Is Josh Filler the World's Best Pool Player?

[Bob Jewett]

So with the WPA rankings, the players pick up points based on their finish is what I read here, are the points set in stone for certain tournaments, or does it fluctuate with who is in it somehow?

The regulations governing WPA ranking points are in the document:

https://wpapool.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-updated-WPA-Sports-Regulations.pdf

It indicates that the number of points awarded is based on the category of the event, the amount of added prize money, and the size of the field. The exact players entered is irrelevant. All player members of the member federations must have some path to play in each ranking event.

 

[spartan]

IMO there is no one "best player." There are at least a dozen players who can win a major tournament if things go their way. Filler can certainly be called one of the best. Does that make him better than Orcollo, Shaw, Shane, Chang or Ko Pin-Yi? Not hardly. Ask him if he wants to gamble with Dennis sometime. I saw him just smile when asked that very same question.

That is the drop the mic moment and sums it up. :thumbup:

Saying Fargo Rate means nothing is just as wrong as saying it's the only thing. And I don't know that no one cares about rankings in golf and tennis--weeks spent #1 is used as a legacy point of comparison, certainly in Tennis. But I also agree that major wins count, especially when the focus is on legacy. However, here I think the focus is more on who's gonna win the next tournament, vs who's gonna end up as the greatest, so in this context the data-driven ratings of Fargo absolutely do mean something.

+1. Spot on.
No one measure is perfect.
In early January before Filler won World Pool Series, Kazakis was WPA #1 and SVB was Fargorate #1. Few would say Kazakis was the best player or a top favourite to win US Open based on WPA #1 ranking.
Like with other sports, majors won is what matters when looking at actual past performance.
I have said before US Open that Filler, Chang, Ko will not win because they won a major in last 12 months and it is tough feat to win 2 in 12 months. But Filler did it.
All indicators point to Filler being “best player” now at least -just won major major+#1 WPA + top 3 Fargorate.
Question is going forward, will he still be the best end of this year or next year?
It is more appropriate to say that Filler is “a best player” , not “the best player” yet because the gap between the top players in pool is just too close. Still too early to do song and dance. :grin-square:

 

[jasonlaus]

mike dechaine was top 20 fargo last time i checked and i doubt he would be even top 20 in china/taiwan, mark gray was way above his speed too. but that wasn't even my point, my point is that this matter isn't settled by a third party statistics website but by winning actual major tournaments, the world championship among them.

Maybe we can make a bet???
Jason

 

[mikepage]

how many of the asian tournaments are reported to fargorate? i find it a bit odd that wu went up by so many points.

Well he didn't play in the Japan Open or the All Japan Open this past year.

Still, we have 376 games in the last 8 months for Wu in the China Open, World 9-Ball Qatar, World Pool Masters, and US Open 9-Ball.

[...]

 

[mikepage]

[...] my point is that this matter isn't settled by a third party statistics website but by winning actual major tournaments, the world championship among them.

OK I think everybody understands this point.

Filler and Wu battled it out in the finals of a very exciting and superbly produced event and it is good to celebrate this achievement.

Did you know there is another player (we'll call him "ALSOPLAYED") who actually beat Filler 11-8 in this event AND beat Wu 11-3 in this event?
So ALSOPLAYED is 22-11 in this same event against the two who made the finals.

Further ALSOPLAYED matched up against Immonen and Ignacio with a combined score of 22 to 12 and another guy at 11-2.

So in summary, ALSOPLAYED has a combined record of 55 to 25 against a crowd that includes the eventual final 2.

So why are we not talking about his name? Well, in addition to the above he lost a single match 9-11 in the round of 16 against an 805-speed player.

So
Wu lost 2 matches 3-11 and 10-13
Filler lost 1 match 8-11
ALSOPLAYED lost 1 match 9-11--a closer score than the others--and beat the other two players, Wu and Filler, head to head.

ALSOPLAYED gets way fewer WPA ranking points than do the other two and he also gets the same number of ranking points as do 7 other players some of whom have far less impressive paths. He also gets no name in this post.

We should at least be aware of this. It is very exciting to have a few single games, single shots, single safeties, etc seem to decide it all. It is great drama. But we pay a price for deciding a few select matches or games or shots are far more important that others depending on where they occur in a tournament.

It is actually possible to do rankings that take BOTH head-to-head COMPETITION (i.e., current event-points approach) and PERFORMANCE --a longer term averaged level of performance into account in blended way. The IAAF is doing this in this other sports. But that's a subject for another day....

 

[Swighey]

I agree Filler is probably the best right now. Certainly in 8 ball, 9 ball, 10 ball and 14.1 nobody is going to give him weight.

That said I'd like to see a high profile event like the U S Open ban jump cues. It takes far more ability to kick and kick safe than to pull out a jump cue. Example - final rack of De Luna vs Pagulayan - De Luna broke but couldn't see the 1 ball. Pushed to the rail for a left handed jump shot. I suspect if they banned jump cues there would be some different names in the quarter finals.

Ban jumping, because we are playing billiards. Or don’t ban jumping, in which case don’t ban jump cues.

 

[SBC]

He needs to play SVB in l9nger races. May be best of 3 races to 25.

Any of these guys can run packages , so winning races of 9 or 11 doesn't mean the rest of the world can't play.

 

[garczar]

No offense to ANY top player but short(less than 25) races, winner-break do very little to determine "best player". That's why most action was always "ahead" sets. These can be brutally long but they DO eliminate the luck factor almost entirely. Look, the kid plays awesomely well and holds two of the biggest titles in pool. He had two great weeks. Lets leave it at that. As JH put it, i don't see him or any other top Euro lining up to do battle with the top Filipinos. The world is full of good players. The great list, imo, is somewhat shorter.

 

[JustPlay]

My two cents: Josh Filler is definitely the hungriest player from what I can see. Europe and Asia is producing many great young players and they are not holding back on their play or just mailing it in on talent. Even the older European and Asian players playing to win.

 

[sjm]

No offense to ANY top player but short(less than 25) races, winner-break do very little to determine "best player". That's why most action was always "ahead" sets. These can be brutally long but they DO eliminate the luck factor almost entirely. Look, the kid plays awesomely well and holds two of the biggest titles in pool. He had two great weeks. Lets leave it at that. As JH put it, i don't see him or any other top Euro lining up to do battle with the top Filipinos. The world is full of good players. The great list, imo, is somewhat shorter.

No offense to you but long races really have nothing to do with our sport other than offering a novelty match that many enjoy.

In real competition, there's no playing yourself into a match --- you need to perform from rack one. There is no more difficult assignment in our game than beating champion after champion after champion to win a title. As we've seen, very few are up to the challenge, but the few who are need to be recognized as the true greats. They are the ones who find their highest gears when the biggest titles are on the line.

Thankfully, the Hall of Fame understands this, and no Hall of Fame blurb cites how an inductee performed in long novelty matches. That's because such matches are irrelevant in the measurement of what constitutes a great career.

Greatness is measured in titles!

 

[garczar]

No offense to you but long races really have nothing to do with our sport other than offering a novelty match that many enjoy.

In real competition, there's no playing yourself into a match --- you need to perform from rack one. There is no more difficult assignment in our game than beating champion after champion after champion to win a title. As we've seen, very few are up to the challenge, but the few who are need to be recognized as the true greats. They are the ones who find their highest gears when the biggest titles are on the line.

Thankfully, the Hall of Fame understands this, and no Hall of Fame blurb cites how an inductee performed in long novelty matches. That's because such matches are irrelevant in the measurement of what constitutes a great career.

Greatness is measured in titles!

Whatever dude. Some of the GREATEST players who ever lived rarely, if ever, played in "big time trophy" tournaments. They played to get the CASH. Go play 10ahead for 10dimes and get back to me. See if you still see it as "novelty" pool. Nine-ball, even at these guy's level, still has too much luck involved. How can short sets and a game that still has a fairly high luck-factor determine the better player? Suppose they switched the 14.1 champ. to 75point games? Best player may not like it.

 

[skogstokig]

OK I think everybody understands this point.

Filler and Wu battled it out in the finals of a very exciting and superbly produced event and it is good to celebrate this achievement.

Did you know there is another player (we'll call him "ALSOPLAYED") who actually beat Filler 11-8 in this event AND beat Wu 11-3 in this event?
So ALSOPLAYED is 22-11 in this same event against the two who made the finals.

yes, it has been mentioned in about every single thread about the open

 

[jokrswylde]

No offense to you but long races really have nothing to do with our sport other than offering a novelty match that many enjoy.

In real competition, there's no playing yourself into a match --- you need to perform from rack one. There is no more difficult assignment in our game than beating champion after champion after champion to win a title. As we've seen, very few are up to the challenge, but the few who are need to be recognized as the true greats. They are the ones who find their highest gears when the biggest titles are on the line.

Thankfully, the Hall of Fame understands this, and no Hall of Fame blurb cites how an inductee performed in long novelty matches. That's because such matches are irrelevant in the measurement of what constitutes a great career.

Greatness is measured in titles!

I think a strong argument can be made that yes, right now at this moment, Fuller is the best 9 baller in the world. (I mean, what else does winning a world championship mean). Is he a better 9 baller than Earl in his prime? I would not try that argument because he hasn't been around long enough.

Why would the current DCC MOT not be considered the overall best pool player? Are there any other tourney's that combine several disciplines? Is it because there weren't a passel of Asians populating the tournament?

 

[sjm]

Whatever dude. Some of the GREATEST players who ever lived rarely, if ever, played in "big time trophy" tournaments. They played to get the CASH. Go play 10ahead for 10dimes and get back to me. See if you still see it as "novelty" pool. Nine-ball, even at these guy's level, still has too much luck involved. How can short sets and a game that still has a fairly high luck-factor determine the better player? Suppose they switched the 14.1 champ. to 75point games? Best player may not like it.

No doubt, the C player who beat another C player out of 10,000,000 is your greatest hero.

It's your every right not to care who beats the best on the biggest stages our game has to offer. As for the luck factor, that's a lot of nonsense. The same guys win the big stuff over and over and over. Yes, there's the odd cinderella story, but for the most part, the superstars are the ones that win the biggest events.

That's why guys like SVB, Strickland and Archer mass produced titles at the US Open and the World 9-ball Championships. Even in the days when it was race to seven, SVB was the most dominant player at the Derby City Nine Ball, winning three titles in that stretch. The luck factor has never gotten in the way of the true greats in tournament play. As Jay Helfert has often posted, the game, format and race length, in the end, make no difference. The best, Jay so often notes, get to the finish line anyway.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

Why would the current DCC MOT not be considered the overall best pool player? [...]

Perhaps because a pool player from Kentucky or Tennessee arguing One Pocket and Bank Pool should figure into who is the best pool player in the world is a little like a Canadian arguing Hockey performance should be figured into determining who is the best athlete in the world?

 

[jokrswylde]

Perhaps because a pool player from Kentucky or Tennessee arguing One Pocket and Bank Pool should figure into who is the best pool player in the world is a little like a Canadian arguing Hockey performance should be figured into determining who is the best athlete in the world?

Point taken. I would counter with the fact that the world's best athlete title has traditionally gone to the best decathlete. Not for the fastest sprinter, or the heaviest lifter, or the highest jumper...

 

[vjmehra]

Point taken. I would counter with the fact that the world's best athlete title has traditionally gone to the best decathlete. Not for the fastest sprinter, or the heaviest lifter, or the highest jumper...

Depends what you mean by best athlete...the men's 100m is by far the highest profile event and gets all the press.

I don't disagree with your logic, but I'm not sure its accepted that whoever wins the decathlon gold is the 'best athlete'.

 

[spartan]

No offense to you but long races really have nothing to do with our sport other than offering a novelty match that many enjoy.

In real competition, there's no playing yourself into a match --- you need to perform from rack one. There is no more difficult assignment in our game than beating champion after champion after champion to win a title. As we've seen, very few are up to the challenge, but the few who are need to be recognized as the true greats. They are the ones who find their highest gears when the biggest titles are on the line.

Thankfully, the Hall of Fame understands this, and no Hall of Fame blurb cites how an inductee performed in long novelty matches. That's because such matches are irrelevant in the measurement of what constitutes a great career.

Greatness is measured in titles!

+1 Absolutely agree

Long races become more like endurance/stamina tests. If 2 players of same level play 10 long races, they would each win about 5 races each so it really does not settle anything. Winner of match just means he played better on that day and does not mean he will win next time they play.
IMHO, Tournaments are the tougher and better decider of who is better in the long run. You constantly have to adapt, play with players of different styles/ skill, contend with more variables.and can be blindsided by unknown players and the element of surprise.
You constantly have to perform at every match from word go. Unlike in long race, there is no such thing as being behind 5 or 10 racks and you can still sit back and have time to wait for your mojo to come. :thumbup:
That is why other sports do not have long races. Darts does not have races to 50, nor does bowling. Long races are side shows and barely mentioned when history looks at the achievements of the top players. I look forward to the day pool has pro tour with full calendar of tournaments so top players make money and do not have time to play such long races
:grin:

 

[jasonlaus]

+1 Absolutely agree

Long races become more like endurance/stamina tests. If 2 players of same level play 10 long races, they would each win about 5 races each so it really does not settle anything. Winner of match just means he played better on that day and does not mean he will win next time they play.
IMHO, Tournaments are the tougher and better decider of who is better in the long run. You constantly have to adapt, play with players of different styles/ skill, contend with more variables.and can be blindsided by unknown players and the element of surprise.
You constantly have to perform at every match from word go. Unlike in long race, there is no such thing as being behind 5 or 10 racks and you can still sit back and have time to wait for your mojo to come. :thumbup:
That is why other sports do not have long races. Darts does not have races to 50, nor does bowling. Long races are side shows and barely mentioned when history looks at the achievements of the top players. I look forward to the day pool has pro tour with full calendar of tournaments so top players make money and do not have time to play such long races
:grin:

Ask these top players if they’d rather have a short or long race - the long race favors the better player, period.

I’m just amazed at how many people don’t get that.

Jason

 

[Cardigan Kid]

My view is not scientific by any means, but in the last two years, I've seen Shane, Shaw, Chang, Wu, both Ko brothers, Albin, Ruiz, Gorst, Biado, Orcollo, Kazakis and more come up short when the big money/tournament was on the line (gambling and official play)....

I have yet to see Filler shrink in the face of late tourney/gambling money one bit. The kid just comes up big in big moments and I dont think this is luck. From his Mosconi Cup 5-0 MvP performance, to the world championship in Qatar, to China, to the US Open, Sure you might get a lucky roll, or lucky ball, but he doesn't whither away and look like a hollow shell of Josh Filler. Now that is obviously a combination of great shot making, and killer safety play, and scientific breaks....

Filler just seems like he can do anything the other players do, but only better when in the clutch. That makes him the best out there right now in my view.