Johnny Archer vs. Allison Fisher?
- Thread starter crawfish
- Start date
I haven't read this thread since I saw it on it's first day, I finally finished it. When I first read it I completely agreed that Johnny would win by at least 50. The reason for that was because it said they were racing to 100. Did it originally say that there was a spot? I thik it would change the game if Allison knew she only had to get to 40 or 60 instead of 100.
Remember the Shane vs Corey match? If Corey only had to get to 80, he he would have got there. He would have continued to play his heart out, instead he seemed to lose focus when he knew he had lost.
To sum it up, I think if the female thought she had to get to 100, she would lose by at least 50. If she thought she had to get to 50, it would be tough to beat her.
Remember the Shane vs Corey match? If Corey only had to get to 80, he he would have got there. He would have continued to play his heart out, instead he seemed to lose focus when he knew he had lost.
To sum it up, I think if the female thought she had to get to 100, she would lose by at least 50. If she thought she had to get to 50, it would be tough to beat her.
Thanks For The Thanks
THANK YOU FOR THE COMPLIMENT; YOU AND I SHOULD NEVER WANT TO BE ORDINARY OR "AVERAGE"; NEVER "AVERAGE"
DeadPoked said:
THANK YOU FOR THE COMPLIMENT; YOU AND I SHOULD NEVER WANT TO BE ORDINARY OR "AVERAGE"; NEVER "AVERAGE"
You Are Quite Correct Russ
GEORGE EVEN HAS A GOOD BREAK NOW THAT I GOT HIM FROM THAT WIMPY, LIBERACE WRIST BREAK HE HAD BEFORE HE MET ME. JL AND GEORGE ARE AS NICE OF PEOPLE AS YOU WILL FIND; CHEYENNE IS LUCKY TO HAVE PARENTS LIKE THEM AS IS THE "BLACK WIDOW'S PET".
Russ Chewning said:
GEORGE EVEN HAS A GOOD BREAK NOW THAT I GOT HIM FROM THAT WIMPY, LIBERACE WRIST BREAK HE HAD BEFORE HE MET ME. JL AND GEORGE ARE AS NICE OF PEOPLE AS YOU WILL FIND; CHEYENNE IS LUCKY TO HAVE PARENTS LIKE THEM AS IS THE "BLACK WIDOW'S PET".
av84fun 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.
rossaroni said:
Yes, basically 14.1 could turn into an "exhibition" and not a "match." We've all seen the Deacon Crane vs. Balsis match when the Deacon ran 150 and out.
But actually, it didn't happen as often as some think. Willie "ONLY" ran 125-50 and out less than 10% of the time which was WAY more than most of his competitors...except Greenleaf...when he could stand up anyway.
The vast majority of 14.1 matches went 15 to sometimes as high as 30 innings.
So, I really don't think 14.1 needs to be changed.
Regards,
Jim
Jaden said:
So when can I see the next free throwning contest on TV? Is THAT what the NFL is? The National Freethrow League???? (-:
I said there is no precedent in MAJOR SPORTS. Can you name one?
So, my comment stands. Based on the STANDARDS set by ALL major sports in America and around the world as far as I know, allowing the scoring person/team to keep "possession" in order to continue scoring indefinately is just ridiculous.
Regards,
Jim
Russ Chewning said:Ahh.. I think I get where the misunderstanding is, now. I might have insinuated that Karen and Allison "dog" shots, but that was not my intention. I was talking about most of the other competitors on the WPBA.
The pressure I was talking about is how Karen and Allison play the "2nd tier" WPBA pros, who will get out of position, and end up playing a safe, such that the top two ladies know, that they will have at least some chance in that game.
In the male pro tournaments, forcing your opponent to kick three rails by no means guarantees that you will get a good look at the ball, or that they won't KICK IN the ball, and the same is not true in the WPBA. Not to mention the fact that your typical male pro gets out of position MUCH less than your 2nd tier WPBA pros. And when they do, they just bang in the hard shot anyways, and run out.
A perfect example is Shane Van Boening's first match against Ronnie Alcano in the US Open. He totally took control of the match. He put Ronnie under IMMENSE pressure. Ronnie had to run 3 racks every time he got to the table to have a chance.
Now, that's not a fair comparison to Karen playing Ms. anonymous 24th ranked WPBA pro, but you get the point. Karen or Allison I would figure to be a 11-5 favorite over the #24 ranked woman... Pretty much every time they played, if they played races to 11. I would not say the same is true on the men's tour. Shane cannot be an 11-5 favorite over ANYONE in the top 50, unless that person has a very bad match. He might "get lucky" for a tournament, but he's not going to consistently spot the field six games.
So, what I am saying is, no.. Karen and Allison don't really "dog it". It's easy not to dog it when you are playing much weaker players, tho. Again, not denigrating their skills! But, the point must be made.. I am not sure how Allison/Karen would perform under the pressure of standing to lose 2-3 games every time they miss a ball. Against 5 players in a row who play that well.
I know, I know.. They rarely miss balls.. But when they DO miss a really tough shot that they are forced to take, and a top male pro puts a 3-4-5 pack on them.. Do they have the mental toughness to step up and run two racks afterwards, and then play a very delicate safe, get ball in hand, and run 2-3 more racks?
I don't know, because the current female players don't put them under that kind of pressure day in-day out, the way the men do.
See what I am saying? These great women players make very, very, very few technical errors, but Efren, Johnny, Ronnie, Shane, etc.. end up beating lots of people who only make 1-2 errors per match.
Russ
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
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.av84fun said:
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.
Last edited:
crawfish said:
Sure, Crawfish...in an exhibition that would be totally cool. But not in a sporting event! And certainly not in the embarrassingly boring tapped rack, slow break nonesense at the last WPC where the game wasn't 9 Ball it was "8 Ball rotation" played on the foot half of the table....which proved NOTHING, except how to make 9 Ball as boring as possible.
Regards,
Jim
wincardona said:
With great respect, I agree with very little that you stated.
"They all hold up very well under pressure ,playing players that are reasonably close to their speed."
There are only 3-4 WPBA players who are anywhere near Allison and Karen's 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."
No way. Pool is not a contact sport. The players "opponents" are the balls laying on the table.
I TALKED to the best women who played in the IPT and asked them if they were intimidated by playing against men and they ALL said, in effect.."Not at all. We have nothing to lose because we aren't supposed to win."
So, while I respect your opinion that the women would be under some special kind of pressure playing men, my opinion is that you have it backwards. All the men...in their right minds at least, would know that in an alternate break format in a race to 9 CAN LOSE to Allison or Karen in any given match and they would be embarrassed as hell...just like I am sure Feijen was when Alli beat him at the IPT...when she probably hadn't played 100 racks of 8 Ball IN HER LIFE prior to that match.
I do agree with you that since few of the women have EVER played 10 Ball, they would be at an additional disadvantage to men who play it a lot but tell me this. Give me a list of the top male pros in the U.S. who you think are the favorites to beat Alli or Karen in snooker?
Regards,
Jim
sde said:
But as you point out, the teams TRADE INNINGS! What does NOT happen in baseball is that because Team A scores a run (or more) in their inning...they get ANOTHER innings. Nor is it true in baseball, that a game is played to a certain number of runs where the first team to that number wins.
There just is no analogy there to winner breaks pool where the opponent can and often has, never gotten out of their chair.
Regards,
Jim
av84fun 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?