I hope it succeeds as well.
race to 25 2 out of 3 sets
- Thread starter real bartram
- Start date
I hope it succeeds as well.
JA said!
When JA did the TAR interview they asked him who was his toughest opponent..., he said Busta. He went on to say that he didnt look forward to playing Busta..., now we all know JA can play and has heart.
We also know that he gives SVB his just do, but I think that JA knows and believes that he can take down anyboby if hie break is working anf he also knows who has it all figured out and who, while playing at a champion level he might be able to still beat.
Kudo's to JA.
When JA did the TAR interview they asked him who was his toughest opponent..., he said Busta. He went on to say that he didnt look forward to playing Busta..., now we all know JA can play and has heart.
We also know that he gives SVB his just do, but I think that JA knows and believes that he can take down anyboby if hie break is working anf he also knows who has it all figured out and who, while playing at a champion level he might be able to still beat.
Kudo's to JA.
no but you might think dif if you did.
longer sets
I appreciate what Tar is trying to do with making Pool interesting. I think by no player had any money invested, The antics of Johnny Archer over the weekend was ridiculous. Starting off by chatting with the spectators while he was ahead, while Shane was sitting in his seat figuring what to do when he had his next time up. Then it got worse, Johnny started singing.....if Archer would have put up his own money to bet with instead of a paid free ride, do you think you would have been singing and talking back and forth with the crowd, like he was ? I think by not having anything themselves to lose, it takes away the suspense of the match, as everyone knows, while you are intense in your running the balls, your mind is deep into the game, and imo, it took away some of the respect of the other player. Don't get me wrong, I think what Tar is doing is in the best interests of Pool, it's just I think it takes something away from the money Challenge match....when either one has nothing to lose. Archer was acting like a kid in a candy store because he was chosen to play and get at least a free check either way.....This is just my opinion of the newer format.....I prefer the 3 day longer race, whether it be race to 75 or a race to 100......and one last thing....Justin told Mike Dechaine that Mike, you made more money then Tar did in his match with Hatch. I don't think you will see Dechaine or Hatch back on Tar anytime soon, at least I know I won't.
I appreciate what Tar is trying to do with making Pool interesting. I think by no player had any money invested, The antics of Johnny Archer over the weekend was ridiculous. Starting off by chatting with the spectators while he was ahead, while Shane was sitting in his seat figuring what to do when he had his next time up. Then it got worse, Johnny started singing.....if Archer would have put up his own money to bet with instead of a paid free ride, do you think you would have been singing and talking back and forth with the crowd, like he was ? I think by not having anything themselves to lose, it takes away the suspense of the match, as everyone knows, while you are intense in your running the balls, your mind is deep into the game, and imo, it took away some of the respect of the other player. Don't get me wrong, I think what Tar is doing is in the best interests of Pool, it's just I think it takes something away from the money Challenge match....when either one has nothing to lose. Archer was acting like a kid in a candy store because he was chosen to play and get at least a free check either way.....This is just my opinion of the newer format.....I prefer the 3 day longer race, whether it be race to 75 or a race to 100......and one last thing....Justin told Mike Dechaine that Mike, you made more money then Tar did in his match with Hatch. I don't think you will see Dechaine or Hatch back on Tar anytime soon, at least I know I won't.
Last edited:
You love the "long set" because you might be the best endurance player ever, if you were like me, after 3-4 hours it hurts so bad you cant play then you wouldnt like it long.
I think if SVb played Ja one race to 100 SVB wins cause of age, I think???
hope you been good,
thats exactly why, if they were 4" or 3 7/8" he wins by more. tight pockets favor him, like long sessions favor you., I think you beat Ja in a race to 250. all due respect.
Would you consider the thought that there was some bets made and the players had a deeper interest than the setup money.JA has always been a get it all when you can headhunter.not to many team up to call him out to play a even game.
bill
A race to 25 is plenty long enough to rule out luck, or much of it.
I like the 3 day format because it will take away the fact that someone may be in the zone for a day, then dog it the next day. This way you have to be on for several days to win.
I like the 3 day format because it will take away the fact that someone may be in the zone for a day, then dog it the next day. This way you have to be on for several days to win.
Hey Real Bartram,
I think that both players had the same chance to win with the race to 25 games. After all the rules and table was the same for both players. Now a short race favors the player who is not the best. But this was a long race and 3 days to finish it. And 3 sets. What more can you ask for! The money was not that great for the time involved either. The more money you play for the longer the race can be. Just my opinion.
Many Regards,
Lock N Load.
i don't think the race to 100 is the answer. the only thing it proves is stamina. JA and SVB finished at 66-66. would one last race to 34 really have meant anything? they both still played great and the only thing the last stretch would prove is who played best the last day.
here's the problem with trying to prove who's the best. you can't. you can say who is the best that day, that weekend, that week. but the out come might not be the same if the same people (or team in a team sport) played the whole thing again.
that's why there are cliches like "on any given sunday" used in the nfl. when you get two top tier opponents playing against each other the out come can change drastically day to day.
personally i don't think who can stand to be at the table longer proves who is better. i like the idea of multiple sets. i want to see who can be better on more days. how will you come back after having your ass handed to yesterday. do you come back and play better, like johnny and shane both had to, or do you fold like cheap card table?
being able to stay at the table for 12 or 18 hours to win a long ahead set only tells me you were able to focus longer and were in good enugh physical shape to do it. and i mean no offense to the guys who do it and do it well. especially to chris. i am a huge fan and i always root for him. but i wouldn't think any more or any less of chris' (or any one else's) talent if he won a race to 100, a 10 ahead or 3 out of 5 sets. talent is talent and winning is winning. you're going to have it and do it or you're not.
here's the problem with trying to prove who's the best. you can't. you can say who is the best that day, that weekend, that week. but the out come might not be the same if the same people (or team in a team sport) played the whole thing again.
that's why there are cliches like "on any given sunday" used in the nfl. when you get two top tier opponents playing against each other the out come can change drastically day to day.
personally i don't think who can stand to be at the table longer proves who is better. i like the idea of multiple sets. i want to see who can be better on more days. how will you come back after having your ass handed to yesterday. do you come back and play better, like johnny and shane both had to, or do you fold like cheap card table?
being able to stay at the table for 12 or 18 hours to win a long ahead set only tells me you were able to focus longer and were in good enugh physical shape to do it. and i mean no offense to the guys who do it and do it well. especially to chris. i am a huge fan and i always root for him. but i wouldn't think any more or any less of chris' (or any one else's) talent if he won a race to 100, a 10 ahead or 3 out of 5 sets. talent is talent and winning is winning. you're going to have it and do it or you're not.
This is pure entertainment like already stated. This does nothing to determine the best player. They are betting zero, no pressure.
The best player is without any doubt Dennis Orcullo, hands down, long sets to like 2-300 he could probaly give Shane the 8 playin 10 ball and still get the cash.
But I paid and watched Archer get the cheese, and even had 2 bets on him
The best player is without any doubt Dennis Orcullo, hands down, long sets to like 2-300 he could probaly give Shane the 8 playin 10 ball and still get the cash.
But I paid and watched Archer get the cheese, and even had 2 bets on him
To be fair, not many players bet their own money like you do. And most of the ones that do no one wants to watch or wants people to watch them. Tar takes the high maintenance backers out of the equation. It lets them be able to put down matches people want to see without a lot of the crap. Getting backed in a 10k match how much does the player see? 5k at best. Tar gives the winner 4 and puts them both on a plane to and from with a hotel. If I played good enough to be on TAR I would be all over it and would play my ass off. Damn I wish I didn't suck at pool lol.
It ain't about who the best pool player is, it's about who the best pool player is at what people want to watch. I agree your grind-a-thon would prove who the best is without a doubt.
- There's some pressure in this format and yes it is different then gambling.
- Shane Probably feels he would have won if it was race to 100.
- None of the players so far in this format would even think of doing a saver.
Last edited:
there is nothing wrong with this format.
but you cant say who the best is by 1 of these matches.
i started this thread just saying that the underdog
will win a lot of these.
I'm with the 'CEO' here.
If I lost playing race to 25, 2 out of 3 sets.....
..I'm gonna have to say I got beat....
regards
double hemlock
I guess I would think that the underdog should win 4 out of 10 if its truly even match gambling. Any thing else is stealing. I tend to think there is more pressure with the 3 sets as each day has an ending point. The long race is just one bet where they can overcome or feel like they have enough time to overcome early struggles.
As far as this match went JA played awesome and def put alot of pressure on at different times each day. He also came out of the break great on all three days which helped with this format. I just think the announcers need to give more credit to players that win rather than the player losing. This match they were biased pretty good which got old when SVB was struggling.
funny
I agree Johnny played awesome, you would have thought he kicked Shane's butt. Shane didn't shoot like we are use to seeing him shoot. Now with that in mind they tied at 66-66.
What does that tell you, if Johnny shot awesome and Shane didn't yet they were even in games. Watching the matches I would have never guessed that.
I understand exactly what the OP is talking about. Makes sense.
I agree Johnny played awesome, you would have thought he kicked Shane's butt. Shane didn't shoot like we are use to seeing him shoot. Now with that in mind they tied at 66-66.
What does that tell you, if Johnny shot awesome and Shane didn't yet they were even in games. Watching the matches I would have never guessed that.
I understand exactly what the OP is talking about. Makes sense.