Shane/Mike Match

I don't think Shane is the best all-around pool player in the world, but since when did we judge pool players based on short race tournament (anything less than 20 in the rotation games really is a short race given the variance of those games) success?

I remember in the 90's, when Efren was ranked 7-10ish, constantly finishing 2nd in major tournaments, and everyone knew he was the best pool player in the world, and by far.

I'm not trying to discount tournament success, but all it proves is that a player is good/great in a tournament setting, which historically, has never meant as much in the pool world as what happens away from the lights in the green rooms, pool halls, etc.
 
hang-the-9 said:
You point at Appleton, Shane beat him in their TAR match, going by your reasoning that if Ko beat Shane one match Ko must be better, Shane beat Darren that one match so that makes Shane better.

One match, or even a handful of matches do not make for a argument that a player can't play against someone.

There is not a single match that you can point to that will show anyone that a player is better overall than another.

From your posts you have a clear bias either against Shane or the fact that people think he is a great player, so anything that comes out of that is tainted. Do you have long term stats for the players vs each other?
Click to expand...

I said I wouldn't reply to you because you obviously can't read but I'll try again

Read my post
Shane top ten in world
Fantastic player fantastic ambassador for the game
But when people say he is the best player on the planet or best player to pick up a cue I'm sorry that's just blatantly not true

I use the ko example because they have only played once
Appleton has a way better head to head ratio against Shane at the last Mosconi Darren had beat Shane the last 8 times they had played
Most would say that's pretty definitive of the better player not to mention the titles Daz has won

But I wouldn't is say ko Daz dennis Alex Shane there all up there some better at different games

I don't think anyone dislikes Shane or his game but like the first person on this thread said he couldn't understand how anyone can argue that Shane is not the best in the world

Well if you know pool then you can argue that
Nothing against him personally I like him and his game
 
actionplayer said:
I said I wouldn't reply to you because you obviously can't read but I'll try again

Read my post
Shane top ten in world
Fantastic player fantastic ambassador for the game
But when people say he is the best player on the planet or best player to pick up a cue I'm sorry that's just blatantly not true

I use the ko example because they have only played once
Appleton has a way better head to head ratio against Shane at the last Mosconi Darren had beat Shane the last 8 times they had played
Most would say that's pretty definitive of the better player not to mention the titles Daz has won

But I wouldn't is say ko Daz dennis Alex Shane there all up there some better at different games

I don't think anyone dislikes Shane or his game but like the first person on this thread said he couldn't understand how anyone can argue that Shane is not the best in the world

Well if you know pool then you can argue that
Nothing against him personally I like him and his game
Click to expand...

Don't tell me you take that short race exhibition seriously?

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to make excuses for Shane, and I agree with your central premise, I'm just illustrating that short races don't tell us anything. Jean Balukas beat Keith McCready (when he was still close to his prime) 11-3 in a tournament once. Doesn't mean she would stand a chance in Hell of beating him over the long term.
 
Last edited:
midnightpulp said:
Don't tell me you take that short race exhibition seriously?

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to make excuses for Shane, and I agree with your central premise, I'm just illustrating that short races don't tell us anything. Jean Balukas beat Keith McCready (when he was still close to his prime) 11-3 in a tournament once. Doesn't mean she would stand a chance in Hell of beating him over the long term.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in short races
But ko was race to 21 on diamond table in the US
Was a lot of money on the line also no I don't think it says ko is better but that was a little look into just one of asias youngStars
 
midnightpulp said:
Don't tell me you take that short race exhibition seriously?

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to make excuses for Shane, and I agree with your central premise, I'm just illustrating that short races don't tell us anything. Jean Balukas beat Keith McCready (when he was still close to his prime) 11-3 in a tournament once. Doesn't mean she would stand a chance in Hell of beating him over the long term.
Click to expand...

Losing one short race means nothing.

Losing a lot of them. Hmmm....
 
BeiberLvr said:
Losing one short race means nothing.

Losing a lot of them. Hmmm....
Click to expand...

Problem is that after the race ends, the score resets.

Let's say you lose 6 out of 10 race to five sets against an inferior player. In all his wins, he beat you 5-4, in your wins, you beat him 5-2, for an overall record 44 to 38 in your favor.

The overall record rather than the set record is a more accurate representation of each's player's skill level.

Not saying this is the case with Shane against Appleton and such, just highlighting why short races are somewhat flawed. I think the minimum for important tournaments should be race to 13.
 
midnightpulp said:
Problem is that after the race ends, the score resets.

Let's say you lose 6 out of 10 race to five sets against an inferior player. In all his wins, he beat you 5-4, in your wins, you beat him 5-2, for an overall record 44 to 38 in your favor.

The overall record rather than the set record is a more accurate representation of each's player's skill level.

Not saying this is the case with Shane against Appleton and such, just highlighting why short races are somewhat flawed. I think the minimum for important tournaments should be race to 13.
Click to expand...

I think that is what happened in that famous Archer vs Bustamante race where Archer ran the set out and then a few more of the next one. Archer killed Bustie in games won but I think they came out even because Bustie won a close set for more money.
 
So here's how it is guys. Shane is known and respected worldwide by ALL the top players! They know who he is and respect him for it. It is true that there are players in Asia (Philippines, Taiwan and China) who can hang with Shane, but none of them are in a big hurry to match up with him. Shane's rep is that he knows how to get the money! Winner breaks and Shane becomes the favorite over most of them and they know it.

Shane matches up everywhere he goes with top players and is a big winner overall. I would say he's even money against anyone he plays, named Ko or not. Shane is not too anxious to play a few of these guys and they are not chasing him either. I hope that clarifies things a little. Shane is definitely top ten worldwide and that's saying something.
 
Last edited:
actionplayer said:
If your ten year old beat you in a race to 21 in your home room at your best game for around $50,000 then I'd say it is significant

Nobody said he isnt top ten
Boy who started this said he couldn't see why anyone could argue shane is not the best in world
Several have explained why there is good arguments he is not

Appleton and shane both turned pro In American pool in 07 look what each has won then talk

Daz world 8,9,10 an straight pool world games etc etc
Click to expand...

And Shane took Daz to the cleaners in a race to 100, so what does that say when he can knock off a real world champion like that? Short races in world class tournaments leave a lot to be desired in my book;)
 
I agree with the guys here, Mosconi's race to 5 means absolutely nothing, and I still stand by what I said, being the best for someone can be different to someone else and it's OK.

You can say that Named xxx pro is the best player in the world FOR YOU, I don't know why people get mad and keep arguing about who's the best to whom.

But yea Mosconi's races to 5 or 6 means ZERO, Daz wins against shane in short races it doesn't make him better, for me Shane is better than Daz by miles, as ppl mentioned the race to 100, Daz had zero chance against shane in that long race, I watched it.
 
realkingcobra said:
And Shane took Daz to the cleaners in a race to 100, so what does that say when he can knock off a real world champion like that? Short races in world class tournaments leave a lot to be desired in my book;)
Click to expand...

So does long races where stamina of mind and body play a bigger role than pure talent ,,


1
 
BmoreMoney said:
Not necessarily more important but it IMO it all plays into the overall ability of any given player.
Click to expand...

, Buddy Hall might whip on 25 yr old second tier player for the first 100 games then might not even be able to walk around the table for the next 100 ,, and the kid ends up on top
Would we then conclude the kids overall ability is better ,??,????
 
one stroke said:
, Buddy Hall might whip on 25 yr old second tier player for the first 100 games then might not even be able to walk around the table for the next 100 ,, and the kid ends up on top
Would we then conclude the kids overall ability is better ,??,????
Click to expand...

Maybe not his ability as far as " skill level " but more so his ability " to win "
 
Something along the lines of " the best player does not always win ". Example : you may have a guy that is a $20 / game champion - absolute monster and doesn't miss for days. Then for $100 / game can't make a ball. Different aspects of the game are def relevant in the big picture.
 
BmoreMoney said:
Something along the lines of " the best player does not always win ". Example : you may have a guy that is a $20 / game champion - absolute monster and doesn't miss for days. Then for $100 / game can't make a ball. Different aspects of the game are def relevant in the big picture.
Click to expand...

Sorta but not the same one is broken down by the stamina needed for long play the other is broken down by the mental pressure of the money or the bigger moment

So ones missing because thier choking the other is missing because physicality thier body and mind are too tired to perform the task at hand ,,

1
 
one stroke said:
Sorta but not the same one is broken down by the stamina needed for long play the other is broken down by the mental pressure of the money or the bigger moment

So ones missing because thier choking the other is missing because physicality thier body and mind are too tired to perform the task at hand ,,

1
Click to expand...
Correct, and both of those things would enter your mind as well as many other things when for example you were trying to decide on betting on the side on XXXX player or buying XXXX player in Calcutta etc. Very Dynamic is all I'm saying.
 
realkingcobra said:
And Shane took Daz to the cleaners in a race to 100, so what does that say when he can knock off a real world champion like that? Short races in world class tournaments leave a lot to be desired in my book;)
Click to expand...


World ranking using Fargo Ratings (www.fargorate.com)
3. SVB Fargo rating of 817 (robustness 7278)
10. Appleton Fargo rating of 797 robustness 3993

Race to 5
SVB 58.5%
Darren 41.5%

Race to 21
SVB 67.2%
Darren 32.8%

Race to 75
SVB 80.2%
Darren 19.8%

Interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
robsnotes4u said:
World ranking using Fargo Ratings (www.fargorate.com)
3. SVB Fargo rating of 817 (robustness 7278)
10. Appleton Fargo rating of 797 robustness 3993

Race to 5
SVB 58.5%
Darren 41.5%

Race to 21
SVB 67.2%
Darren 32.8%

Race to 75
SVB 80.2%
Darren 19.8%

Interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Where are you getting those?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top