny's prescription medicine.
Click to expand...

I'm not the guy who's dumb enough to think you have to win a world championship to be considered world class. Or that just because somebody calls a tournament a world championship that it is immediately harder to win than some other tournament that contains just as deep of a talent pool.

But, just to prove I'm always open to being proven wrong, why don't you start a poll on here asking if most players think it requires winning a world championship to be considered world class.

Don't worry, I don't really expect you to do that. Trolls are notoriously prone to avoiding actual data.
 
JB Cases said:
Since pool players around the world use long races to test themselves against each other. Every player wants to win events but all of them know that the true test of one player vs. another player is a long race where the rolls become irrelevant.

All the players you named Boyes, Melling and Appleton love to gamble and yet they won't touch Shane.

And again the US Open is a word class event and a world title. Sorry if you don't think so but the best of the best show up to it and Shane has won twice, Strickland won five times, Sigel won four times, Varner won twice, and well more Americans have won it over the 30 year history.

The players consider it a huge achievement to win the US Open. ALL OF THEM.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the US Open is not a recognized world championship event. Also a test of endurance does not make someone world class. I am not saying Shane is not a top tier player as he is but to just out & out say he is the best in the world when he has zero world titles to boot is bullshit. This is based on actual facts of world championship events whether people like it or not.
 
TheLoneSilencer said:
Wrong, the US Open is not a recognized world championship event. Also a test of endurance does not make someone world class. I am not saying Shane is not a top tier player as he is but to just out & out say he is the best in the world when he has zero world titles to boot is bullshit. This is based on actual facts of world championship events whether people like it or not.
Click to expand...

I promise you if we poll the top players they all consider the us open to be a world title.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
Two radically different styles to be sure. American style tournament pro of the highest caliber. Creative, omniscient shot-making ability... versus a brand of pool so excruciatingly British that one would have to make a pilgrimage to Sheffield and spill a rail workers pint to fully appreciate it. Britt style is PRECISELY the same as their snooker (snewgah oy!)... Staid, inflexible, contortionistic in its meditating Tibetan monk rigidity (bridge flawlessly perfect, back perfectly angled to within a micrometer).... we haven't even gotten to the stroke just yet, and I just don't have the time or energy to get into the massive compendium of requirement to even hold a cue stick near a billiard table in England.... I think there is paperwork involved and a written test.

Shane would wipe the walls with Mr. Pepper Potts in savage fashion. I would not subject SVB to playing Potts with alternate break, but I would bet even money on any length race. if it were a race to 10, SVB by 5. Race to 25, SVB by 8... Race to 50, SVB by either 11 or 18. And it would get progressively Keith McCready on Potts.

Potts is a mechanical wonder.
SVB would dismantle him and make tree ornaments out of him.

Lesh
 
TheLoneSilencer said:
One can poll all they want, either an event is officially recognized as a world championship event or it is not,
Click to expand...

Well now we are getting far off track. Because if world class is determined ONLY by world championships then very few snooker pros are world class. Very few pool players are either, only had less than 20 "official" WPCs in 9 ball for example in the past 20 years.

Contrast that with 38 consecutive US Opens which draw the best of the best. And the 14 Derby City Classic events that draw the best of the best.

So essentially Bustamante wasn't a world class player until he won a World Championship? And if that's the criteria then does someone drop out of the world class if they don't win every year?
 
TheThaiger said:
If they play an all-around America 8 ball, Chinese 8 ball, snooker, billiards, blackball, world rules English pool, EPA and old EPA 8 ball, cribbage, tiddlywinks, shove ha'penny and carpet bowls, then Potts wins in my opinion. And that's with giving SVB the rest of his life to learn the other's games.

Do you see how loaded you lot make this? :rolleyes:

American pool is ONE game, just like English and Chinese 8 Ball.
Click to expand...

Actually pool IN America consists of dozens of games all played on the same playing field.
 
Lesh said:
Two radically different styles to be sure. American style tournament pro of the highest caliber. Creative, omniscient shot-making ability... versus a brand of pool so excruciatingly British that one would have to make a pilgrimage to Sheffield and spill a rail workers pint to fully appreciate it. Britt style is PRECISELY the same as their snooker (snewgah oy!)... Staid, inflexible, contortionistic in its meditating Tibetan monk rigidity (bridge flawlessly perfect, back perfectly angled to within a micrometer).... we haven't even gotten to the stroke just yet, and I just don't have the time or energy to get into the massive compendium of requirement to even hold a cue stick near a billiard table in England.... I think there is paperwork involved and a written test.
Click to expand...

That may or may not be true, however, some of your cousins contend that all forms of 8 ball are the same. How do you respond to that?
 
JB Cases said:
Actually pool IN America consists of dozens of games all played on the same playing field.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, however, the opening poster (sigh - back to that still for those not prepared to read through the whole thread) was of the view that a match up would consist of 3 american disciplines and the chinese discipline (not even Pott's first discipline) - so not fair at all.

Of course SVB would be favourite.
 
Shane wins in format where there are more American style cue games than others.

Any game using regular American pool style tables (7, 8, 9 or 10ft) + American sized balls + American style pockets opening = SVB wins. Potts might have small chance at 8ball and slightly less at 9ball, zero chance One Pocket.

Any game that uses rounded snooker style pockets, even if we use American sized balls as in Chinese 8ball, regardless of the table size, Potts wins. At Chinese 8ball Shane would be closest for an upset because of US style balls used. On a 12ft snooker table his chances would be like that of Mr. Potts at One Pocket...0%.

It is what it is. I don't see a fair match between the two.
 
JB Cases said:
Well now we are getting far off track. Because if world class is determined ONLY by world championships then very few snooker pros are world class. Very few pool players are either, only had less than 20 "official" WPCs in 9 ball for example in the past 20 years.

Contrast that with 38 consecutive US Opens which draw the best of the best. And the 14 Derby City Classic events that draw the best of the best.

So essentially Bustamante wasn't a world class player until he won a World Championship? And if that's the criteria then does someone drop out of the world class if they don't win every year?
Click to expand...

I am not talking about Snooker as I don't follow the sport or how they run their events.

No, you can't take away from someone winning a world title. For example if Shane won a world title, he will always be a world champion as he rightfully earned it like anyone else. The same concept in other sports as you will always be a World Series winner, Super Bowl winner, etc....

Players can be world class talent wise & compete with the elite of the elite. However I don't personally feel someone can be labeled the best player in the world when they don't even have a world title on their resume.
 
There is a difference between being world class and world champion. You can be world class without being a world champion but being a world champion comes with being works class. Two different things

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top