race to 25 2 out of 3 sets

[Celtic]

I like the current format for TAR Matches.. It also appears they are bringing in more $$ for TAR which is REAL important if we want them to survive and continue to give us these great matches. Money Talks BS walks! (to coin a phrase)

I like the current format but one thing I don't like is the uncertainty of a Sunday match. When buying the match if you pay for the "whole weekend" you actually might be done your viewing on Saturday night and a split in the first two nights is almost something you end up rooting for just to see the decider and regardless of who you want to see win.

3 matches of 1500 for the winner and 200 for the loser in each match would assure a third night and a dominant performance by one player can see them win all three nights and win most of the cash.

It makes every match more important in a way because it seems like the guy who wins the first night in a TAR match often comes out a little less hungry on night 2 given the fact they are now assured of playing for all of the cash on Sunday.

If they made each match worth cash in a skins type of format like this then the players will always be hyped to win on each night because each night is a payday.

One thing I would VERY much like to see in the races to 25 is a "win by 2" rule implemented. They create intense excitement and alot of "sudden death" types of situations at the most exciting time of a close match.

 

[Celtic]

archer played great.
i think he won cause the tight pockets.

I think he won because over the entire weekend he actually outshot SVB. I mean clearly, Archer for that weekend was a better player who missed less balls, played better shape, and broke just as well.

You might think SVB was supposed to win but he was outplayed on the weekend and it does not matter what the race is, if SVB shoots worse then Archer in a match of any length he is supposed to lose.

 

[Island Drive]

The main problem (which is what started this thread) is that 3 sets of 25 is effectively a shorter race than the old format, and it increases the chances of an underdog winning. Luck evens out over long races, but plays a big role in short races.

Sets to 25 are reasonable, but if you shorten the race much further, then it starts to look more and more like a coin flip. We still want the best player to come out on top.

True, but the idea of getting it done in one session is enticing. You would cut down on production costs/time. You would have a beginning, a middle and an end all in one production. It should be battle, and if one tries sets races to 9, best three outta five and tiebreakers are race to 11 win by two or first to 15 here's kinda how it goes.

First set goes hill hill 9-8
Second set 9-6
Third Set 8-9
4th set 7-9
Third set 11-13

Total Games played in one day 89 X 7 minites equals ten hours of play, not including your 15 minutes between sets. Probably better off doing races to 5 or 6 or 7?
This above match would definitely bring in the physical side, and could make for a great match.

 

[donny mills]

Donny, question for you buddy. If a 20 game lead would have given you an automatic win early in the match...knowing now what you didn't know back then...would you have tried to play even harder to go for the knockout as quick as you could have over Shane...rather than go the distance to 100? I know from my playing years that sometimes you just get on a roll and can't seem to miss anything and can really string some racks together....but even then, sooner or later you fall out of that Zone. So my question is just that...while in that "zone"...would you have given the option...focused all efforts to gain that lead to win the match?

Glen

I think maybe. If you see the finish line I think it makes you focus and try harder.

 

[donny mills]

I don't know if it was mentioned or not, don't feel like reading every response, but I'm gonna have to disagree a lil bit with my fat friend. I don't believe that the better player always wins in a super long race, only because if either player gets out to a big early lead, the player that's trailing almost always goes into give up/tilt mode. To me that doesn't mean that the player that's ahead is "better".

I have a cool Idea though, and I'm known for great ideas. Have 2 world class champions matched up, but each player doesn't know who his opponent is. The race is to 100 or 15-20 ahead. Both players are isolated in a booth that is in another room and are to never know how many games their opponent has won, they are only let out when it is their turn to shoot or to piss. This way they can't go into give up mode, or get pissy because of a lucky roll by the other player or by slow play. And they will assume that they're always in the lead, so they'll give their 100% best effort at all times.

No one steal my idea. I will answer any questions you guys have.

That would be awesome to see. Just once though. Bartram plays and wins and then finds out after that he just hijacked orcollo.

 

[donny mills]

I think he won because over the entire weekend he actually outshot SVB. I mean clearly, Archer for that weekend was a better player who missed less balls, played better shape, and broke just as well.

You might think SVB was supposed to win but he was outplayed on the weekend and it does not matter what the race is, if SVB shoots worse then Archer in a match of any length he is supposed to lose.

It seemed like archer played better the whole weekend. I don't know if he broke better.

 

[donny mills]

You really have no idea what in the hell you are talking about do you?

You are the guy who doesnt know who 90% of the pros are and now you know how their minds work? How long have you known Shane and Johnny personally? What basis do you have to say they would do anything like what you suggest ?

Here is a clue dipshit....both of these guys HATE to lose. This was a big deal for Johnny because he knew lots of people are watching. Its not a race to 9 where if he gets smoked its just a bad day at the office. This was his chance to show everyone he still has it and he did. Same goes for Shane. He wanted to prove he is the best American. Its called pride jackwagon.

Simple answer is you dont know anything and are talking straight out of your ass.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Celtic]

It seemed like archer played better the whole weekend. I don't know if he broke better.

I agree, if you read closer I did not say he "broke" better.

 

[realkingcobra]

I think maybe. If you see the finish line I think it makes you focus and try harder.

That's kind of what I was thinking...like maybe 5 games away from the knockout vs...45 more games to go to 100 and the win...it could make the short time "in the zone" last just a little longer and keep that drive going just long enough to take the early win

 

[denzy]

I watched the last two days of the match really close run outs and misses were close to the same by both players. The one difference I seen that Shane played bad shots on the one ball and then when Shane went for a low percentage shot Johnny ran out. The last two days Shane got 12 ball in hands and Johnny only got four ball in hands. In two days Shane only missed two kick shots and Johnny missed only twenty shots in the last two days both played great.

 

[robsnotes4u]

yes you are

Am I the only one who thinks best of 9 sets with short races over 3 days would be a good format?

Please see post #196.

What am I missing..?

Thanks in advance..

yes you are, move on. Everybody has their own idea that works, I think TAR has done a good job. It would be interesting to add $1000 bonus to the person who wins the most total games. Just me though, I will move on also

 

[robsnotes4u]

?????

It would not surprise me one bit because these two guys and others tried to form an association boycotting the US Open.

Let's just say that there were some multiple bets made by various people and depending if the money was laid on Shane or JA that they could possibly throw the match. I mean they didn't invest a dime into this match.

Split the 4k...2k a piece for being there and split whatever money that bookies were raking in.

Didn't someone mentioned that the final score was actually tied with all sets combined?

I wonder if pool is sanctioned or commissioned by any governing body to monitor these matters. Heck, all major sports monitor these activities.

AZ members were betting hundreds of dollars who's to say there wasn't thousands of dollars floating around while this match was going on.

I can assure many members on AZ, myself included, would act together if bigger opportunities came knocking. It's just the nature of the beast with this game. Pool players have always been a tight knit, they get closer as you rank up higher. It's how it is at pool rooms, the good players hang with the good players and the decent hangs with the decent.

These guys are a selective few who are the top dogs...the 1 percent. Why not eat...got nothing to lose in these TAR matches. These matches are just exhibitions anyways....it's not like it's going to be on their resume, that they lost or beat Player A.

When you look at these guys' resumes...major tournaments are listed and not an exhibition match.

I really do not know what to say about a post like this. That is a disgraceful statements to the players and TAR. I have been lucky enough, because our Pro is great friends with Shane and helped him get to the postion he is in, to have breakfast with Shane, and that is not the way he operates. I will also say, there aren't many people that know Shane better than JCIN with TAR. To write what you are writing is a disgrace to these guys and pool in general, grow up.

Since you are not man enough, I apologize to Shane, Johnny and Justin for having to listen to this crap. Shane and Johnny, thank you for giving it your best. Justin, thanks for what you do, you were able to put on an amazing match between two professional. Without you this would not have happened.

 

[Hungarian]

yes you are, move on. Everybody has their own idea that works, I think TAR has done a good job. It would be interesting to add $1000 bonus to the person who wins the most total games. Just me though, I will move on also

That's a great idea. You are so smart.

 

[Bigtruck]

I don't know if it was mentioned or not, don't feel like reading every response, but I'm gonna have to disagree a lil bit with my fat friend. I don't believe that the better player always wins in a super long race, only because if either player gets out to a big early lead, the player that's trailing almost always goes into give up/tilt mode. To me that doesn't mean that the player that's ahead is "better".

I have a cool Idea though, and I'm known for great ideas. Have 2 world class champions matched up, but each player doesn't know who his opponent is. The race is to 100 or 15-20 ahead. Both players are isolated in a booth that is in another room and are to never know how many games their opponent has won, they are only let out when it is their turn to shoot or to piss. This way they can't go into give up mode, or get pissy because of a lucky roll by the other player or by slow play. And they will assume that they're always in the lead, so they'll give their 100% best effort at all times.

No one steal my idea. I will answer any questions you guys have.

Dammit. I knew I had a mole. :shocked2:

or

Maybe great minds think alike. This will be cool.

Ray

 

[Bigtruck]

Guys,

Don't get too mad at Dom. He has much reason to be cynical. This type of thing HAS been going on for ages even before the International Challenge of Champions scheme that brought pool's dreams to it's knees.

I'm sure many others have had similar thoughts without voicing them. I seem to remember even Justin making similar comments (with a lot more tact though) a few years back when someone else was doing some exhibitions. Galveston maybe.

Mark Griffin and TAR are prolly the only game in town that could pull off legit exhibition matches, because of the package that CSI brings to the table. It's stronger than cat piss.

I REALLY like the format TAR is using except I would like to see shorter races and more sets.

TAR, I hope you guys are covering the nut and continue to for a long time.

Ray

 

[Hungarian]

....I would like to see shorter races and more sets.

That's what I said twice but no one wanted to admit to agreeing for fear of having an opinion. No freaking way in the world (1) race to 25 is more exciting than (3) races to 8. Looks like it's just me and you Ray. It would be MUCH more enjoyable and dramatic... Who really cares who the best is. The "BEST" is a moving target...ever heard the term any given sunday..

 

[JayTS]

I think 3 out of 5 race to 15 games two sets a day and the 5th final set to 21 games on the third day if needed. Lots of drama and quicker conclusions.

 

[Johnnyt]

I think 3 out of 5 race to 15 games two sets a day and the 5th final set to 21 games on the third day if needed. Lots of drama and quicker conclusions.

Not a bad idea here either. Johnnyt

 

[elvicash]

I like the new format with best of 3 races to 25. Perhaps the underdog has a chance in these as Bartram points out but isn't that an important part of the entertainment value that TAR is trying to sell. If they come up with a format where the best player is a lock a to win say a race to 300 there would be issues. First of all who would want to watch a guaranteed slaughter. Second who want to wager on it. No what we the public want to see is a player who is not known come up and win against the champion. We like Rocky vs Apollo Creed we want to cheer for the underdog. The current format is good I still think it is too long to ever go mainstream at 3 days of multiple hours but we love pool and we will sit and watch or play this crazy game for hours hopefully the word will get out and more will watch. I say whatever the game or match to be successful TAR has to continue to have matches where either player can win the event. I think with a final score of 66-66 that these players were well matched. Thanks TAR.


Now since everyone is second guessing the format let me make a suggestion perhaps it will get some interest. Lets score and also break like tennis.

In tennis you race to 4 pts win by 2. They call that a game and then group games together they call that a set and they group sets and they call that a match.

So in pool have one player as the breaker for a short set say race to 3,4 or 5 win by 2. Opposing player breaks the entire next set. First to win 3 or 4 those sets/races would win a session allow a session to be won by a single set. First to win 2 or 3 sessions would be the champion. Knowing you will break an entire set would be very strong for some players. Also some players will get up and run out short sets. With that in mind allow the oponent to defend a session when a winning set is ran out by attempting to run out an opposing set to hold the other player.

This idea of short sets with a breaker would let us know who was holding break/serve. More short increments would give more elements of interest. More items for statistics. just an idea.

<<<<-------- Elvi likes high offense pool

 

[pt109]

I like the race to 25...I think calling it a 'short' race is a joke.

I would like to see THIS innovation, however.
If someone wins the first two sets...you can still have a third day.....
...a race equivalent to 25 of ANY pool game of the loser's choosing.....
...for half the original purse.

The game choice and the duration could be established in the pod cast
preceding the Tar match.

pt..<..thinks the third day could be VERY interesting