Johnny Archer vs. Allison Fisher?

chevybob20 said:
This is very true about Olhausen tables. I play on one at home and at my local pool hall. Olhausens will rattle out balls that would normally go in on a tight Diamond. If you touch the rail, with greater than pocket speed on the way in, it will rattle out. There are Florida Seminole Tour matches that can be viewed on propoolvideo.com that the "Olhausen" rattle happens 5 or more times.
Anyway, I'll take Allison with a 40 game spot, 9 ball, race to 100.
Click to expand...

Right. And my table narrows to 4.25 at the shelf. It's really deceptive. I play almost exactly the same speed against TOP players on my table vs. a Diamond Pro.

Regards,
jim
 
FLICKit said:
Pro Baseball is like that. You have 3 outs to an inning. But, during that inning, you can score as many points as you can. That could be 0, 1, 10, 20, or even 50 or 100 (of course not likely). There is no physical cap or limit on the number of runs you can score in one inning. At no point do you have to end your turn early (say at 1 or 2 outs) because you've already scored enough.

I'm no expert on the sport, but Cricket is like that as well. Don't they only have like 1 inning for the whole game? 1 team gets their turn at bat and scores ridiculously high scores (way over 100). Then the other team gets their turn at bat and tries to outscore that ridiculously high score. And this single inning can last over a week.

Am I missing something???

Anyone can try to escalate the argument to a nitpicky degree, so as to twist the point in any direction that they've already set their mind to doing. But, overall and in general, Baseball and Cricket allow you to score as many points as you can.

Now the difference there, is that there is no ceiling score to attain (i.e. 150 in straight pool). Therefore no matter what you score, the opponent always has an opportunity to outscore that. Whereas 150 in straight pool, or race to 100 in 9 or 10 ball, if you break and run all the way to the goal, the opponent never even gets an opportunity. In the extremely rare case that both players are that good, then the outcome of the match would essentially be determined by who won the flip of the coin or the lag.
Click to expand...

Right. That is why, as I stated in another post, there is no analogy to baseball and winner breaks pool where it is not only possible but has happened that the opponent never gets to shoot.

In baseball, the batter's box is relinquished AT LEAST 8 times.

Regards,
Jim
 
rossaroni said:
It seems that it is a lot easier to talk about playing the table then actually doing it. When playing one-pocket, do you not think that the other players think about the little, shy, asian guy who they are playing? If you watch the 2006 DCC finals between Miller and Efren, you can pretty much tell that Miller knew he had to take wingers and hope they went in. Also, on more then one occasion, I have heard Grady talk about Cliff not playing his game against Efren. Also heard that all players in general usually play a little below their normal speed against him. If the best players in the world have a hard time "playing the table", you know it is a hard thing to do.

Also, the quote about the women having nothing to lose- did they mean that they believe they they are not supose to win or that other people believe this?
Click to expand...

Sure, players get intimidated by other players but that cuts both ways. Anyone who thinks playing karen or allison alternate breaks with FORTY PERCENT of the race on the wire as has been suggested here, and is so SURE they will win has more than a few screws loose...and John Schmidt isn't one of them!

And yes, they know they don't figure to win against the best men in the world heads up....BUT SO WHAT is my point.

Does anyone think that Johnny would go running around the room high fiveing everyone if he beat allison?

Regards,
Jim
 
FLICKit said:
I'd like to personally dedicate page 12 of this topic to Av84fun.
He's on a roll.... he's in the zone... Go go go Av84fun!!!
Click to expand...

THANKS! (-:

Sorry about all the posts. Just got home a couple hours ago...SOBER by the way...and had a lot of posts to catch up with.

Regards,
Jim
 
av84fun said:
Winner breaks is a SILLY rule and as I have stated is just an OLD hustle move.
Click to expand...

As a spectator, I think alternate break takes away one of the most exciting aspects of watching pool... players stringing racks together. Some of the best matches I've seen are where players make comebacks from huge deficits to win matches.
 
Scottster said:
Morning Jim, So tell me what you thuink of this idea:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=748245&postcount=27
Click to expand...

Good morning to you too.

In this format the break is alternate break. However it allows for a player to break and run up to 3 racks in one inning (a push, safety, or miss ends an inning) before returning the break to the opponent.

This format always gives each player an opportunity to stay in the match.
With alternate break, a match score of 7-3 in a race to 9 seems almost impossible to overcome. However in this format a 4 game swing can occur with one trip to the table. ie Player "B" can come to the table, win player "A"'s break, then break and run 3 more racks to tie the match up at 7-7 then return the break back to Player "A" for him to answer.

I believe this format promotes the best of competition, allows both players innings at the table, always allows a player the opportunity to shoot his way back into a match, and provides the excitement to the fans who want to see racks strung together.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea. ANYTHING but winner breaks! But I guess I still like plain old alternate breaks. That mirrors, say, tennis wherein when one player serves out a game...win or lose...the opponent gets to serve.

Or football/basketball...when one team scores, the ball goes to the other team and they get a chance to score.

But I DO agree that an "innings" format would sure be interesting. BUT, it would have to be a baseball-like format where there is no "race" to any given number...rather, the winner is the player with the most games on the wire after a predetermined number of innings.

INTERESTING!

Regards,
Jim
 
Rubyron said:
As a spectator, I think alternate break takes away one of the most exciting aspects of watching pool... players stringing racks together. Some of the best matches I've seen are where players make comebacks from huge deficits to win matches.
Click to expand...

Tap Tap, I agree. It goes both ways.
 
wincardona said:
Allison,Karen,and Janette are champions in the league that they play in. They all hold up very well under pressure ,playing players that are reasonably close to their speed. They negotiate situations well playing one another,but when faced with the best male players in the world,under the right conditions they will be in uncharted waters.Playing on 4 3/4 inch pokets with a new fast surface they will remain competitive. Playing 10 ball on 4 1/4 inch pokets will be too much for any of them to deal with playing the upper echelon players.There will be too many decisions for them to negotiate well,simply because that they are unfamiliar with the problems and options. So cosequently they will break down,and when they do winning games will be extremely difficult. Especially when they will suffer in the breaking area of the game.If I had to bet, my money it would be on Archer giving 40 games to 100.
Click to expand...

As usual Billy, right on the money. Now if you could take some of your money and get some of these guys that think the girls have a chance on tough equipment some therapy. It always amazes me when guys can spend their lives in poolhalls playing and watching a sport and have no clue
of what they are really watching
 
av84fun said:
Sure, players get intimidated by other players but that cuts both ways. Anyone who thinks playing karen or allison alternate breaks with FORTY PERCENT of the race on the wire as has been suggested here, and is so SURE they will win has more than a few screws loose...and John Schmidt isn't one of them!

And yes, they know they don't figure to win against the best men in the world heads up....BUT SO WHAT is my point.

Does anyone think that Johnny would go running around the room high fiveing everyone if he beat allison?

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...
If he gives her thirty games and wins, I do believe he would feel he did something.
 
chevybob20 said:
This is very true about Olhausen tables. I play on one at home and at my local pool hall. Olhausens will rattle out balls that would normally go in on a tight Diamond. If you touch the rail, with greater than pocket speed on the way in, it will rattle out. There are Florida Seminole Tour matches that can be viewed on propoolvideo.com that the "Olhausen" rattle happens 5 or more times.
Anyway, I'll take Allison with a 40 game spot, 9 ball, race to 100.
Click to expand...
If I could make it happen, trust me, trust me, trust me. You could get thirty and winner breaks format. I KNOW there would be plenty of people to load up on Johnny.
 
av84fun said:
Yes, I see what you are saying. But you keep referring to 3-4-5 packs as a penalty for missing a single shot. That implies a winner breaks format which is a ridiculous format to begin with (see my other comments in this thread).

And yes, I agree with you that allison and karen might not feel under too much pressure playing the #24 ranked player...but there is a #24 player in mens pool...actually several of them depending on which tour you're talking about...but SVB, or Cory or Johnny aren't going to shake in their boots playing #24 either.

But eventually, they all play the best there is. Alli plays Karen etc. and the pressure on them is JUST as high as when the top men lock horns.

But here's my MAIN point...one that I made right at the top of the thread. This is about the 20th thread dealing with women vs. men and what the outcome would be.

The consensus is ALWAYS that the men would beat the women with the only debate centering on how badly.

BUT SO WHAT???

Women don't start threads saying they can beat the men...so why do men start these threads? Do they have occasional testosterone deficiencies and have to strut like peacocks to prove their manhood.

Like..."Hey, I can beat up any broad out on the playground at recess and I'll give 'em 4 punches up front!"

WHO CARES????????

And Russ, I know you didn't start this thread so the above is clearly not directed at you.

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...
Hey, I started this thread because some dumba$$ told me that (by watching Allison on tv) he had come to the conclusion that she could beat Johnny in a race to 100. I just wanted to get a little info to confirm my belief and stir up a little you know what.
 
Just curious of how many on here would give me 40 on wire and alt breaks with me taking Allison, Kelly, or Corr? Then I'd be curious how many of them I could find if one of the matches was going to go off? Johnnyt
 
crawfish said:
Good point Russ. It's hard to tell how someone will react, knowing who they are playing. Johnny kicks it off with a three, then a lockdown safe, then a five. It could be a long day. I just don't see even the top women doing that. I do feel it would affect their play.
Click to expand...
A few years ago I was practicing against Mika at Classic's when he brought up the match he had just played against Karen in a Joss event. He thought he was going to have an easy time until she opened up the match with a 4 pack. Then he knew he was in a match.(Karen won the match 9-8)
 
av84fun said:
Good morning to you too.



Interesting idea. ANYTHING but winner breaks! But I guess I still like plain old alternate breaks. That mirrors, say, tennis wherein when one player serves out a game...win or lose...the opponent gets to serve.

Or football/basketball...when one team scores, the ball goes to the other team and they get a chance to score.

But I DO agree that an "innings" format would sure be interesting. BUT, it would have to be a baseball-like format where there is no "race" to any given number...rather, the winner is the player with the most games on the wire after a predetermined number of innings.

INTERESTING!

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...

You win! ..... You Break!!!... and it's pool , for Christ sake, doesn't take a lot of physical ability or strength. No reason why women shouldn't be able to compete with men...head up!...and this alternate break stuff was designed for the spectator and TV, not for the players... No,... It's winner breaks!!!
 
Rubyron said:
As a spectator, I think alternate break takes away one of the most exciting aspects of watching pool... players stringing racks together. Some of the best matches I've seen are where players make comebacks from huge deficits to win matches.
Click to expand...


While I respect your opinion, I don't understand it. Players can and often do string racks together in the alternate break format and they also stage comebacks from large deficits.

Regards,
Jim
 
easy-e said:
Why does pool have to be like all of the other sports???
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be. But we have a situation now where there is significant difference of opinion as to what format to use with major tournaments having different formats.

When there is such a difference of opinion, it is useful to look to other sports for guidance as to which format has stood the test of time.

Since there is no other major sport wherein one competitor can maintain possession of the ball exclusively until the end of the match, an overwhelming body of wisdom suggests that should not be the case with pool.

Regards,
Jim
 
thebighurt said:
As usual Billy, right on the money. Now if you could take some of your money and get some of these guys that think the girls have a chance on tough equipment some therapy. It always amazes me when guys can spend their lives in poolhalls playing and watching a sport and have no clue
of what they are really watching
Click to expand...

I am equally amazed by the same thing but in the exact opposite sense. What study have you done that would show that karen or allision are not as accurate shot makers relative to the male pros?

Have you analyzed "pocket cam" videos that show that women tend to pocket balls more off center than men?

If not then your "tough equipment" statement is totally out to lunch.

I am further amazed at those who think that giving allision or karen 40% of the race on the wire is suvch a lock for the men.

Jay Helfert has seen about as many champion players as anyone alive and he doesn't think it's a laydown for the men.

And John Schmidt doesn't think so either. We can all have our opinions but some are worth way more than others due to experience.

Regards,
Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top