WOW!! Seriously!
- Thread starter Kickin' Chicken
- Start date
Looks like the time is right for him to move on up...sure does.
How exciting.
NOT. Not as exciting as it COULD have been.
Wouldn't it have been much better had Alex had his turn, too, and HE ran out every rack, too, and the score would be hill/hill.
Now THAT would be really exciting.
Jeff Livingston
After a boxer gets knocked out, he should get to throw a free one at his opponents chin to see if he can knock him out too. :duck: :thumbup:
jmarcum1984
Registered
A better analogy, in my opinion, would be archery. If a guy hits 3 in a row through the same hole, does he win? He probably should, but the next guy at least has a chance to show he is just as good. If he puts 3 in a row through the same hole, then it gets exciting!
That’s more like duplicate bridge....pool is more like boxing...I like it like that.....
...if you’re down for the count...it’s over.
The moral of the Kaçi-Pagulayan match....
...Don’t lose the lag...and if you win it..don’t break dry.
So that brings up an interesting option...
If a guy breaks and runs the set, the other player gets a break and he has to run the same number of racks or he loses. Almost like sudden death.
It would have been really entertaining to see if Alex could match his 8. With winning ONLY by running out you would see wild shots and 100% offense. That would be great!
So if Alex then breaks and runs 8 after Kaci does...then they alternate break until somebody stumbles?
This might be a great enhancement to the winner breaks formula. Especially for 9-ball.
Similar to what you (and others in the past) suggested, some 3-cushion events have an "equalizing inning" format. If the breaker reaches game points first, the non-breaker is given an inning to attempt to tie the match. If he does, they play another inning apiece, etc.
A good knock out is entertaining, but you can't run an enterprise on knock outs. People come to see a fight.
Jeff Livingston
This and the semi's match leading up to it were my first experience seeing his game. he was only 18 here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v61USxNIb_w
Spoiler, he wins!
Mike Tyson among others would completely disagree with you there. :thumbup:
Point is, it was a winner breaks race. The winner of the lag pulled off a huge anomaly. Running a set involves more than just being able to run the required number of balls, it requires some luck with spreads etc on the break. It just doesn't happen often in pro pool, once every 5-10 years I would guess. Maybe one of the forum statisticians keeps track of these things and can give their numbers. Last 2 times occurances I remember being talked about was Gabe Owen at the 2006 US Open, and Richie Orem in Reno, 2007 IIRC.
Instead of people being like, oh wow, we just got to see something rare and cool, like a baseball pitcher throwing a perfect game, people are saying the other guy should get a chance too.
No, he should not get a chance, it was a winners break race, the winner broke and ran the race, match over. The opponent lost.
My analogy of a boxer losing by knockout and getting another chance to tie/win after he has already lost was spot on.
I liken conversations like this to all the times I have heard league players claim 9 ball is too easy, and 10 ball should be the game. I watch as they usually cant run 3 balls consecutively, and have never ran a rack in their lives, unless it was a cosmo or some cosmic fookin fluke. But yep, 9 is too easy for them. :thumbup:
I just watched the entire match on youtube. The 5-ball shot in the corner in game 6, which he overcut, would not have dropped on our 4-1/8" pocket table. That was the only questionable shot that dropped - all the others were virtually center pocket. After hearing him in the interview say he comes from a snooker background, it now makes perfect sense to me why this young man is so good!
- an event in which both teams participated
- an event in which both fighters participated
I did a 5 oncee in a tourney vs a pro. Had multiple 3s in events.
It must happen more often than every 5-10 yrs, we just don't hear about it. Of course, in a big tourney is a far smaller group of players, even though those big tourney players are obviously the best.
It must happen more often than every 5-10 yrs, we just don't hear about it. Of course, in a big tourney is a far smaller group of players, even though those big tourney players are obviously the best.
Mike Tyson among others would completely disagree with you there. :thumbup:
Point is, it was a winner breaks race. The winner of the lag pulled off a huge anomaly. Running a set involves more than just being able to run the required number of balls, it requires some luck with spreads etc on the break. It just doesn't happen often in pro pool, once every 5-10 years I would guess. Maybe one of the forum statisticians keeps track of these things and can give their numbers. Last 2 times occurances I remember being talked about was Gabe Owen at the 2006 US Open, and Richie Orem in Reno, 2007 IIRC.
Instead of people being like, oh wow, we just got to see something rare and cool, like a baseball pitcher throwing a perfect game, people are saying the other guy should get a chance too.
No, he should not get a chance, it was a winners break race, the winner broke and ran the race, match over. The opponent lost.
My analogy of a boxer losing by knockout and getting another chance to tie/win after he has already lost was spot on.
I liken conversations like this to all the times I have heard league players claim 9 ball is too easy, and 10 ball should be the game. I watch as they usually cant run 3 balls consecutively, and have never ran a rack in their lives, unless it was a cosmo or some cosmic fookin fluke. But yep, 9 is too easy for them. :thumbup:
Did he mention the "S" on his chest?
I would say running out an 8-pack after winning the lag, in a race-to-8, in 10-ball, on a Diamond with 4-1/8" corner pockets, may be one of the most impressive match performances in a long time. The only asterisk in my opinion is that they were using a magic rack - which breaks the balls up just a little bit too predictably.
Most of his breaks he made 2-3 balls and had a great shot at the 1-ball. Only one of the 8 racks did he have to hit a really nice shot to break out a ball which was tied up with another ball, and in the last rack he had to elevate slightly and spin the cue ball in order to make the 1-ball. Other than that, for a player of his caliber, after those awesome breaks was just basically reading a roadmap!
Last edited:
I said running a set was an anomaly that doesn't happen often, similar to a pitcher throwing a perfect game. Made no comparison to pool being like baseball other than that.
I said it was like a boxer getting knocked out (losing) then getting another chance. Made no other comparison between pool and boxing other than that.
The only aspect that is worthy of discussion here is whether or not events should drop winner breaks in favor of alternate breaks. That would appease the sense of John/Jane Doe not getting a chance at the table.
That said, this event was winner breaks. The winner broke and ran the set. Case closed.
Talking about it in a "I wish this would have happened instead" context is nothing more than mental masturbation. I wish a lot of things in this world happened differently than they did, all throughout history. Maybe we could get Mike to put up a 'Would'a Should'a Could'a' sub-forum for the discussion of things we wished to be anything other than reality.
BTW, do you keep stats on how often someone breaks and runs the set out in pro tournaments?
In our weekly handicapped 9-ball tournaments which we've held every week for 22+ years, roughly 1100 tournaments, only once has a player broke and run out a race-to- 4 match. Yes, I am referring to amateurs, but still, only once out of 1100, and we have some pretty good players. Then again, we don't use magic racks.
Hey, Alex participated in the lag!