Shane Has Won World Titles

Ron Swanson said:
You're an american living in china. Sounds like you're better placed to arrange it than me.

Back in the real world for a minute, how are the rules of C8B different to A8B? And, aside from more difficult pockets, how do the tables, cues and balls differ?
Click to expand...

Not my job to explain it to you. You can look it up and find out all you need to know. Been written about several times here.

You're the one making the claims that Potts is the superior player. So ship him over and bet the farm on him.

Or is this all just blather on your side?

I promise that IF you were somehow able to put up 50k then it would be matched in less than 24hours enthusiastically. Shane would need to setup a call center to handle the volume of people applying to back him if Gareth Potts were to want to waste your money trying to play American pool on American pool tables against America's best player.
 
SakuJack said:
Banking, caroms, combinations... these are shots that come up rarely, at best, in most widely played (in worldwide terms) pool games.

By disparaging snooker players as simply being better potters shows why you don't understand the game. They cue the ball better, which in cue sports is all that really counts.
Click to expand...

Explain cueing the ball? You mean they stroke better? Please elaborate.
 
SakuJack said:
Banking, caroms, combinations... these are shots that come up rarely, at best, in most widely played (in worldwide terms) pool games.

By disparaging snooker players as simply being better potters shows why you don't understand the game. They cue the ball better, which in cue sports is all that really counts.
Click to expand...

Really? Hmm, seems to me that I just watched a high level tournament that had banks caroms combinations and jump shots in every set among professionals.

And golly gee......there are thousands of matches on YouTube that prove you wrong.

In fact, if you keep up with the threads on AZB the most exciting shot of the finals was Shane jumping a ball in while stacking two bridges on top of each other.

Try to be factual in your statements please.
 
wow

I kind of expected this conversation to go down this road. And while I have little desire to enter the Snooker vs. C8B vs. American Pool vs. Pit-fighting debate on which is the more difficult sport, I will say the following without any hesitation:

Anyone who watched the US Open finals this past Saturday and honestly believes that what they witnessed was "easy", or a "display of third tier cueing", has absolutely 0 credibility on matters related to cuesports. I'm not sure there are a dozen human beings walking the face of the earth today that are capable of producing that level of performance on a pool table.

And I challenge anyone to find any top level cueist from any cuesport - Potts, Daz, Ronnie, Selby, etc..., have them watch that finals and walk away unimpressed.
 
Last edited:
JB Cases said:
Not at all. But they aren't BETTER safety players. They are not better bankers. They don't play caroms or combinations better than pool players. So you tell me what it is that snooker players do better than pool players other than pocketing balls? IF one could even say that they do that better which so far hasn't been proven.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but it is laughable to suggest pool players are as good at safety as snooker players. I'm constantly amazed at how comparatively poor pool players are at safety.

And the answer to your stunningly naive question is 'positional play'.
 
SakuJack said:
Banking, caroms, combinations... these are shots that come up rarely, at best, in most widely played (in worldwide terms) pool games.

By disparaging snooker players as simply being better potters shows why you don't understand the game. They cue the ball better, which in cue sports is all that really counts.
Click to expand...

Really? do you actually think a guy runs 400 balls because of his cuemanship?
 
JB Cases said:
Really? Hmm, seems to me that I just watched a high level tournament that had banks caroms combinations and jump shots in every set among professionals.

And golly gee......there are thousands of matches on YouTube that prove you wrong.

In fact, if you keep up with the threads on AZB the most exciting shot of the finals was Shane jumping a ball in while stacking two bridges on top of each other.

Try to be factual in your statements please.
Click to expand...

Factual, you say. How many times have you seen someone play that double bridge jump shot? Rarely would be more than sufficient, i should cocoa.
 
wincardona said:
I've noticed that there are many people that put emphasis on longer races benefit the better player, and a truer test of skill. I can't argue with that because I believe that as well. However, short races to 9-11-13 apply much more pressure on the players to respond quicker to the challenge, a type of pressure that often makes the difference in who wins and who doesn't but should..if that makes sense. There's a lot to be said for those who respond to that type of pressure, and it's usually tournament players as opposed to gambling players that fair better under those type of conditions. For the ones that discredit the players that respond well under that type of pressure are only fooling themselves in believing that they are not as good as players that want to play longer races. To me it's nonsense and shouldn't be factor enough to make such claims. Players like Shane, who prefer to race to 50 or 100 are actually cheating themselves from reaching the pinnacle of their respective sport because they are in actuality programming, and conditioning themselves for much longer races, which actually takes pressure out of the equation..to a degree.

Imo, Shane has actually found much comfort in playing longer races because he believes he's the best player (which I do also) Unfortunately for Shane he's not getting the recognition he deserves because he's having problems dealing with the type of pressure shorter races present. Which is evidenced in him not winning any world titles. Maybe i'm wrong, but it's possible i'm not. World tournament pressure is unique in itself, coupled with short race pressure presents the type of pressure that ..if you're not comfortable with you're going to have problems, imo that's where Shane is and he's not conditioning himself to play well in world tournaments by playing races to 100.

I believe Shane should try matching up when gambling by playing shorter races, multiple races to determine the winner. Races to 11, maybe four out of seven races would be much better than one long race..to say 50. Or even races to 9, six out of eleven sets to determine the winner. This type of format will condition him to respond quicker to that type of pressure, which in turn should better prepare him to deal with World Tournament Pressure

There was some talk about comparing races in pool matches against foot races ( in terms of distance) and comparing long distance runners as being qualified to beat sprinters. Nonsense.:banghead: The training is different for sprinters, then it is for marathon runners. Imo it's too tough for a marathon runner to beat a sprinter.:D

Bill Incardona
Click to expand...

I also think Shane plays better in winner breaks format. Even though mathematically alternate versus winner breaks doesn't make any difference, it does affect the mental game. If you get down in winner breaks, you can just tell yourself "well, when I get back to the table I'm gonna run a bunch of racks". If you get down in alternate breaks, you're not going to be able to mount one big comeback as easily, you're gonna have to just play solid and take advantage of the chances you get.
 
Ron Swanson said:
Factual, you say. How many times have you seen someone play that double bridge jump shot? Rarely would be more than sufficient, i should cocoa.
Click to expand...

Rarely for that one. How many times do you see a bank, kick, combo or carom or jump shot?

Do you agree with anonjack that those shots are rare in American pool?
 
Ron Swanson said:
Im sorry but it is laughable to suggest pool players are as good at safety as snooker players. I'm constantly amazed at how comparatively poor pool players are at safety.

And the answer to your stunningly naive question is 'positional play'.
Click to expand...

You're out of your mind. I wish you would bet a ridiculously large amount then I would pay AtLarge half of it to document how wrong you are.

Pool players have it even more difficult because in snooker there is no requirement to hit a rail after contact. A snooker player can simply roll up to the pack and it's good. And to get out of a safety all they have to do is touch the ball not hit a rail after contact. And since jumping is not legal in snooker they don't have to defend against that either.

Easier, WAY easier.
 
JB Cases said:
Rarely for that one. How many times do you see a bank, kick, combo or carom or jump shot?

Do you agree with anonjack that those shots are rare in American pool?
Click to expand...

I don't recall mentioning kicks or jump shots.

On average, how many banks, combos and caroms do you see per frame of 9 or 10 ball, at the highest level? Not many. Certainly not enough to use them as any kind of judge of who the superior cueist is.

Potting, positional play, safety play (and yes, I'll say it again, cueing). If you want to be a good cueist, get good at them.
 
JB Cases said:
Rarely for that one. How many times do you see a bank, kick, combo or carom or jump shot?

Do you agree with anonjack that those shots are rare in American pool?
Click to expand...

He didn't say kicks. The rest come up more regularly in pool than in snooker, but they are still best avoided where possible.

Actually, ive meant to start a thread on this for a while. Americans appear to place great emphasis on banking, combos and, especially, safety play, whereas other nations avoid them where possible, preferring precise positional play to eliminate the need for them.

More widely, the reason for americacs slide into pooling obscurity is an inability to control the cue ball to the same standard as their superiors.
 
JB Cases said:
He is flat out wrong. What he is referring to is accuracy. Meaning that in his opinion british players are the most accurate players. This is pure bullshit. There is nothing superior about a british human over an american human that makes them more accurate in striking a ball with a stick. British players use small balls and small pockets. Over here we use larger balls and larger pockets. Sometimes we use large balls and small pockets. Pool players learn to play as accurately as they need to using the side rails as needed for shape. They learn to make balls with or without the side rails. They learn to make combinations where the target is exactly a ball's width and no more. They learn to make caroms and banks and to play lock up safeties from any position.

To make a blanket statement that British players (or snooker pros in general) are better cueists is utter tosh as our British friends say it. They might be more accurate potters but they certainly are not better cueists when all the aspects of pool are considered.
Click to expand...

It's not that British humans are superior to American humans, it's that they start playing younger and teaching and drilling mechanics at a younger age. Snooker is a big deal over there. As a result, pro snooker players are overall better at striking a ball with stick accurately. It's the same reason that the US has better basketball players and Europe has better soccer players. Tradition, practice, and coaching from a young age.

If so they should come to the USA and go on vacation and clean up in every town because they will find that they have plenty of action in a variety of games. They will leave the USA with a nice tidy profit and have proved that they can dominate by virtue of being better cueists on "easier" tables.
Click to expand...

Snooker pros don't need to come gamble in the US because they make tons of money already. The exception is women, and we saw what happened there, utter dominance and raising of women's 9-ball to another level.

The real question is the opposite of what you are asking. Pro pool is in shambles and pros don't make much money. Even Shane, who makes a decent living, doesn't come close to earning what top snooker players do. Why don't top pool players take a shot at pro snooker?
 
JB Cases said:
You're out of your mind. I wish you would bet a ridiculously large amount then I would pay AtLarge half of it to document how wrong you are.

Pool players have it even more difficult because in snooker there is no requirement to hit a rail after contact. A snooker player can simply roll up to the pack and it's good. And to get out of a safety all they have to do is touch the ball not hit a rail after contact. And since jumping is not legal in snooker they don't have to defend against that either.

Easier, WAY easier.
Click to expand...

John Barton makes regular 50 breaks... :eek:
 
Ron Swanson said:
Actually, ive meant to start a thread on this for a while. Americans appear to place great emphasis on banking, combos and, especially, safety play, whereas other nations avoid them where possible, preferring precise positional play to eliminate the need for them.
Click to expand...

Iv'e felt this way for a while. Pool, played well, should be a simple game. Why people want to make it more difficult than it is always confounds me - as does the obsession with shot selection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top