shane beats chang in tar match

realkingcobra said:
You clearly missed my point so I'll make it simple for you. When was the last time someone played Shane a race to a 100, who was it, and what was the outcome????
Click to expand...

I didn't miss your dumb argument about the greatness of Butterbean.
Chang has beat Shane in money matches he agreed to.
Race to 50 ain't a 4 rounder.
 
ShootingArts said:
One thing not mentioned is Shane gets a solid cash sponsorship these days. That alone is enough to ensure he doesn't have the same hunger he had before. He has seen cuetec hang with their sponsored players for many years after their best so he knows they won't dump him if he doesn't win every big event. Knowing that he has a steady income takes a little of the edge off. The years are starting to catch up too. Older players can sometimes overcome the effects of age but the grinds don't come as easy as they did when he was in his twenties. Still a lot of good years and wins ahead of him but nature of the beast his wins won't come as easily as they once did.

Hu
Click to expand...

He won USO titles using Cuetec.
Not all iirc.
But, hungry enough with Cuetec.
Cuetec used to match Earl's tournament winnings.
It's a great incentive to win tournaments.
 
Before anyone goes to far down the rabbit hole, let's remember Shane lost exactly the same number of matches as the champion....it ain't like he went 2 and out.

Also, If I remember correctly, he was cruising along pretty good in his loss and a ball gets kicked in on the break...not a bad shot, not bad judgement, just bad luck. That bad luck opened the door.
 
jokrswylde said:
Before anyone goes to far down the rabbit hole, let's remember Shane lost exactly the same number of matches as the champion....it ain't like he went 2 and out.

Also, If I remember correctly, he was cruising along pretty good in his loss and a ball gets kicked in on the break...not a bad shot, not bad judgement, just bad luck. That bad luck opened the door.
Click to expand...

No, let's not remember it that way.

The first three days of the US Open were a qualifier, just as stated. Either you qualified for the second event, a knockout event with fifteen world beaters in it, or you did not. If you qualified, then once you got there, you had to go 4-0 to win the title, and only one player managed it.

Of those who qualified for the 256 player US Open, would you make a distinction between those that went undefeated in their qualifying events and those who took a loss on route to winning their qualifier? Of course not, because in a qualifying situation, there is no difference. And so it was at the US Open itself.

No doubt in 2016, when SVB won the US Open, beating JL Chang in the final, you had a big problem with it. Chang had beaten him 11-3 earlier in the event and won far more than half of the racks he and SVB played head to head.

Finally, attributing Shane's loss to bad luck is simply revisionist history. He was outplayed.
 
Scott Lee said:
Hey good buddy, the truth about the Alex match was that Shane's mom showed up the third day really drunk, and was sitting tableside watching. That's when Shane started losing, and let Alex back in the game. I was right there watching, and was so embarrassed for him.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com


[Shane has only lost one race to 100 and yes it was to Alex in their first match, in whichShane blew a 28 game lead at one point. But Shane tortured Alex in the next race to a 100, and beat him out of quite a bit of cash at pool room in Vegas after that match as well.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
We can always count on you for a classy post.
 
sjm said:
No, let's not remember it that way.

The first three days of the US Open were a qualifier, just as stated. Either you qualified for the second event, a knockout event with fifteen world beaters in it, or you did not. If you qualified, then once you got there, you had to go 4-0 to win the title, and only one player managed it.

Of those who qualified for the 256 player US Open, would you make a distinction between those that went undefeated in their qualifying events and those who took a loss on route to winning their qualifier? Of course not, because in a qualifying situation, there is no difference. And so it was at the US Open itself.

No doubt in 2016, when SVB won the US Open, beating JL Chang in the final, you had a big problem with it. Chang had beaten him 11-3 earlier in the event and won far more than half of the racks he and SVB played head to head.

Finally, attributing Shane's loss to bad luck is simply revisionist history. He was outplayed.
Click to expand...

Wow. You gotta really be looking for a reason to defend Filler, or really obtuse. The point I was making, evidently not clear enough, was that one loss in the tournament does not mean SVB had a bad tournament or he is "going the way of Earle".

No doubt in 2016, when SVB won the US Open, beating JL Chang in the final, you had a big problem with it. Chang had beaten him 11-3 earlier in the event and won far more than half of the racks he and SVB played head to head.

I had no problem with it, just as I don't have a problem with this year's tourney.

Finally, attributing Shane's loss to bad luck is simply revisionist history. He was outplayed.

Nobody attributed his loss to bad luck. If you read the post I pointed out that if I remembered correctly, SVB was leading the match and playing well until a kicked in cue ball on his break. I stated that bad luck opened the door.

If I remembered that scenario incorrectly, please correct my memory.

No, let's not remember it that way.

You remember it how you want and maybe let everyone else do the same?
 
jokrswylde said:
Wow. You gotta really be looking for a reason to defend Filler, or really obtuse.
Click to expand...

Not looking to defend anyone, but defending Filler would be about the easiest task imaginable, when he holds the two biggest titles in our sport.

Guess I'm just obtuse. Somehow, though, I managed to fade this burdensome characteristic by earning an Ivy League degree and being sufficiently successful in my career to have retired at 50.

FYI, I also don't think Shane has fallen at all. See post 95, in which I opposed those who feel Shane has fallen or that he's showing signs of wear and tear. I don't believe this to be so, and it seems neither do you.
 
sjm said:
Not looking to defend anyone, but defending Filler would be about the easiest task imaginable, when he holds the two biggest titles in our sport.

Guess I'm just obtuse. Somehow, though, I managed to fade this burdensome characteristic by earning an Ivy League degree and being sufficiently successful in my career to have retired at 50.

FYI, I also don't think Shane has fallen at all. See post 95, in which I opposed those who feel Shane has fallen or that he's showing signs of wear and tear. I don't believe this to be so, and it seems neither do you.
Click to expand...

i agree, he hasn't fallen. but the rest of the world isn't static. rather the competition is at a level never seen before.

also i think rack your own with a triangle is going out of fashion, much to the detriment of players like shane, corey and orcullo.
 
skogstokig said:
i agree, he hasn't fallen. but the rest of the world isn't static. rather the competition is at a level never seen before.

also i think rack your own with a triangle is going out of fashion, much to the detriment of players like shane, corey and orcullo.
Click to expand...

Never fair to let the fox in the henhouse
 
JoeyInCali said:
When he lost, it was because of his drunk mother and bad table.

Hey Glen, TAR is out of business.
Click to expand...

Ever meet Shane's mom? How about his aunt, grandpa, uncle? Have you ever played on a 10' converted snooker table to be a pocket pool table? You think Diamond 9fts have deep shelfs, that don't have nothing on a poorly converted snooker table.

So, ether your an expert on pool tables and know Shane's mother personally, or you're just a lowlife making comments like this out of frustration because you can't get your way about Shane's record of playing anyone in a race to a 100!
 
realkingcobra said:
Ever meet Shane's mom? How about his aunt, grandpa, uncle? Have you ever played on a 10' converted snooker table to be a pocket pool table? You think Diamond 9fts have deep shelfs, that don't have nothing on a poorly converted snooker table.

So, ether your an expert on pool tables and know Shane's mother personally, or you're just a lowlife making comments like this out of frustration because you can't get your way about Shane's record of playing anyone in a race to a 100!
Click to expand...
Right, when Shane loses, there are reasons.

Hey, let's make US Open semi-finals race to 100 so Shane wins them all.

Did Shane beat Chang in race to 100?
Oh, wait, nobody has puts up that event anymore.
Maybe a millionaire like you can out it up.

Why don't you tell that to Scott Lee.
Not me, genius. ��
 
Last edited:
JoeyInCali said:
Right, when Shane loses, there are reasons.

Hey, let's make US Open semi-finals race to 100 so Shane wins them all.

Did Shane beat Chang in race to 100?
Oh, wait, nobody has puts up that event anymore.
Maybe a millionaire like you can out it up.

Why don't you tell that to Scott Lee.
Not me, genius. ��
Click to expand...
:sad::sad::sad::sad::crying::crying::crying:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top