Siming Chen
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
I didn't see it that way. My point was more that Jennifer Barretta is notable because she is one of the top American women players. As it turns out, her Fargorate is 650. Her level of play is notable among women in the US. There must be thousands of men in the 650 range, and hence not an especially notable thing.
KMRUNOUT
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
Yes, but I have a long way to go. Of course with working out comes another set of problems, for myself I am now laid up with a swollen achilles tendon, seeing the Dr. this morning for a followup after wearing a walking boot and taking anti-inflamitores for a week.
Getting old sucks.
Getting old sucks.
You just keep picking any example except the title of this thread, done with you, you win.
Nevermind......
Jason
Last edited:
My experience is that the top women players seem to rise to the occasion when playing against men. I've seen many outstanding performances by strong women players when matched up with a strong male player. One that sticks in my mind is Yu Ram Cha's defeat of Shane in a world championship event held in Vegas a few years ago. She had a lead, Shane caught up and then she just outplayed him in the last few games to win.
There have been many other notable victories by women (Gerda over Earl, Corr over Ko, Kelly and Allison with multiple wins, etc.) that are significant to me. Karen has beaten so many good men players I've lost count! I don't think this can or should be ignored. All the talk I see on here about the men's psychological and physical advantages sound like male machismo to me. I have said before and will say again, there is NO mental or physical reason why a woman can't play pool as well as any man. PERIOD!
Jean Balukas struck fear into the hearts of many top men players decades ago and it could happen again. As more and more women start to play pool at an early age you will see more Siming Chen's and Cheska Centano's who can challenge them. I look forward to the day when there is a special event held annually where the top sixteen men and the top sixteen women are pitted against each other (woman against a man in each opening match) with no handicap of any kind. I think we all might be in for a shock when we see how many women win matches and perhaps one or two even go deep into the field, like Karen just did at Turning Stone.
If there is to be any renaissance in professional pool it may be with open events like this. That would make pool unique among pro sporting events.
There have been many other notable victories by women (Gerda over Earl, Corr over Ko, Kelly and Allison with multiple wins, etc.) that are significant to me. Karen has beaten so many good men players I've lost count! I don't think this can or should be ignored. All the talk I see on here about the men's psychological and physical advantages sound like male machismo to me. I have said before and will say again, there is NO mental or physical reason why a woman can't play pool as well as any man. PERIOD!
Jean Balukas struck fear into the hearts of many top men players decades ago and it could happen again. As more and more women start to play pool at an early age you will see more Siming Chen's and Cheska Centano's who can challenge them. I look forward to the day when there is a special event held annually where the top sixteen men and the top sixteen women are pitted against each other (woman against a man in each opening match) with no handicap of any kind. I think we all might be in for a shock when we see how many women win matches and perhaps one or two even go deep into the field, like Karen just did at Turning Stone.
If there is to be any renaissance in professional pool it may be with open events like this. That would make pool unique among pro sporting events.
Last edited:
I think you were at the US Open 9 ball the year that Barry opened it up to woman. What do you remember about those performances?
If I remember correctly Sarah R. was the only one that was in any of the matches played.
If I remember correctly Sarah R. was the only one that was in any of the matches played.
Last edited:
This is a complicated issue. We can all recognize that for ANY activity, there will be an upside down U-shaped curve if we plot theoretical top performance (like a world record after many people have been training hard) at each age. No matter what the athletic activity, we suck at it at birth, suck at it when we are dead, and are best somewhere in the middle --so the upside U-shaped curve.
There are two dangers here
(1) thinking that the curve we get by examining best performances by age is this theoretical top-performance curve. It is not
(2) thinking that an individual's career performance curve will follow this; An individual's performance curve certainly is influenced by the realities embedded in the theoretical curve, but it can be and often is, shaped very different.
The plot below is the marathon world-record performance by age. You can see the top records are recorded between the ages of upper teens to upper 30's. And there is a rapid decline on the low end and a more gradual decline on the high end. But how good is this curve in blue at representing theoretical peak performance at a given age? The problem is there are many, many more marathon runners in their 20s training like crazy, doing everything right, doing whatever they can to be the best they can be. There are some people in their 50s that fit this bill. But it is a way smaller number. As a result, these records are light at ages where the sample size is much smaller.
The red curve shows the spirit of what I'm saying. This is a hypothetical age-record curve assuming the sample pool is the same at every age. The key is it still shows the same upside U shapes as before. But it is wider.
Finally it is a mistake to think a person's individual age-performance curve will follow this. Individual curves can be quite different. An individual's performance can peak at almost any age. There is no reason why a pool player can't play the best pool of his or her life after age 50, for example. Sure the basic biology that leads to the theoretical curve applies to all of us.
Many players start at a teenager, get obsessed, have fantasies for a decade of being the best in the county or country or world, and then coast for decades after that with but a fraction of the old burn.
Others start playing in their 30s and can still be improving in their 60's.
Attachments
The difference is to play at Sky's level you have to beat those men on a regular basis and win more that one event of note every 2 yrs
I'm sure Chen could have some good runs in turney play but she is not going to equal Sky's record in them and she is certainly not playing him even in a long race
1
Sarah isn't psyched out by men- She was the first female to get top 20 in the DCC 9 Ball.
She played well, and did not rely on stiletto heels, tight pants and a low cut blouse to make a statement.
But that is a whole other topic.
But that is a whole other topic.
Last edited:
Jay I get it. You are a public persona in the pool world and you almost have to toe the line. I didn't know that you were Dr. Helfert. How in the world given the history of women in pool, snooker, golf and chess can you claim that there is no reason that woman can't compete with the top men in pool?
There are a myriad of reasons but you aren't acknowledging them. Nine Ball is the kind of game, that the fact that someone wins a set is really not relevant.
Where the chili meets the cheese is long sets. Men are pushing the boundaries of the game using long cues. Jayson Shaw plays a power game that no woman I've ever seen plays.
I heard 25 years ago that women were gonna play on par with men with all the same arguments. It has not become a reality.
The biggest reason as you well know, that women are playing in mixed field tournaments is because of the fact that their own tour in the US has fallen apart.
If women are not subsidized by a government I would assume they want to have enough money to eat. They are not gonna find that remuneration playing the top men.
When women play on parity with the men there will be no need for any could ah, should ah, would ah type qualifiers they simply will do it.
Jay, just for the record I like you personally and find your historic knowledge of the game very instructive. I've also enjoyed your commentary and you should not interpret this post as anything more than a different point of view from your own.
Jay toe the line? LMAO.
I think a lot of people on here are just thinking of the top players in the WBA back in 2005 to 2010. Todays top women don't miss makeable balls. Asia has at least 30 Karen's and Allison's at this time. If they played all the open tournaments in the states...there would already be open women winners. Johnnyt
I think a lot of people on here are just thinking of the top players in the WBA back in 2005 to 2010. Todays top women don't miss makeable balls. Asia has at least 30 Karen's and Allison's at this time. If they played all the open tournaments in the states...there would already be open women winners. Johnnyt
Very few men make any money in tournaments, if Shane, Dennis, Shaw, Darren, Alex are in them, in fact, there is no way a Schmidt, Wilke, Shuff, etc could ever make any $$$ if those 5 guys are in the event - they are guaranteed losers. So, none of the MEN outside the top 5 really have any chance, and now you want to compare that to number 40 and further down on the list???
Jason
The pool players in China are not " free range " players they are subsidized by the state.
So the women in that country enjoy a huge advantage. Given that fact the top Chinese male players will continue to dominate the Chinese female players.
I have history on my side in this discussion. There may have to be drug tests in pool in case some women start using hormones to juice up their performance.
That's not what anyone is saying the argument is can they be as good as the ones at the very top , and that answer today is no ,,
1
Haven't you heard, all the woman in China could do that every day and twice on Sunday
They just don't have the time to come here an take the easy money. Maybe next year? It's not a requirement to be a man to play in the US Open. When are all these Chinese ladies going to come on down and snap that off?
Is it the expense they are worried about. Any Chinese gal that wins the US Open I will personally refund their airfare. No Joke. They will get some "chalk" money from me. Any takers? yeah, I didn't think so
But if it happens in 2017, just send me the bill, it will get PAID.This is NO dig at Chen, she plays very well, very technical and mechanically sound and I bet she is a lovely person. But she has ZERO chance to win the US Open 9 ball event . None, zilch, zero.
Last edited:
The top 4 at the US Open last year were
(1) Shane (821) World # 2
(2) JL Chang (809) World # 6
(3) Dennis Orcollo ( 812) World # 3
(4) Jayson Shaw (810) World # 4
That's numbers 2,3,4,and 6 by Fargo Rating. And #1 didn't play.
Here is that straw-man thing again. NOBODY says she plays at this speed
Haven't you heard, all the woman in China could do that every day and twice on Sunday
It's not a requirement to be a man to play in the US Open. When are all these Chinese ladies going to come on down and snap that off?
Is it the expense they are worried about. Any Chinese gal that wins the US Open I will personally refund their airfare. No Joke. They will get some "chalk" money from me. Any takers? yeah, I didn't think so
This is NO dig at Chen, she plays very well, very technical and mechanically sound and I bet she is a lovely person. But she has ZERO chance to win the US Open 9 ball event . None, zilch, zero.
Dude you are being insensitive.
Heck after 379 posts it is hard to tell what this thread is really about!
BTW you never answered my question regarding which leagues report information for Fargo ratings.
BTW you never answered my question regarding which leagues report information for Fargo ratings.