I answered the question! the #1 guy would win easily. I do get off topic sometimes, just like you, I see.
If the #1 9-Ball Player Played the #50 Player...
- Thread starter kingwang
- Start date
I answered the question! the #1 guy would win easily. I do get off topic sometimes, just like you, I see.
Having played Chang personally (Mika as well). I know...
Last edited:
To me it would depend on which direction the number fifty player is moving. If he's been moving down I would want better odds than if he was an up and coming player on the move, towards the top.
Since you will never get anybody to agree on who number one or number fifty is, the question has no answer.
Hypothetically in a long race to say 100 number one will win. In a short race number one has a slight advantage but not nearly as much as in a long race.
Hypothetically in a long race to say 100 number one will win. In a short race number one has a slight advantage but not nearly as much as in a long race.
Tennis matches are vastly more telling of true skill. Unlike pool in tennis both players get huge amounts of opportunity to allow their superior skill to prevail. Every serve that other player has the chance of a return. In pool a player might be vastly better then his opponent and never get to the table to let that higher amount of skill prevail. A guy can lose a match 11-3 who would have went on to win a marathon 100-62.
This is partly why if you use shorter races you need to play alternate break and win by 2. Tennis knows that you don't allow a person to win on the flip of a coin, that is why they shift stuff back and forth, the serve always shifts and at the end if the players are even on serves and the score is tied you don't get to serve for the win, you need to win by two.
If tennis were to do what pool does they would have the players flip a coin, the winner of the toss gets to serve, and they serve until they lose a round point. The winner of the toss could win a match never allowing a break of serve. It would be absurd, people would think it silly, and it is EXACTLY what pool does alot of the time.
Pool should always be alternate break AND win by 2. If you are playing a race to 11 and the score is 10-10 then the match is not over after this next game, you MUST win by two so that the person NEVER wins the match due to the coin toss that the guy breaking won.
In all honesty the end part of a match tied like that on break would be a huge pressure cooker and be some of the greatest pool one could ever watch. Doing the above would add a huge amount of excitement to those close matches and at the end of the match.
Where in the post does it say men? Try the women, they have top 50. I still say 1 would beat 50.
I answered
my answer was the best too
my answer was the best too
Sounds good in theory, but one of the big factors that seperates the good and great players is the ability to put packages together more often, depending on equipment. Not only that, but they also are better able to control the table even if they aren't getting consistent run out opportunities. When you take that factor away it levels the playing field. They then have to rely on safety and kicking, and depending on how the balls are rolling doesn't always play a huge part in a match.
It doesn't happen often, but if a player runs an 11 pack on you no matter his or her skill level, they deserve to win. It's not about crowning the best player, it's about the player who played best. Otherwise why bother playing Tennis tournaments anymore, or at least why let all those other guys play? As long as you had one single opportunity then it's a fair rub, because that is all your opponent needed to do what they did.
