Ron Swanson
Banned
Go on then, enlighten me...
Shane Has Won World Titles
- Thread starter OLD NO 9
- Start date
Go on then, enlighten me...
yes it is so much in the gutter that we have tournaments just about every weekend. we contest it in many varied and interesting games. we have a thriving culture of money matches. so much in the gutter that you are here trolling instead of discussing your infinitely interesting disciplines over there.
not really im talking about cueing off the cushion shooting 11 ft then bringing the ball back through a cluster 13 ft to land back on a penny at the baulk cushion
I don't think that shot is ever played, because in snooker you can leave a teaser that is too difficult to go for kinda like 1 pocket in rotation player will go for it because high percentage chance to make it as can hit hit first diamond and still fall in pocket speed
Ron Swanson
Banned
Given how some aiming system kid bored him into defeat recently, i'd get rid of that stop clock if were you.
Chris morris fan?
Ron Swanson
Banned
How and why people end up in the gutter is an interesting subject, i'm sure you'll agree.
Complacency and arrogance are often chief suspects.
No......Yes
And I'd bet a third million, that Chris Melling (currently ranked 97th) never cracks the top 16.
Since you missed it, that was the point.
JB was inferring that it's the same game no matter the length of the match, when the reality is that the length of the match directly influences a number of critical factors - shot choice, pressure, stamina, concentration etc.
My example was an extreme example of how important the distance is, highlighting how stupid JB's proposition was.
So, I'll be more precise.
The reason why short/long distance running is a terrible analogy to short/long race pool is not simply because it is an extreme comparison, but because short and long distance running are entirely different sports.
The difference between a long and short race in pool is predominantly in the number of trials. i.e. how many times do we choose to perform a given activity in a series of independent trials? For example, do we flip a coin 1 time or 10,000, do we play 1 game of 9 ball or 150. The key here is that since you are repeating a sequence of independent activities, as we increase n (the number of trials), it becomes less and less likely that we'll get a result that deviates significantly from the true value (0.50 for coin flips, or Shane's true 9 ball winning percentage over another player).
With running, the proper analogy would be to compare the difference between running one 100 meter race against Usain Bolt vs. a series of one-hundred 100 meter races, spaced at a time interval that allows each race to be reasonably independent of each other. Said differently, races that are separated by sufficient recovery time. The reality is, in any one race Yohan Blake may be able to beat Usain Bolt 10% of the time. However, if they ran one-hundred 100 meter dashes, say once a day for 3 months, the odds of Yohan Blake being up at the end would be 0.00000000000...
On the other hand, a 10,000 meter race is not even close to a series of 100 independent 100 meter races. The physiological demands on running the fastest 100 meter dash are nearly opposite to those of running the fastest 10,000 meters. If you don't believe me, just examine the phenotype of world class sprinters and world class 10,000 meter runners. It is difficult to find a larger difference in sports.
You could argue that a race to 100 in 9 ball draws too much demands on stamina, conditioning, mental fortitude, etc... (vs. a shorter race) that it no longer becomes a series of independent events. To that, I would respond that if the entire set was performed in 1 night with no rest, you might have a point. But that is rarely the proposition. Even with TAR, they spread out the race over 3 days.
But if that is not enough rest, you could do better. Why not just play 20 games a day for a month? At the end of the month, see who's ahead? Do you think there's a player out there that would take Shane on in 9 ball or 10 ball? (question not rhetorical)
Ya think? Of courseThaiger ?
I'm still having trouble parsing your posts. Here you've provided two theories, both of them different from the one I quoted previously, which was that Americans prefer combos and caroms whereas other countries prefer to play position for easier shots.
Now you're saying that Americans emphasize safety play, which is usually associated with the Flilpinos. But then you follow that up with talking about bank pool, which I don't see as relevant to safety play, and playing poor position, which I would think is incompatible with emphasizing safety play since safeties require such accurate cue ball control.
Then you provide a different theory, about poor technique, which seems more plausible to me, especially in comparing the US to countries like the UK that have such a strong snooker background. But this is still different from your other theories.
If you want to come up with theories about why American pool sucks I tend to think it's more about the (poor) economic infrastructure of American pool than any particular technical emphasis. If pool was as popular in the US as snooker is in the UK, I'm sure you'd see the level of American pool players rise. And if we were as organized about getting pool tours together as the Europeans seem to be, again I'd think you find a difference fairly quickly. My sense is that there are many more amateur/league pool players in the US than in Europe, and if the money and prestige of tours and tournaments rose, you'd see the quality of play rise as well.
Not if their not of the same physical ability ,, how do you know Shane practices the hardest ,,
1
Thanks for the elaborate clarification, but you needn't have bothered. Unless you think there's a chance the world championships will switch to matches being 20 games a day for a month?
Probably not, huh?
I pay attention.
I would bet he wouldn't be a top player. ,,I think Alex and his followers thought he would much better than he did. ,, let's not forget he's been playing for yrs
1
Obviously we're both making assumptions. I don't think that (a) it's just a function of the number of hours and (b) skill levels off after some number like 10k hours. I think starting young (like Shane did) and having proper instruction, regimented practice, and support from peers and coaches makes a big difference.
American pool players generally pick up the game by just hitting balls around. Snooker pros, almost to the man, have better fundamentals, because they've been taught and trained. Pool players shoot as straight as they need to to pocket balls on a 9-footer and run racks of 9-balls. Compared to running balls on a snooker table, this just isn't that straight.
I think the amount of cross-over success from snooker to pool and the lack of such success in the other direction is pretty strong evidence. If pool players had the cue skills to play pro snooker, somebody would have done it, given that the level of prize money is something like 10X or 20X in snooker.
Sure, he can master any shot, but can he execute tough shots with snooker-level precision on a regular basis, like the snooker pros can? I don't think so. The thing is, unless he gives pro snooker a real go, we'll never really know for sure.
Good post (too long to quote though
). Let me ask you - and I'm not trolling you, I'm honestly not sure - which type of long race do you think would be more fair, meaning more likely for the better player to win:
A. a race to 50
B. a race to win 5 sets of races to 10
Good post (too long to quote though
Let me ask you - and I'm not trolling you, I'm honestly not sure - which type of long race do you think would be more fair, meaning more likely for the better player to win:
A. a race to 50
B. a race to win 5 sets of races to 10
The answer is B, but it's close.
If the better player has a 51% chance of winning a rack, that player will win:
Race to 50: 57.9% of the time
Race to 10: 53.5% of the time
Race to 5 races to 10: 58.6% of the time
If the better player has a 55% chance of winning a rack, that player will win:
Race to 50: 84.1% of the time
Race to 10: 67.1% of the time
Race to 5 races to 10: 86.2% of the time
excellent post. That pretty much sums it up in layman's terms where even these Neanderthals can understand. You can google pretty much the same thing with regards to variance but I assume that not one of them have taken the time to do so since they obviously had no understanding of the term beforehand.
But, I suspect that even with it laid out so that even a grade schooler can comprehend, it will fall of deaf ears.
that's not what the people saying that Shane is the best are saying! It absolutely amazes me that people still don't understand simple logic and math. The shorter the race, the more chance a worse player has to win. The longer the race, the less chance the worse player has. How is this still not registering?
The fact that these world championships are races to 7, allows the worse player to have more of a statistical chance at winning. Hence, a very high variance. A much longer race, favors the better player, hence a low variance. If the world championships were races to 20 then Shane would win almost all of them at the moment because he is the best in the world.
By the way, the answer to this is NO. Everyone here knows it and all of the players know it.