Will there be any more "dominant" players

Terry Ardeno

Terry Ardeno

I still love my wife
Silver Member
On the Ortmann HOF thread, the topic came up as to whether or not Johnny Archer will be the last man to dominate for as long as he did.

That seems to be a wide open topic. I think that Strickland dominated even more than Archer, although Archer did come "after" Strickland's main run.

So, is there anyone out there playing right now who can be a dominant player for say, the next decade or so?

Off the bat, I would mention Chia Ching Wu has a chance, especially if he does not limit himself to playing exclusively in Asia
 
Terry Ardeno said:
On the Ortmann HOF thread, the topic came up as to whether or not Johnny Archer will be the last man to dominate for as long as he did.

That seems to be a wide open topic. I think that Strickland dominated even more than Archer, although Archer did come "after" Strickland's main run.

So, is there anyone out there playing right now who can be a dominant player for say, the next decade or so?

Off the bat, I would mention Chia Ching Wu has a chance, especially if he does not limit himself to playing exclusively in Asia
Click to expand...

Given the formats of tournaments as well as the amount of players competing in major tournaments, I don't think we will ever see a player win everything again as Strickland, Archer or Sigel did. We might see someone have a hot streak (ex. SVB) but not for a prolonged period of time. I think luck plays too much of a part in competion these days.

If we changed format to Round Robin (ex. IPT) and longer races (race to 11 or 13) winner breaks, I think that you would eventually find one player who consistently rises to the top more often than someone else. Until then I think the best we can hope for people who consistently finish high.

The luck in 9 ball needs to be cancelled out by the format first, I think.
 
No way

The snooker world championship is race to 18 frames (racks). Each frame typically last about 20-30 mins so the overall match length is 15 hours. This is split into five sessions of approx 8 frames each scheduled for three hours over two days. The early rounds are race to 10, 13 or 17. This format finds a true world champion.

Compare that with nonsensical race to seven 9-ball format.

If the format was straight pool, single elimination with early rounds race to 500, moving up to a race to 1000 for the world champion, you'd be down to a very few players. The problem is not that there is a lack of a Federer/Nadal rivalry where two players are so much better than the rest. The problem is there is no format to show it. If a tennis match was a race to three games and not three sets, I'm sure you'd see a lot of different winners there too.

But people won't watch such long formats I hear the cry? Well I can't watch 9-ball on ESPN. It's just so dull, and I'm a big pool fan.

The IPT certainly had the approach right with the format, and the game. Pity it didn't last.
 
cameron answered, IMO, exactly correct. You may find the occasional player who gets hot and snaps off a
few high profile events in a close chronological proximity (ronnie alcano's back to back wins at the world 8 and 9 ball championships). I think that todays competition, with the inclusion of world wide
international pool players, is much greater now than ever before. U may see repeat winners from event to event, but not year to year and not ever from decade to decade like johnny.

Rg
 
Dominant Player

There is no way a player can dominant today for two reasons.

In order for a player to dominate he must be able to runs racks and keep control of the table. With alternate break this is impossible.

One foul ball in hand rules favor the lessor player since he can get out of line and play safe therebye turning a chump into a champion. We see this all the time. In the roll out days the player hooked could roll out to a tough shot and the lessor player would be in trouble since the better player could make the shot while the lessor player would miss therebye making luck a smaller factor.

In the past the dominating players could ALL MAKE A TOUGH SHOT and get out. Todays one foul ball in hand most players play safe instead of making a tought shot and their shot making ability suffers.

I remember 25 years ago when world class players would play each other it wouldn't be unusual for one player to win 11-2 or 11-3. The player who only won three games only had one or two opportunities to win a game since the winning player only allowed the losing player to kick at balls. The dominate player would keep control of the table by running racks and playing safe when balls were tied up. When the upcoming player rolled out from the safe the dominating player would make a tough cut or a long rail bank. Keith McCready, Buddy Hall, Mike Siegel, Jim Rempe, Steve Miserak (sp) to name a few played a level above everybody else and dominated the game when roll out was king.

I would love to see roll out with winner break and a race to 11 come back. I think several dominate players would return.

twoforpool
 
Last edited:
I've never seen anyone more dominant than Efren has been at One Pocket for the last 15 years! I'm talking complete dominance! I know he hasn't won every tournament he has entered in that time, but do you think the winner of any tournament would have played him afterward for the first prize money. NO!
 
Last edited:
In the 70's and early 80's, every tournament we just knew either Sigel, Buddy or Mizerak was going to get there. And they always did too.

Then Earl came along and he got added to the equation. He and Sigel took over for a long while. In fact at most pro tournaments you could almost always pick the winner from a group of five or six players. Maybe that hasn't changed that much either.

I mean I would take Earl, Sigel, Buddy and Varner against the field for years. Once in a while Kim, Rempe, Allen or David would sneak in there. Jose was always a contender when he played also, more so than Efren for several years in the 80's and early 90's.
 
Cameron Smith said:
Given the formats of tournaments as well as the amount of players competing in major tournaments, I don't think we will ever see a player win everything again as Strickland, Archer or Sigel did. We might see someone have a hot streak (ex. SVB) but not for a prolonged period of time. I think luck plays too much of a part in competion these days.

If we changed format to Round Robin (ex. IPT) and longer races (race to 11 or 13) winner breaks, I think that you would eventually find one player who consistently rises to the top more often than someone else. Until then I think the best we can hope for people who consistently finish high.

The luck in 9 ball needs to be cancelled out by the format first, I think.
Click to expand...

Tap, tap, tap!

Today's 9-ball game is just like Buddy Hall said in podcast on TheActionReport.com. It is a battle of who can break the best. Whereas, in the days of two-shot/push-out, the player with the best shooting skills won the tournament. With today's rack riggers and break mechanics, I agree with Buddy Hall, 100 percent. 9-ball stinks as a way to display a pool player's skills set.

And then there's these ESPN-shortened races for television at tournaments. To play a whole tournament as a race to 11, for example, and then at the end, put all the players names in a hat and have a single-elimination format, race to 7, or even just shorten it to a race to 7 is not a true reflection of may the best player win.

ESPN coverage of pool pales in comparison to what they do for poker, as evidenced by the recent WSOP tournament just ending this morning at 6:45 a.m., EST. They sure don't shorten the poker games for television in ranking tournaments for the WSOP, and they shouldn't do it for pool either. JMHO, FWIW!

JAM
 
Historically, there have been dominant players in every sport I can think of in each generation. We're still waiting on the next Earl (I'm talking 9-ball since that is "the" game right now) but, if history repeats itself here, which I can't think of a good reason that it will not (other than the fluky rules that 9-ball is played by today), I believe we will see another dominant player.
 
the genisis for the concept that there will likely never again be a dominant player like archer or efren is steeped in the theory that game is truly international, and with the addition of more world beaters, stiffer competition.

The days of sigel and before were almost as if the events were "regional" with very few, if any foreign players. The inclusion of the europeans, phillipinos, taiwaneese etc, have all made it more probable that one particular player will dominate. More likely we will see a player who hits a very high gear and wins pwrhaps multiple evnts, back to back, than multiple us opens, each a year apart.

Rg
 
the genisis for the concept that there will likely never again be a dominant player like archer or efren is steeped in the theory that game is truly international, and with the addition of more world beaters, stiffer competition.

The days of sigel and before were almost as if the events were "regional" with very few, if any foreign players. The inclusion of the europeans, phillipinos, taiwaneese etc, have all made it more improbable that one particular player will dominate. More likely we will see a player who hits a very high gear and wins pwrhaps multiple evnts, back to back, than multiple us opens, each a year apart.
 
HA HA you got double posted as well. LOL I hope they get this straightened out soon. It is taking me much longer to browse and hence less work getting done.
:mad:
 
Terry Ardeno said:
On the Ortmann HOF thread, the topic came up as to whether or not Johnny Archer will be the last man to dominate for as long as he did.

That seems to be a wide open topic. I think that Strickland dominated even more than Archer, although Archer did come "after" Strickland's main run.

So, is there anyone out there playing right now who can be a dominant player for say, the next decade or so?

Off the bat, I would mention Chia Ching Wu has a chance, especially if he does not limit himself to playing exclusively in Asia
Click to expand...
I thought Efren was pretty dominant enough but not likely that he can sustain that for the next decade. Not sure if dominant here means winning big but I'd probably add Yang Ching Shun.
 
bcf said:
I thought Efren was pretty dominant enough but not likely that he can sustain that for the next decade. Not sure if dominant here means winning big but I'd probably add Yang Ching Shun.
Click to expand...


bcf,
My bad.

It's a given that Efren will still be dominating One Pocket for at least the next several years. That's like betting if water's wet.

Lots of big things are expected for Ching Shun Yang. I like his nick-name...."Son of Pool"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top