Utter tosh. Using your massively flawed logic you'd think that Usain Bolt would be winning every marathon in the land - it's just the same thing over a longer distance isn't it?
Shane Has Won World Titles
- Thread starter OLD NO 9
- Start date
Utter tosh. Using your massively flawed logic you'd think that Usain Bolt would be winning every marathon in the land - it's just the same thing over a longer distance isn't it?
Instead of a race to 100, I'd rather see 5 races to 21 over 5 days, or 3/3 etc. Instead of just one set determined by games, make them multiple sets over days.
Okay, 5 races it is then ! :thumbup:
Utter tosh. Using your massively flawed logic you'd think that Usain Bolt would be winning every marathon in the land - it's just the same thing over a longer distance isn't it?
I could have predicted this.
Different sports, different disciplines, different criteria. But yes, if running in general is the criteria then Usain Bolt loses every marathon.
Pool is a game where skill levels are more subtle in their divisions. Luck plays a huge role throughout strings of games played. The players are faced with random layouts each time they break and have to navigate those layouts.
Much different than exploding down a track in less than ten seconds, getting on a plane and doing the same thing again.
And this is an example of a false comparison. Are you another incarnation of Thaiger? Why is it only those who love to use British slang like to argue with me in this manner.
The right comparison would be though that there would be someone who said they were willing to gamble against Usain Bolt in heads up matches despite Usain Bolt's tournament (track meet) victories. And if that person were to then beat Bolt despite those tournament victories what would that say? Well for one thing it would say that Bolt IS NOT the fastest man in the world, only the fastest on some days and that other humans existed who were faster on other days.
What if that other person said ok well any of us fast guys can finish first in any single race so let's race ten times over three days and see who finishes first more often?
What would that show? I think it would show which runner really was better over a series of heads up matches.
That's the point. Now in a tournament the players aren't always matching up against each other. Sometimes Shane will lose without ever meeting Niels for example. It's a parallel competition where each player can have a separate path to the finals. As opposed to a long race heads-up competition where you have to deal with one player for a long time and beat that player only to win it.
There is zero logical way you can make it stick that a race to 100 is easier than a race to 13 to win. You don't get the benefit of lucky rolls to win the race to 100. You have to play strong throughout to stay in the set and MAYBE at the end if it's close a lucky roll can make the difference. But if your skill isn't enough you will be blown away and never get close.
I will grant you that the pressure of a short race can be great. Sure, you only have that one short set to advance so you have to bring it. That's why tournaments have their place and why titles matter. Winning a major is a great accomplishment. But again winning majors doesn't automatically make the winners better players than the other world class pros who didn't win.
The only reason I don't like this is because it sets up a situation where a guy can lose the majority of sets despite having won more games.
A race to 100 is clear, the guy who wins more games wins the match.
cant shane bring his A-game in the 1st 11 racks?
You said before CSI that the Ko boys were here with backers willing to bet big
So if you knew it I'm sure Shane's backers knew it also ,,
1
OK, I'll try to paraphrase your stream of conscious post;
"Some nonsense about how running different distances is completely different for runners, but pool is somehow exempt to this and is exactly the same no matter the distance.
Something about exploding and planes. (someone call the FBI)
Blue Jam is Thaiger.
Babbling about Bolt not being the fastest man in the world.
Sprinters should gamble heads up over several races.
Pool races to 13 are harder to win. Pressure is more telling in short races. Titles are important."
Alright I think we are getting somewhere. JB doesn't understand analogies. SVB has no world titles. Races to 100 are an irrelevant distraction.
Back to square one then - every time SVB has tried to win a world title there have been a minimum of 4-7 players better than him on each occasion. Simple facts.
Three US Opens on the run is remarkable and he will no doubt be a force to be reckoned with in future World Championships - but talk of dominating the field is fanboyism of the highest order.
or we could make all tournament matches races to 100.
In this particular model, if Jane plays one of the other players (call him Bob), then her chances of winning are going to be identical whether playing winner break or alternate break. Specifically, in a race to 11, Jane will win 68.78% of the time if she wins the lag, and 67.18% of the time if she loses the lag. The numbers are the same whether it's winner break or alternating break. In a race to 7, these numbers are 65.51% and 63.37%, depending on who wins the lag.
You can work out the math yourself if you want, but the basic reason why the numbers come out the same in either format is that winner versus alternate breaks effectively only changes the order the racks are played. A race-to-11 is really best of 21, and if the match goes the full hill-hill, then the lag winner will get 11 breaks and the other player 10 breaks under either format. If it doesn't go hill-hill, than one or both of the players will have had less than their maximum number of breaks, but since one player has already reached 11, then the rest of the unplayed racks won't change the outcome.
So winner breaks does not actually favor the better breaker or better player. Winner breaks does have the effect of increasing the average victory margin for the better breaker (since when you win, you will usually have had more chances to break than your opponent), but it doesn't change the odds of actually winning the match.
Last edited:
Yes and that might now be enough because the rolls don't always work out that even if Shane makes every ball he shoots at he could still lose the set.
That's the nature of short races.
Orcullo shot a 1000 up til 6:3 then he had a few unlucky rolls, a few dry breaks and Shane had a few lucky ones and Shane won 13:10.
It is assumed that players bring their A game to every professional match. The shorter the set the more chances that a weaker player's A game is enough to dispatch a stronger player.
There is a reason that ALL top players prefer longer sets. Poll them and I doubt you find a single top 20 player who doesn't prefer longer sets for tournaments. Almost all of them I know can't stand short set events.
I don't think you have seen me ever post that Shane will dominate the field. So while you are throwing up red herrings and speaking of context try to stay in context.
Blue Jam/Thaigerish doesn't understand conversation.
I think Shane plays better on Diamond tables.
Somehow, some way, he does.
If they start using Diamond tables at the World 9-Ball, he'd be the favorite imo.
Somehow, some way, he does.
If they start using Diamond tables at the World 9-Ball, he'd be the favorite imo.
Last edited:
On a side note, shanes defense is arguably the best in the world and it's nothing new, he's been playing D top notch for a couple years now but now he's just really locking people up.
Another thing he does better than anyone is go forward(follow).Much like Earl.
Another thing he does better than anyone is go forward(follow).Much like Earl.
REALLY simple facts...
Please tell me which 4-7 players beat Shane in each World Championshipss????
You have no clue what you're talking about if you're trying to say that finishing ahead of someone in a single elimination tournament means you're better than them...
You could get knocked out in the first round of a single elimination format tournament and be the best player there that got some bad rolls to the second best player there. That's the nature of the random draw and short races.
Jaden
Please tell me which 4-7 players beat Shane in each World Championshipss????
You have no clue what you're talking about if you're trying to say that finishing ahead of someone in a single elimination tournament means you're better than them...
You could get knocked out in the first round of a single elimination format tournament and be the best player there that got some bad rolls to the second best player there. That's the nature of the random draw and short races.
Jaden
This is definitely not the case. This is abut the first time I've ever seen Shane beating Dennis to the shot in defensive sequences, and I've never seen him outplay Pagulayan or Efren defensively. In fact, it was their very ordinary tactical play that doomed Shane and Earl at the recent World Cup of Pool.
That said, for one week, Shane was the best defensive player, better than all comers. I think that years of one pocket (and now 14., too) have gradually refined his speed control and finesse, and his cue ball control in defensive play is, in fact, much better than it was two years ago.
It's just another instance of Shane working his tail off to develop/perfect a new skill. To me, that makes his defensive excellence in the US Open even more impressive.
LEL. What are you smoking? Get a grip on yourself
Agree. Have seen his matches this year pre-US Open like W9B matches and his safety game was poor
Maybe his safety game caught a gear from now on . if that is the game that makes him a more complete player. Earlier this year, when Ralf was commentating in booth at W9B he mentioned that Niels greatly improved his safety game in past few years and as a result his overall game improved by leaps and bounds culminating in W9B win. A much improved safety game may do the same thing for Shane
Ron Swanson
Banned
Just feels that way...with all your cute words like tosh and shite and poppycock and the like.Never mind that. What about the claim only brits like to argue with Barton?