Let's not forget the POS ASIA. CRAWLING OUT OF THE BATHROOM TO get away from what SHE OWED to OMGWTF RIGHT HERE!!!!
Is Shane the best American ever at both
- Thread starter jackpot
- Start date
Where did this come from? I remember that
If Shane beat the World Open winner in any other tournament, what difference does it make where and when he beat them? I think you might be surprised with poll results.
As I said, if you put nation next to each vote I wouldn't be...
Its only a US-centric thing where you disregard the importance of sanctioned 'World' titles (regardless of your view of the sanctioning body).
To re-iterate once again...SVB may well be the current best US player, however that doesn't make him an all time great (In my opinion of course, to keep people happy
...although again outside of this forum World titles are a universally accepted measure of a player's achievements in their particular sport.A good question, but even if the answer is SVB its a separate question...he may be the best player right now, that doesn't still make him an all time great.
i sign all of your posts!
1. the US open field is great every year, but nowhere near the doha field! you americans seem to forget that even the middle east countries are about to overtake you guys!
2. shane is the best US player for sure and is great to watch, and he seems to be a very humble guy (well, the only annoying thing about him are some of his "fans")! but the best ever? cmon........ as vjmehra has said, maybe once in 2-3 decades he will be considered as the greatest, but there are still a few titles to win for him (esp outside the US)
3. someone mentioned albin was mentally fragile in mosconi...... seriously? he was the goto guy, lost only one match, and should have been MVP imo, not bad for a first timer.......and a question, how mentally fragile is shane in mosconi year for year? fact is, while shane beating everyone on homesoil, albin did it on world stage! that doesnt make albin the better player, but call him mentally fragile is almost an offense lol
I guess we will just agree to disagree. I see single elimination as being tougher because you have to play well every single match and there is more pressure knowing you will be eliminated if you lose once. You don't say whoever is in the hot seat of a tournament just got lucky to not lose a match up to that point. You should be saying he is playing the best of any player in the tournament.
People on this forum like to have it both ways. If Shane wins, then he is undoubtedly the best player in the world. If he doesn't, then he got unlucky or the races weren't long enough or a myriad of other excuses.
He is a great player and for sure one of the best. He doesn't win overseas and his record in the Mosconi Cup is dismal. Maybe there is a difference in pressure in his eyes playing for his country in both scenarios. Who knows. Other great players had strong records in the Mosconi Cup over their careers. Do you think they were just lucky or made less mistakes when it most counted?
As I said, if you put nation next to each vote I wouldn't be...
Its only a US-centric thing where you disregard the importance of sanctioned 'World' titles (regardless of your view of the sanctioning body).
To re-iterate once again...SVB may well be the current best US player, however that doesn't make him an all time great (In my opinion of course, to keep people happy
To say that Shane isn't one of the all time greats is crazy. And to clarify I don't believe Shane is the best all around player in the world. I do believe he is the best rotation player. Best of all time? Maybe one day, but not yet.
That being said, to say that no World Title means he is not an all time great is silly. That's like saying Karl Malone isn't one of the best to ever play basketball or John Stockton isnt one of the best point guards ever. Their career stats prove they were one of the best ever. And so do Shane's. In my opinion if your career warrants a Hall Of Fame selection then you were one of the greatest at said sport, and Shane's is all ready HOF worthy.
This brings up an interesting discussion. What HOF are we talking about? Is it one based in the US who might not recognize some of the Asian players because they do not come to the US but win all of the prestigious tournaments they play in? If there is a world HOF, would it be wrong for them to not include Shane because they believe the US Open isn't as strong of an event? Say they base it on what people have done in World tournaments. Do you believe he is worthy of induction based on performance in Asian/world tournaments?
I'm talking about a general HOF. Just like the NBA hall of fame. It has players of foreign nationality. To say that Shame is not HOF worthy is nuts. To say he isn't an all time great based on his accomplishments to date is nuts as well. And keep in mind he is only 33 years of age. He still as years and years of great pool ahead of him. He will more then likely win a world championship soon enough, but even if he doesn't he will still go down as one of the all time greats. Possibly the greatest ever, but we could say that about lots of people playing the game and winning big tournaments. And Shane has won some tournaments overseas, granted not a world championship. Back to back world pool masters is impressive as well.
Last edited:
The NBA HOF has players of foreign nationality who play in the NBA. Are there players who only play in other countries who are in the NBA HOF?
I am just saying that there are Asian players who most of us know nothing about who are amazing players capable of winning any tournament they enter. They have less exposure to us because they do not play in the US.
Wu is only 27 and has quite the resume as well. Would he be included in a HOF even if he never sets foot on American soil?
By which criteria would you say he was an all time great then?
Its perfectly legitimate to say he is the best rotation player currently if you believe it to be true (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing there too close to call I feel), however I don't see how you can shoot down criteria for him not being a great player without providing any justifying criteria of your own.
As for World titles, I would say its silly to suggest anyone who hasn't won one could ever be an all time great. A very good player, yes, but a true great, no. To be a true great you have to perform on the World's biggest stage, when it counts. Domestic titles just don't cut it, however tough the perceived field may be.
As for your Hall of Fame arguments, you are referring to team sports which is a totally different thing. You can be a very good player in a rubbish team, I'm not familiar enough with US sports to dispute your examples, however perhaps one you may recognise from Europe is that of Ronaldo (the footballer, or soccer player to you), he was a very good player, but now he has won a European Championship (regarded as highly prestigious, behind only the FIFA World Cup) he is considered a true great. Now as I said, team sports are a tricky one, as a very good player may never win anything....but you could argue, that is then their own fault for not moving teams in order to become the great player they were destined to be (possibly anyway).
A friend at last...I can sense a bro-mance developing ;-)
I should state though, I don't mean to cause offence to any SVB fans out there, I'm not criticising SVB or his fans, he may well retire as a truly great player, my stance is simply that based on his achievements to date I don't believe he has reached that level yet. Very good yes, one of the greatest of all time...not just yet.
He is absolutely the best at everything, if you dont include those who are better than he. So am i.
Wait, was that a trick question?
Looking at SVB's wikipedia page (I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of his achievements, so feel free to correct if its wrong):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Van_Boening
I can see a lot of US domestic titles and not much else.
Out of the US titles, I believe the US Open and Derby City Classic are internationally recognised as significant achievements. Then you have the World Pool Masters, which is short, but has a fairly strong field and the World Cup (not sure if that is considered a big achievement or not, I'd say yes, but I'm sure others may disagree).
I appreciate some of the other titles on their may be considered prestigious domestically and perhaps even internationally to aficionado's, but I don't see too much that has all time great written on it.
I think perhaps the perception gap here is over the disciplines you guys play, I can see Bar tables and One pocket, which I've only ever heard of on this forum. There is the odd bar table in Europe, but its fairly rare, the rest of the World plays on 9 footers, so perhaps to you guys Shane has won loads, whereas to non US based fans we wouldn't necessarily consider those achievements to be as prestigious.
So who has won more, well arguably Darren Appleton...less US titles of course, but more international ones (sorry thats over the last 6 years, the website doesn't go back further).
http://www.predatorcues.com/pro-team/darren-appleton/
And yet I don't see Darren or anybody else lining up to play shane
To me instead of trying to figure out which titles are relavant and which was are tougher to win is pointless. I'm not the biggest golf fan but aren't the titles refered to as majors? And is one major less of an accomplishment than the other? I really don't know I'm not being sarcastic. But my point is if we group all the 40k -50k$ tournaments together n call them majors I do believe Shane has won more In the last 10 years as anyone. And as far as "world" titles I don't think it's more of an accomplishment currently to win the wpa9 ball then the open but I know it's harder for an American to win a tournament overseas just like an Asian or European winning the us open. But for this particular argument I don't consider Shane's lack of "world" titles from holding him back In the greatest discussion. Now if the world 9 ball was let's say a 250k$ first prize I would consider it more of an accomplishment and I am aware there have been years the world 9 or 10 ball first prize was 100$k or close to it but within the last few years it's just not the case so to me any 40k$ first prize is a major and should be viewed equally regardless of the actual title of the tournament
I watch them play almost every year live on TV in the Mosconi Cup...I'm sure they play in plenty of other non-televised events too.
Its neither one of their faults if they both enter a tournament and don't end up playing each other...that happens.
On the assumption you are referring to gambling, that is an odd obsession people have on this forum, professional sportsmen at the top level are of course free to do that (rules permitting), however quite why they should be looked down on for not wishing to gamble is odd.