I would never watch a match that took a few years.
Is Josh Filler the World's Best Pool Player?
- Thread starter sjm
- Start date
I would never watch a match that took a few years.
Haha! Some of those matches lasted up to 10 days. Must have felt like a few years.
Snooker is a much harder game and it doesn’t take nearly as long to separate the best from others, and it’s still a race to 18.
Jason
novelty
Hey Stu!
I think tournament formats are great. I can understand the impatience that comes from SVB fan boys that dismiss the dominance of players from the far East and Europe by saying 'they're just flipping coins, let's see 'em post up and play for the dough', all while playing regional bar table tournaments and plateauing at semi-pro speed. Totally fair. I think anyone that would dismiss accomplishments of the magnitude of the world championships, US Open, and even Mosconi Cup are really missing the boat.
Where we start moving down different paths is when I feel you start dismissing long sets as a novelty. Yes, it is different. Quite different. But it is still a meaningful contest to a lot of people. Allowing momentum to shift back and forth multiple times, making adjustments with shot selection based on match dynamics and mindset, a test of will and consistency, of who can keep the momentum the longest when they have it, and who can wrestle it away the quickest when they don't. I enjoy this so much.
I understand it's not your thing, but why does it have to be considered a gimmick? It's just a different game that many people like. Kind of like One Pocket, or Straight Pool. If someone said they liked 14.1 and wanted to see a 14.1 tournament, would that be a novelty? It's a different game and has nothing to do with 9 ball. But longing for a 14.1 tournament isn't meant to dismiss 9 ball the way Mosconi did (it's for bangers, it's not real pool, etc), it's just because some people like straight pool.
I can understand casting your vote on what you think is the most prestigious format. And I can definitely understand why you wouldn't want to see that dismissed or minimized. I also happen to think there is enough room in pool for various formats, and there are enough players that enjoy longer matches that it's a meaningful test that should be respected.
Hey Stu!
I think tournament formats are great. I can understand the impatience that comes from SVB fan boys that dismiss the dominance of players from the far East and Europe by saying 'they're just flipping coins, let's see 'em post up and play for the dough', all while playing regional bar table tournaments and plateauing at semi-pro speed. Totally fair. I think anyone that would dismiss accomplishments of the magnitude of the world championships, US Open, and even Mosconi Cup are really missing the boat.
Where we start moving down different paths is when I feel you start dismissing long sets as a novelty. Yes, it is different. Quite different. But it is still a meaningful contest to a lot of people. Allowing momentum to shift back and forth multiple times, making adjustments with shot selection based on match dynamics and mindset, a test of will and consistency, of who can keep the momentum the longest when they have it, and who can wrestle it away the quickest when they don't. I enjoy this so much.
I understand it's not your thing, but why does it have to be considered a gimmick? It's just a different game that many people like. Kind of like One Pocket, or Straight Pool. If someone said they liked 14.1 and wanted to see a 14.1 tournament, would that be a novelty? It's a different game and has nothing to do with 9 ball. But longing for a 14.1 tournament isn't meant to dismiss 9 ball the way Mosconi did (it's for bangers, it's not real pool, etc), it's just because some people like straight pool.
I can understand casting your vote on what you think is the most prestigious format. And I can definitely understand why you wouldn't want to see that dismissed or minimized. I also happen to think there is enough room in pool for various formats, and there are enough players that enjoy longer matches that it's a meaningful test that should be respected.
I also think we conflate two issues when we have this discussion. The first is the things you are talking about here, long-set-specific skills. Some may value them; others may see them as a novelty.
But the other issue is that we do a better job determining who is the better player when our judgment is based on more games--just statistics here. That could be longer races, or it could be more short races. I think if we really had 20 or so big tournaments a year, races to 11 with points assigned would be fine. The problem is anointing one or a few short-race single elimination competitions as somehow "The deciders" of who is better. We're deluding ourselves if we think we are somehow getting more information from a quarter-final match in the US Open than we get in some match at Turning Stone or a Eurotour event. Sure we can assign as much meaning to it as we want. But that's what it really is: assigned meaning. There is no actual meat on the bones.
Good post.
I'm not a SVB fanboy and didnt have a dime bet on him at the open or on this match with JL Chang. I did however bet on Filler, Shaw, Gorst, Aranas, and Kaci.
The people who like long races to determine the best also love watching tournaments. I just feel that 1 on 1 events for long races gives a better indication of who the best overall player is.
Take for example the finals, we have the #4 and #1 on Fargo playing, how could anybody argue that a longer race to 75 or 100 wouldnt give a better indication of who the best player is versus a race to 11 or 13? I would also say that to find the best that there should be several long races - maybe 7 of them over a month.
This has nothing to do with watching it and how long it takes, it only has to do with finding the best. If you want to actually know who the best is, it cannot be decided in a short race.
Jason
I think it’s actually an impossible question to answer, consider snooker:
Ronnie O’Sullivan is by far the ‘best player’, but hasn’t been World Champ for a while and has lost in the longer matches for the past few years.
However would anyone bet against him in a race to 100?
The concept of a ‘best player’ will always be subjective, all we know for sure is that some players have trophies to show and others don’t.
Ronnie O’Sullivan is by far the ‘best player’, but hasn’t been World Champ for a while and has lost in the longer matches for the past few years.
However would anyone bet against him in a race to 100?
The concept of a ‘best player’ will always be subjective, all we know for sure is that some players have trophies to show and others don’t.
Snooker has, at present, 14 ranking events per season with races of various length (e.g race to 4 in the final of the Gibraltar Open, to 5 in the Indian Open, all the way up to 18 in the World Championship). The UK Championship (the second biggest event and equivalent in status to that of the US Open if we ever get a proper global pool tour) has races to 6 from the last 128 up to the semi finals with a race to 10 in the final and it’s single elimination all the way.
Last edited:
Thanks for a well-judged, well-presented and well-written post. I definitely agree there's room for both, and even described the long race as entertaining in a previous post.
Ah, so it isn't enough that you label tournaments as insufficiently conclusive for determination of the best, you also see a need to bash those who have built and administered our sport. I wonder why you watch pool at all.
Races between 11 and 15 are so much better.
The issue with a long race (like to 100) is that the importance of each individual game depends on the score and doesn't matter as much until the end and only if it's close.
Meaning the game at 0-0 is less important than the game at 96-96. And the game at 96-70 is just as meaningless.
Now in a race to 15, every game matters, because it's important to come out strong and finish strong.
The issue with a long race (like to 100) is that the importance of each individual game depends on the score and doesn't matter as much until the end and only if it's close.
Meaning the game at 0-0 is less important than the game at 96-96. And the game at 96-70 is just as meaningless.
Now in a race to 15, every game matters, because it's important to come out strong and finish strong.
We are talking about apples and oranges here. Long races are challenge matches and tournament matches are, by necessity, shorter races. In my opinion there is more pressure when playing a shorter race tournament match, since every game becomes vitally important and there is little time to make a comeback if you fall behind. We have all seen challenge matches where one player is many games behind and mounts a comeback to win.
My experience has been the better player will find a way to win in either format. This has been proven countless times already. Just check the results of every major tournament going back decades and you will see the names of pool's best players at the top without exception. The difficulty of our game is enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
If you want to really know who a better player is on any given day, there is no need to Race to 100. Just play Ten Ahead at 9-Ball or Five Ahead at One Pocket and you will find out. Winning a match 100-96 doesn't really tell me who the better player is. But when one guy gets ten games ahead of another that to me is telling. Right then he's the best of the two!
As far as I'm concerned these elite players winning the biggest tournaments today would also be winning challenge matches against the lesser players if they chose to play them. I'm sure there is only a handful of players willing to play Joshua Filler a high stakes match to 100. I'll put my money on Joshua if he ever gets in the box with one of these other guys who seem to prefer long races.
My experience has been the better player will find a way to win in either format. This has been proven countless times already. Just check the results of every major tournament going back decades and you will see the names of pool's best players at the top without exception. The difficulty of our game is enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
If you want to really know who a better player is on any given day, there is no need to Race to 100. Just play Ten Ahead at 9-Ball or Five Ahead at One Pocket and you will find out. Winning a match 100-96 doesn't really tell me who the better player is. But when one guy gets ten games ahead of another that to me is telling. Right then he's the best of the two!
As far as I'm concerned these elite players winning the biggest tournaments today would also be winning challenge matches against the lesser players if they chose to play them. I'm sure there is only a handful of players willing to play Joshua Filler a high stakes match to 100. I'll put my money on Joshua if he ever gets in the box with one of these other guys who seem to prefer long races.
Last edited:
Josh is a fabulous player. Is he the best player in the world IMO, well not yet.
He has the raw indoctrinated ability like some of the top players out there. These naturally gifted players like Earl Strickland, Dennis Hatch and Rodney Morris for example that just walk around the table, see the patterns, fire balls in like nothing, running full racks in a minute rack after rack.
What he doesn't have yet is a strong safe game which is almost as vital as ones offensive capabilities. However in games like 9/10 Ball he's such an aggressive player and he rarely gets out of line and that position offers him more offensive opportunities at the table.
I watched him throughout the US Open and it was obvious when he's firing on all cylinders he's a very remarkable and difficult to beat opponent. However in multiple unfortunate situations where he may have gotten out of line or was left a poor shot by his opponent and had to play safe, his safety play was very rudimentary and weak.
Mind you Josh is only 21 years old and has a lot of pool years ahead of him. Once he develops a strong safe finesse game he will be pretty much unbeatable. I suggest he get into some of the games that made Efren the player he was/is; Balkline, 3 cushion and One Pocket for example would definitely help his fine touch and safety play.
In short, he's a very, very good player who will inevitably only get better with time and more experience.
Last edited:
Lmao at you.
There are nonstop posts on here about pool being at an all time low and now you want to say the opposite?
How many players make a living, say 75k per year? You are seriously saying they have been doing a good job with the sport?
I dont have any interest in looking up the yearly on players but I know it's absolutely pitiful and the fact you think the people running the sport are doing a great job.
I cant remember seeing pool on TV in the last 10 years, yeah, sure, they're doing a great job.
I have every right to think a race to 9 or 11 is insufficient to determine the best player, but I have never once said those titles are not legitimate. If you want to start making shit up, go ahead.
Jason
... no, but you have implied that the sport doesn't run the kind of events that will determine who the best players are. I have never heard anyone suggest that this was the case in my 53 years around the game, but maybe this is the case. I can, do and will continue to disagree.
Best we part ways in this debate. You can enjoy the sport as you please and I'll do the same. Wishing you the best.
Last edited:
So right Jay!
10 ahead is THE.BEST.WAY. to determine the better player.
We had epic battles at The Green Room and Mr Cues using this format - back in the day, that is.
We'd start Fri night and usually finish Sun am or afternoon. 10 ahead is brutal with 2 evenly matched players.
-von
PS The Best Way in a pool room. Not comparing this type of action to other formats, like tournaments.
10 ahead is THE.BEST.WAY. to determine the better player.
We had epic battles at The Green Room and Mr Cues using this format - back in the day, that is.
We'd start Fri night and usually finish Sun am or afternoon. 10 ahead is brutal with 2 evenly matched players.
-von
PS The Best Way in a pool room. Not comparing this type of action to other formats, like tournaments.
Last edited:
No worries, fella. Hope to meet you and shake your hand one of these days. You do bring an informed view to the table.