Same with Siming. I’d also add Corey, he sat there in his chair looking like he was winning when he took that beating.
Jason
Is Josh Filler the World's Best Pool Player?
- Thread starter sjm
- Start date
Same with Siming. I’d also add Corey, he sat there in his chair looking like he was winning when he took that beating.
Jason
Of course top players prefer a long race - it allows them to recover from a patch of bad play. If I put up a million to play any top player and said choose your race length they would all go long. If the choice was mine I’d go very short knowing I might beat them if I play my A game but they don’t and I get the rolls. I’d still be a huge underdog but at least I would have some kind of chance that would evaporate in a long race. Actually, I’m pretty sure there are gamblers out there who would be favourites against many of the top players in a very short race for a large sum of cash because they know how to play well cold for a short burst of time. Do we ever hear of top players taking these kind of bets from such players? No we don’t. Why is that? ( heavily loaded question)
Tournaments work best when the races are short enough to be a test of nerves yet long enough to be a test of consistency. The mythical “Race to Shane” where two players play 10 ball until one of them falls asleep and doesn’t wake up is just that - a myth. It’s boring. Watching one guy sitting in his chair while the other runs a practice drill just to see which one of them is the best at practising will take the sport nowhere. Players find out how good they actually are when they are under intense pressure - and then they either come back stronger or they don’t. That’s what keeps the game exciting and rewarding for the players and the audience.
Last edited:
You just admitted that longer races benefit the better player and then say the exact opposite.
All you guys act like Shane etc come out of the gate slow have never in your life watched a match.
The point of the longer race is the better player usually wins it, so why do all of you keep saying long races are stupid if the point is to find the best player?
When trying to find out who the best is, nobody gives a crap if you don’t like watching long races, go do something else and you can read about who won.
Jason
Actually I didn’t say that at all. I think you are reading into it what you want to read. My points were much more nuanced than either/or but having re-read my post I still think they were pretty clear and coherent.
Because players don't train or prepare for this, nor should they. You might feel that a 26.2 mile marathon is an insufficient test of marathon running, but I'm not really not interested in whether the winner would still win if the race were 100 miles, because the sport of marathoning is defined by the 26.2 mile distance. The race to 100 has no more relevance to pool than the 100 mile run. It's no more than a novelty.
The exact same thing. Almost nowhere in either sport's organized competitions can either event be found. Novelty, no more and no less.
... not meant to suggest that this novelty is not entertaining.
What they train for is to play a short match against a randomly drawn player, get a break, play another short match against another randomly drawn player with a completely different style than the first, get a break, play a third match against a randomly drawn player with a completely different style than the first two, take a break, etc.
The train to beat champion after champion in a series of short, intense matches, and not to pace themselves for a marathon against a single opponent.
Yes, you need to become a more well-rounded player to succeed against a variety of players.
Against a great defensive player, you better be a great kicker. Against a poor kicker, you'll be more successful if you play a little more defense, so it will help if you have all the defensive skills. Against a great shotmaker, you must offer less when you push out, and leave more distance when forced to leave a shot. You can afford to leave bank shots to some players but there are tactical adjustments needed against the elite bank pool players. When a shot can played two ways, the defense, should it occur, needs to be a little stronger against some opponents than others. Etc., Etc. , Etc.
For these and many other reasons, only the true greats can navigate the waters needed to win the toughest titles.
It’s exactly the same thing.
Again, we are talking about the BEST player/players, that means they are all great at those things.
If you are trying to find the best, what is harder than beating another opponent that is best, 2nd best, top 5 in the world for a long race? Nothing! Where a lesser player, say 20th in the world could beat you in a race to 11, he still isn’t the best, there are 19 players better than him, but according to you guys that makes #20 the best.
Jason
This couldn't be further from the truth. The skills are highly varied even among the top 25 in the world, and each presents a slightly different type of test.
Put all the elite in the same place at the same time. Let them duke it out until just one is left standing. The one who is left at the end is the champ. Simple, really.
Last edited:
Not even close!
People train to run 26.2 they don’t train to run 100. If it’s the same, then according to you guys the guy running the fastest 100 yard dash is the same thing, you’re not making any sense at all.
Best at 26.2 is the best marathoner.
Pool is not a set # of games and being the best cannot be measured in short races.
Wow, too bad the people who run the sport haven't figured out this point that is so obvious to you. We're only 40 years into the nine ball era, after all. Perhaps they'll figure this out sometime in the next 40 years.
The snooker world championship used to have extremely long races. In the 1940s it was a race to 73 for a few years. Settling on a race to 18 in 1980 and sticking with it contributed to the growth of snooker as a televised sport. The best players still win it and all of those who have won it more than once are widely regarded as greats of the game and are known for their snooker skills beyond the annual world snooker tournament. Steve Davis won it 6 times, Stephen Hendry 7, Ronnie O’Sullivan 5 - all when it was race to 18. They are all regarded as head and shoulders above their rivals in their respective eras. Ronnie O has actually underperformed because he is so talented that he is, funnily enough, better at shorter races