SVB's world titles

[PoolBum]

Plenty of good players get to finals, very few win them,

I'm pretty sure half of them win them.

 

[vjmehra]

I'm pretty sure half of them win them.

No, you're assuming both players are equally matched, they rarely are.

The pressure of a major sporting final is not like any of us can probably imagine.

With a few exceptions, it takes a great player to go that extra mile, hence there are plenty of good players that make finals, but very few that go on to win.

Great players have a mental edge, that mere good or even very good players simply don't have.

 

[vjmehra]

The fact that players would prefer to win the title once than to finish second twice doesn't mean they think it's more impressive to win the title once than to finish second twice. I think it's harder to do the latter.

That's because you're not putting enough weight on getting over the final hurdle.

If you view things purely as a numbers game, then yes, by finishing second twice you have of course won more matches and statistically that probably is rarer than a single victory.

However, that is a very unemotive way to look at it, its impossible to truely capture the pressure and tension that a player in a World final must be under, hence (with a few exceptions) only a great player has the mental strength to cross that final hurdle.

The best example of this in cue sports that I can think of is probably Jimmy White, who got to 6 World snooker finals and never won. He has plenty of money and won a few titles, but I bet he'd trade it all for just one World title. He had the ability, but not the mental strength to cross the final hurdle, hence he could beat everyone when the pressure was off, but couldn't do it in the final.

His story illustrates what I'm trying to say, its not just about getting there, a lot of players can do that...very few can actually win.

 

[poolpimp13]

Shane is a great player don't think he's the best player ever. In earl an Johnny prime they were both ranked no 1 like Shane at 10 ball in 9 ball Johnny was the best breaker on the planet. Earl an Johnny both have multiple world title wins. Earl an Johnny an bustamante played as strong as shane.

 

[smashmouth]

OP must be a hater,
why does this keep coming up?

any tourney is only as good as its field and prize fund

5 US Opens trumps "world" titles

 

[PoolBum]

No, you're assuming both players are equally matched, they rarely are.

The pressure of a major sporting final is not like any of us can probably imagine.

With a few exceptions, it takes a great player to go that extra mile, hence there are plenty of good players that make finals, but very few that go on to win.

Great players have a mental edge, that mere good or even very good players simply don't have.

Since 1990, 39 different players have made the finals of the WPA World 9-Ball Championship. 22 of those players have won at least one title.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WPA_World_Nine-ball_champions

 

[overlord]

Good post.

Agreed that SVB is better at 10-ball than Efren ever was, and I'm absolutely willing to consider the possibility that SVB is the best ever at 10-ball, a game not played much in competition until the last fifteen years or so --- hence not a game in which he can be compared to most of the BCA Hall of Famers. Nearly all the big events in pool are nine ball, though, and that is the game that is the true measure of champions these days.

Yes, there is an international presence at the US Open, and a few of them have had truly elite internationally diverse fields and some have not. But, in most years, the US Open does not attract many of the top internationals and the WPA events get much stronger fields of 128 with little to no dead money. There really is no comparison.

Nine Ball has the luck factor and there is zero luck in Ten Ball. Most of the recent US Opens I've seen in the last decade had international players a plenty.

 

[AtLarge]

... there is zero luck in Ten Ball. ...

oh, come on

 

[PoolBum]

oh, come on

It's not zero, it's actually -5.

 

[sjm]

Most of the recent US Opens I've seen in the last decade had international players a plenty.

You need to do your homework.

US Open has tough fields and more than a few internationals, but WPA events, and especially the World 9-ball championship, have, on average, much tougher fields than the US Open.

 

[hang-the-9]

You need to do your homework.

US Open has tough fields and more than a few internationals, but WPA events, and especially the World 9-ball championship, have, on average, much tougher fields than the US Open.

With Fargo ratings and the simple math of doing an average, it's really easy now to show what event had the toughest field. I'm sure Mike Page can whip out several charts to show last few World events vs last few US Opens, or any event for that matter.

You may need to toss out some of the US Open ratings though because an A or B player in the US can, and do, come to play in the US Open, which will kill the average. Not so much for traveling to China to play at an event, even if it was an "Open" vs invite or qualifier based.

Maybe count players with a 750 rating or higher. Or take the lowest or second lowest rated player at the best even and use that as the point at which to get rid of the lower numbers. And really a 700 vs an 800 would be almost nothing to beat in a longer race, so tossing out a lower ranked player from the average should not hurt the results.

 

[BRussell]

With Fargo ratings and the simple math of doing an average, it's really easy now to show what event had the toughest field. I'm sure Mike Page can whip out several charts to show last few World events vs last few US Opens, or any event for that matter.

You may need to toss out some of the US Open ratings though because an A or B player in the US can, and do, come to play in the US Open, which will kill the average. Not so much for traveling to China to play at an event, even if it was an "Open" vs invite or qualifier based.

Maybe count players with a 750 rating or higher. Or take the lowest or second lowest rated player at the best even and use that as the point at which to get rid of the lower numbers. And really a 700 vs an 800 would be almost nothing to beat in a longer race, so tossing out a lower ranked player from the average should not hurt the results.

It would be interesting to see the Fargoratings of different tournaments to get a sense of the toughness of the field. You’re right that an average wouldn’t work, but maybe the average or median of the top 16 or something similar.

My sense is that even the World 9-ball championship has a lot of dead money from the Middle East, just like the US Open has a lot of dead money from the US. Of course the qualifying rounds are filled with it, but even the 128 has a lot of names from Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, etc. that lose right away.

However, the final 32 in the W9B are probably stronger than the final 32 of the US Open, in my estimation.

 

[Scott Lee]

Slasher...Not everybody here thinks you're "trolling"...I don't! It was a legitimate question from someone who really doesn't closely follow professional pool. :thumbup:

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

I haven't watched much US pool for years and I don't follow his career, but I did watch the last few matches of the Turning Stone event and during the intros they kept referring to him as multiple world champion so I searched and found little on this but given the state of "organized" pool I thought maybe I was missing something.

 

[Joe_Jaguar]

It would be interesting to see the Fargoratings of different tournaments to get a sense of the toughness of the field. You’re right that an average wouldn’t work, but maybe the average or median of the top 16 or something similar.

My sense is that even the World 9-ball championship has a lot of dead money from the Middle East, just like the US Open has a lot of dead money from the US. Of course the qualifying rounds are filled with it, but even the 128 has a lot of names from Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, etc. that lose right away.

However, the final 32 in the W9B are probably stronger than the final 32 of the US Open, in my estimation.

Exactly. There is plenty of "dead money" in these WPA events in Qatar.

 

[jasonlaus]

Fair point, but it is more impressive to win once, than come second twice in the world of professional sport.

What's the most impressive is there's not a player in the world knocking on Shane's door looking to play/gamble.
Jason

 

[sjm]

What's the most impressive is there's not a player in the world knocking on Shane's door looking to play/gamble.
Jason

It's always amusing when someone posts this. Just how closely do you follow the international action scene?

There is a player in Asia who has a strong winning record against Shane in action and has won a lot of money off him. I've been told Shane won't even gamble with him anymore, but this player hopes Shane comes knocking.

 

[TheLoneSilencer]

This entire debate is moot. SVB is an all-time great. His lack of a world title, for me, disqualifies him from consideration as the all-time best, but he's obviously one of the best ever, and is certainly one of our sport's immortals.

Mic drop :thumbup:

 

[noMoreSchon]

A great effort yes.

More impressive than winning it once...no chance.

Ask any player whether they would rather finish 2nd twice (or even 10 times) or win it once.

100% will opt for the latter.

I don't know, Cowboy Jimmie Moore is still a HOF...runner up his whole life.

 

[PoolBum]

It's always amusing when someone posts this. Just how closely do you follow the international action scene?

There is a player in Asia who has a strong winning record against Shane in action and has won a lot of money off him. I've been told Shane won't even gamble with him anymore, but this player hopes Shane comes knocking.

Jung-Lin Chang?

 

[Tin Man]

Shane has the #1 Fargorate in the world at 820 at this time. I just stumbled upon this quote from Magnus Carlsen, the highest rated chess player ever:

"For me right now I think being the world number one is a bigger deal than being the world champion because I think it shows better who plays the best chess. That sounds self-serving but I think it’s also right."