THE REMATCH of the "Greatest Match in Pool History"-SVB vs Orcollo (Fri-Sun 18-20 June2021) Race to 120 /9Ball
- Thread starter spartan
- Start date
The same can be said of Efren. Most people would have backed Jose Parica over Efren in a nine ball action match at that time, but Efren was a) the more interesting player to watch, b) the more popular player, and c) the more charismatic of the two. Efren was also Earl's greatest Filipino rival. It was, as you suggest, the best draw pool ever had.
How is that even possible??
I think this table is too easy and worse than the recent World Pool Championship table.
Their TPA close to 0.95 throughout whole match must be highest for such a longgggg race.
Shane won 45 racks to Dennis 28 on Day2 . At same point in previous match, Shane was ahead 80-66 but Dennis made miraculous comeback to win on final day.
But miracles are unlikely to happen twice in a row. It is near impossible for Dennis to make 2nd comeback this time.
Their TPA close to 0.95 throughout whole match must be highest for such a longgggg race.
Shane won 45 racks to Dennis 28 on Day2 . At same point in previous match, Shane was ahead 80-66 but Dennis made miraculous comeback to win on final day.
But miracles are unlikely to happen twice in a row. It is near impossible for Dennis to make 2nd comeback this time.
middleofnowhere
Registered
I only watched a little bit of the freebie stuff but the little I watched it looked like you can bounce the one ball on the side pocket at will.How is that even possible??
120 is not that many games for three days, I've seen pool players go at it for a week non stop.
Wait, I thought everyone was complaining that the Predator table at the WPC was too easy and should have been as difficult as a Diamond. Now we are complaining that the Diamond table in this match is too easy?
There you have it folks
There you have it folks
Last one of these required 239 racks. Pro matches are usually race to 11 and are scheduled for two hours. If a typical match is 11-7, then a match consists of an average length of 18 racks, so this is the equivalent of about 12 pro matches played over three days. Yeah, long matches like this are not without precedent. I recall a twenty five ahead race taking five days back in 1987, with about twelve hours of play a day.
Still, this is a whole lot of pool.
something_pool
Registered
I don't think people were complaining about the brand of table. They were complaining that the tables played too easy, which they clearly did at the WPC. Similarly here, zero dry breaks in 148 games means the tables are playing insanely easy. IMO these conditions are not befitting of championship level play, no matter who made the tables.Wait, I thought everyone was complaining that the Predator table at the WPC was too easy and should have been as difficult as a Diamond. Now we are complaining that the Diamond table in this match is too easy?
There you have it folks
Yes, on equipment befitting players of this caliber, I'd happily bet that neither would shoot .950 in a race to 11 and offer 5:1 odds on the money. In a race to 120, I think fair odds would be more like 500:1 . On loose equipment, where whoever wins the race to the first shot wins the rack, high TPAs can almost be assumed, but are not indicative of otherwordly pool. Make runouts simple and it's just a mirage.
I wonder if there has ever been a long race in which both players shot over .925 on good honest equipment. Personally, I doubt it,
Is the table really looser than the WPC stream table? Other than at the 2018 Mosconi, that's the loosest table I've ever seen a major event contested on.
Or a leaky table! LOL
It’s a standard Diamond table. No different to my eyes than every other event played on a standard Diamond table - from the US Open to the DCC to SBE to Turning Stone.
In terms of “loose” tables, the WPC table looked nowhere as loose as the Gold Crowns of the early 2000s that Matchroom was doing - like when Earl won, or Alex.
The zero dry breaks is because of the format and not the table, imo.
Rack template + no inspections allowed + knowledge of how to “work” the rack + world class players = wired balls every time.
In terms of TPA, I would like to know if they are being judged the same as Pat does. I’ve heard Mark Wilson say on various Accu-Stat matches that Pat calls things errors that he wouldn’t. So as there is a subjective component, it might be that the TPA stat is not an apples to apples comparison.
Good question. They aren’t listing them as a stat. I think Pat Fleming considers a direct scratch (no kisses) an error but a kicked in scratch no error, but I don’t know what they are doing.
middleofnowhere
Registered
I am not sure what this match is supposed to mean. If they want to prove something play an "All-Around" match say,
9-ball
One pocket
Bank pool
Straight pool
8-ball
Seems it would be more entertaining. I think even the most hardcore pool fan has to find sitting through this current match laborious.
9-ball
One pocket
Bank pool
Straight pool
8-ball
Seems it would be more entertaining. I think even the most hardcore pool fan has to find sitting through this current match laborious.
Thanks, Gideon, for your reply.
I think there's some truth here. The tables of twenty five years ago were, as you suggest, loose by today's standards. The difference is in the fact that today's shooters are the straightest the game has ever seen and the equipment that befits the last generation of players does not befit this generation. Equipment must evolve with the quality of play, and to our advantage, most of the head=to-head matchups we get to watch are on tough equipment, making this match an outlier.
In each generation, it was necessary to have equipment that made runouts challenging, rather than elementary. for the elite.