Why do commentators feel they have to predict the shots? Don’t they commentate or make comments on the shots players themselves already decide to shoot? I think this is what commentators should be doing rather than being predictors. For example, before Efren shoots the commentator says, "Efren's going to make a 1-9 combination, no, he made a bank" because a bank is what Efren decided to do. The commentator should have just waited until Efren shot the bank and then made a comment about the bank. Then the commentator actually says what I'm saying about commentating. He said, "I think he had my shot prediction in mind ...." and goes on, but he's saying he's predicting and not commentating unless there's a new definition for commentating which includes predicting. The thing is, the commentator continues to describe about everything occurring on the table - all the positions, shots, movements and resting places of every ball for every shot like his audience are all blind. Of course, we are not blind, so his commentating gets boring to the point of being somewhat irritating. Then the commentator says, referring to Chao when he shot the 1-ball into the side pocket, "It was quite an intelligent play and easier than my shot .... and so on." Does the commentator think he's competing in the match saying "my shot?" No he's not. Does anyone have an idea about this?
I wish people were not so obsessed with age. Just talk about the game and leave that other stuff to viewer's own natural deduction. We know he's older, it isnt necessary to point out the obvious. We're not stupid. If pertinent material doesn't come to mind, you needn't fear dead air. We wont think youre stupid.
Lousy camera work! Zooms in far too close on countless shots where we can't follow the resulting path with a full view of the table. Some examples are during the break at 25:27, the overly close-up at 43:33, and you won't see the 2-ball go into the corner pocket AT ALL at 1:00:48
The commentator says it's the winner-break format, but that's what traditional 9-ball is. It's winner-break 9-ball. Nontraditional 9-ball is alternate break 9-ball very different from 9-ball. The match between Joshua Filler and Jason Shaw Winner-Break 9-ball I watched was tremendously more exciting than if it were an Alternate 9-ball match. They say it’s unfair to the other player to sit while the opponent runs multiple racks with traditional winner-break 9-ball. So alternate 9-ball is chosen for fairness. But when you think about it good pro-players both have the ability to run multiple racks so how can it be said it’s unfair when each can catch up with the any multiple rack run? It’s so much better to watch that kind of pool than the back and forth alternate break 9-ball which has very little excitement. As an example, Joshua got a head of Jason from behind 0 - 3 to 10 - 3 by running 10 racks. Then on the 11 rack he missed the 1-ball which brought up Jason to the table who had been sitting all this time. Now Jason has the chance to run his own string of racks to match Joshua. He certainly is good enough to do it and in doing so what a match it turned out to be compared to alternate 9-ball.
In traditional 9-ball you can string racks together. In alternate break you have to capitalize on mistakes and dry breaks. That does indeed make them very different games. But I like parts of both methods. Winner break is like a horse race where on horse leaves the rest behind, while alternate break is like fighting in a phone booth. 😎
I have been watching and playing pool for years ! love the game! but please just say green ball or yellow ball! no one remebers all the fucking ball numbers
