SVB vs Tony LIVE!

[jtompilot]

John, thanks so much for posting this. It is of my opinion that Tony is the greatest pocket speed banker in pool. It is one thing to make a bank but another thing to make a bank at pocket speed. These pocket speed banks with accuraracy (hit the pocket) is so huge in whether you leave a return shot (cross corner bank to the opponent's hole), I mean just very impressive.
But yes, what a great out, and Z bank!

BR, thanks for your post, you not only bring up a great point, but name a great player that recognizes the attributes of using this strategy.

I have to wonder if this table is a special set up using Black Diamond cushions, for that Z bank coming off of the 2nd rail reacted so naturally. Plus there were some double cross corner banks within a diamond of the foot rail that reacted very naturally, (not reversing off the 2 rail).

I did not get any responses to what if the match goes hill / hill, then should it go to 2 ahead for the win?

thanks guys for your posts!
Whitey

No they don’t have black diamond cushions, They are Artimis.
It’s the red labels that backup like crazy. A little running english and pocket speed, no problem.

 

[lll]

Cliff would always break to the side his opponent broke because he didn't want the opponent to shoot to the same hole every game. It was mental warfare. He could play to either pocket, so he would take away your pocket every other game so you had to play to both.

i get the concept of doing that
but you are grooving your side shooting too arent you if you break from the other side?
and if you are better
you should win
correct?

 

[catkins]

i get the concept of doing that
but you are grooving your side shooting too arent you if you break from the other side?
and if you are better
you should win
correct?

Since I have always played switching pockets I never got and emotional attachment to either side. This makes me feel (even if not true) that I have a slight advantage to break the opponents poket. not to mention helps with my fading memory in remebering whos break it is.

 

[crabbcatjohn]

Tony.....

 

[darmoose]

i get the concept of doing that
but you are grooving your side shooting too arent you if you break from the other side?
and if you are better
you should win
correct?

absolutely, Larry...... similarly, a pocket slightly running out can be as good as a pocket running in.....it depends on how or to which side of the hole you miss to, doesn't it...

 

[darmoose]

Since I have always played switching pockets I never got and emotional attachment to either side. This makes me feel (even if not true) that I have a slight advantage to break the opponents poket. not to mention helps with my fading memory in remebering whos break it is.

I have decided a long time ago to play from the side that gives me the best reach and less use of the rake shooting at my hole, which for a lefty is to break to the left pocket. I can see no other benefit as valuable as avoiding the rake....

 

[lll]

Tony.....

i like this reply from tony
maybe we will see a"better" tony next year
i hope so

 

[lll]

I have decided a long time ago to play from the side that gives me the best reach and less use of the rake shooting at my hole, which for a lefty is to break to the left pocket. I can see no other benefit as valuable as avoiding the rake....

my house pro told me once when we were discussing which side a righty should break from
he said "conventional wisdom" is that the righty breaks to the right pocket (looking from the kitchen )
because it gives better body position for offensive shots(paraphrasing)
his reply ( and he breaks to the LEFT pocket (facing from the kitchen)
would you rather be uncomfortable when you have to play defense or offence ?
to the members
your thoughts?

 

[catkins]

I am 6 foot 3 and shoot preaty well lefty so that may be a part of my calculation

 

[12squared]

my house pro told me once when we were discussing which side a righty should break from
he said "conventional wisdom" is that the righty breaks to the right pocket (looking from the kitchen )
because it gives better body position for offensive shots(paraphrasing)
his reply ( and he breaks to the LEFT pocket (facing from the kitchen)
would you rather be uncomfortable when you have to play defense or offence ?
to the members
your thoughts?

If you are a right hand player and you're breaking let's say 4-6 inches from the rail, it's easier to bridge breaking from the right side to the left pocket (wrong pocket). In addition if the corner ball leaks out a little for your opponent and they play right handed, it's harder for them to reach that first shot comfortably playing to the right pocket. Plus, the added benefit of being much easier to play against that left rail.

Yes you have less natural reach in the middle of the table or over the stack to the end rail, but you would be playing to both holes during a match anyway (as a rule) so pick your poison, which side rolls best and breaks best or if your opponent has a preference...you can take it away since you don't care. Don't sweat the details, just play. If your opponent takes the pocket you like best do you just give up? Lol

 

[jtompilot]

If you are a right hand player and you're breaking let's say 4-6 inches from the rail, it's easier to bridge breaking from the right side to the left pocket (wrong pocket). In addition if the corner ball leaks out a little for your opponent and they play right handed, it's harder for them to reach that first shot comfortably playing to the right pocket. Plus, the added benefit of being much easier to play against that left rail.

Yes you have less natural reach in the middle of the table or over the stack to the end rail, but you would be playing to both holes during a match anyway (as a rule) so pick your poison, which side rolls best and breaks best or if your opponent has a preference...you can take it away since you don't care. Don't sweat the details, just play. If your opponent takes the pocket you like best do you just give up? Lol

This is the correct answer; however, most players don't know it.

 

[J.R.]

I did not get any responses to what if the match goes hill / hill, then should it go to 2 ahead for the win?

thanks guys for your posts!
Whitey

First, it was an entertaining contest between two of USA's "pool" heavyweights. Although not every pool shot or strategy was perfect, and usually only in hindsight, who wants to put up their money and play either one of them?

Second, in response to Whitey's question, "...what if the match goes hill / hill, then should it go to 2 ahead for the win?" My answer would be, "no," because the match could drag on for hours if the players continued to rotate their wins and losses. According to an AZ Billiards link, the Day 3 match took, in totality, 9 hours and 34 minutes.

Third, perhaps instead of 2 ahead for the win, the match between Tony and Shane, could have been played out by five individual races to 8 over five days of play and the "King" being whoever prevails in 3 out of the 5 days of play.

 

[BRLongArm]

These matches are really not played for the viewing public, or the format would be better for those viewing. I think races to 6 each day are much more fan friendly, and poolactiontv has figured that out. Until we start trying to make this a sport, with uniform rules and understanding that in the end, it is entertainment, we will have streamers set up matches that play late into the night, with nobody awake to know who won. I literally only knew a couple of people who watched it until the end.

Maybe five hours of play should be the norm. When they start at 6 pm CST, that means they play till around midnight on the east coast. That's enough one pocket for most.

 

[darmoose]

I am 6 foot 3 and shoot preaty well lefty so that may be a part of my calculation

lol....that would make a difference...

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

These matches are really not played for the viewing public, or the format would be better for those viewing. I think races to 6 each day are much more fan friendly, and poolactiontv has figured that out. Until we start trying to make this a sport, with uniform rules and understanding that in the end, it is entertainment, we will have streamers set up matches that play late into the night, with nobody awake to know who won. I literally only knew a couple of people who watched it until the end.

Maybe five hours of play should be the norm. When they start at 6 pm CST, that means they play till around midnight on the east coast. That's enough one pocket for most.

I agree whole-heartily! These two players are so good at defending that games can last a long time.
One game I believe it was the 16 -16 game with 3 balls on the table w/ both players needed two. This made me pause thinking about OB-OP that adds balls to the table for fouls.

But. if it was not for the re-load I never could have watched this in live time, just could not endure. I finally finished watch somewhat most of the match two days later. I really want to thank Omega for the re-load and highlights during time outs
Another factor is player mental and physical, more mental, but the quality of play dropped off by both players the last 5 games. If was more evident for Tony than Shane, but both were affected. This also goes to the viewing ppv, we do not want to see this happen to the players.

I agree, 4 days of race to 6. I liked the total match game count of 24. I also will once again state this, and I am thinking of the viewers and the players, if it goes 23 - 23 hill / hill then it is two ahead for the win. Tennis does this with great success.
Thanks BR,
Whitey

 

[lll]

I agree whole-heartily! These two players are so good at defending that games can last a long time.
One game I believe it was the 16 -16 game with 3 balls on the table w/ both players needed two. This made me pause thinking about OB-OP that adds balls to the table for fouls.

But. if it was not for the re-load I never could have watched this in live time, just could not endure. I finally finished watch somewhat most of the match two days later. I really want to thank Omega for the re-load and highlights during time outs
Another factor is player mental and physical, more mental, but the quality of play dropped off by both players the last 5 games. If was more evident for Tony than Shane, but both were affected.

actually dennis
tennis has come to having a 10 point tiebreaker if the deciding set goes to 6-6 in the majors
(instead of the 7 point tiebreaker done at 6-6 in the other sets)
this avoids the record of jogn isner winning a match at wimbledon 70-68 in the 5th set !!!!!!!!!
...........................
All four Grand Slams now utilize a consistent final-set tiebreak format. When a match reaches 6-6 in the deciding set at these events, a 10-point tiebreak is played. The first player or team to win 10 points, with an advantage of two or more points, will be the winner. Already in use at the Australian Open since 2019, this format began at the other three majors starting at the 2022 French Open.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

lll,
We remember Froxt vs. Chip hill / hill, I believe it was 39 - 39, for me at that point I hated to see one game decide that whole match.
Your point is valid we want to avoid a 70 -68 drawn out win.
But we can agree or not that some sort of tie breaker would add some excitement and fairness to the players that after 46 games played the players are died even 23 - 23, we then go to a sudden death play instead of just the last game decides it.
So how about a race to 2. The player that initially won the lag would still maintain the break advantage.

Now to keep in theme of BR, do we think this is something the viewers would want after a long match that has come to draw going into the final game?

Also, the players and their backers seem to control how the match plays out, in the rules they play by, and most importantly at this point is the players taking breaks. I heard Frost vs. Chip they took a tremendous amount of breaks, Tony vs. Lion the 1/2 hr. break that ruined the match for me, and this match I felt their short breaks were viewer friendly.

BR's point of these matches being viewer friendly, for ppv probably is very important for the existence of these matches.

Thanks Larry for the discussion!
Whitey

 

[jtompilot]

lll,
We remember Froxt vs. Chip hill / hill, I believe it was 39 - 39, for me at that point I hated to see one game decide that whole match.
Your point is valid we want to avoid a 70 -68 drawn out win.
But we can agree or not that some sort of tie breaker would add some excitement and fairness to the players that after 46 games played the players are died even 23 - 23, we then go to a sudden death play instead of just the last game decides it.
So how about a race to 2. The player that initially won the lag would still maintain the break advantage.

Now to keep in theme of BR, do we think this is something the viewers would want after a long match that has come to draw going into the final game?

Also, the players and their backers seem to control how the match plays out, in the rules they play by, and most importantly at this point is the players taking breaks. I heard Frost vs. Chip they took a tremendous amount of breaks, Tony vs. Lion the 1/2 hr. break that ruined the match for me, and this match I felt their short breaks were viewer friendly.

BR's point of these matches being viewer friendly, for ppv probably is very important for the existence of these matches.

Thanks Larry for the discussion!
Whitey

So let’s say it’s 23-23 and now they decide to play a race to 2 or 3 for the title, how about a race to 27. Now it’s 26-26, ok, let’s make it a race 30 now. WTF, they already played for three or four days, let it go. I’m fine with one game for all the marbles.

 

[12squared]

lll,
We remember Froxt vs. Chip hill / hill, I believe it was 39 - 39, for me at that point I hated to see one game decide that whole match.
Your point is valid we want to avoid a 70 -68 drawn out win.
But we can agree or not that some sort of tie breaker would add some excitement and fairness to the players that after 46 games played the players are died even 23 - 23, we then go to a sudden death play instead of just the last game decides it.
So how about a race to 2. The player that initially won the lag would still maintain the break advantage.

Now to keep in theme of BR, do we think this is something the viewers would want after a long match that has come to draw going into the final game?

Also, the players and their backers seem to control how the match plays out, in the rules they play by, and most importantly at this point is the players taking breaks. I heard Frost vs. Chip they took a tremendous amount of breaks, Tony vs. Lion the 1/2 hr. break that ruined the match for me, and this match I felt their short breaks were viewer friendly.

BR's point of these matches being viewer friendly, for ppv probably is very important for the existence of these matches.

Thanks Larry for the discussion!
Whitey

As much as I respect your position, at some point you just have to gamble. Play the one game for the cheese! What could be more exciting for the viewers?

 

[baby huey]

All of the Tony/Dennis matches lasted late into the night. On the final day there were only 4800 viewers AND they were hanging on the edge of their respective seats for the amazing finish to that match. What I'm trying to say is that sometimes these long matches draw in the viewer to a climatic finish and sometimes not, But, you never know unless you play them out. In tennis at Wimbledon you play the last match with no tie breaker and the fans just love it........at least I do. I like the matches to be long winded.