Seven Racks Without a Single Error: Szewczyk and the Saigon Night That Retold the Story of 10-Ball

Before the applause erupted at Phu Tho Indoor Stadium, there was a pause longer than usual. The 10-ball rolled slowly off the cushion, brushed the rail, and stopped exactly where it was meant to stop. Wojciech Szewczyk stood still, cue still resting on his hand, not yet raising it in celebration. He looked at the table for another two seconds, like a man who had just finished reading the last line of a long poem and needed a moment to believe he had read it correctly. That night, the Polish man walked away from the table as world 10-ball champion for the second time in his career, four years after his first title in 2026. But the story I want to tell you does not lie in the trophy. It lies in the number 7–0, and in the way that number was written, one rack at a time, in a tournament of 96 players from every continent.

---

Context: A Week of World-Class Pool in the Heart of Saigon

The event was the Iwan Simonis WPA Men's 10-Ball World Championship 2026, held at Phu Tho Indoor Stadium in Ho Chi Minh City. It is part of the Predator Pro Billiard Series — a professional tour operated by Predator, with WPA (World Pool-Billiard Association) as the sanctioning body. A report from AZBILLIARDS.COM dated September 26, 2026 records a total prize fund of $300,000, with the champion earning $80,000. The field comprised 96 players, competing under a double-elimination format before moving to knockout stages, with the final finishing 3–1.

I followed the event from Nha Trang via Pro Billiard TV, and the first thing that caught my attention was not the roster but the venue. A men's world 10-ball championship — a discipline considered the most demanding in the pocket-billiards family — taking place in Vietnam, and immediately afterward, the series moving on to Bali, Indonesia, where three titles were bundled into one trip: Women's 9-Ball, Men's Open, and Men's Doubles. In twenty years of following professional pool, I have never seen an international calendar lean this far toward Southeast Asia.

But before discussing regional significance, let us discuss the discipline. Because if a reader does not understand how 10-ball differs from 9-ball, they cannot understand why Szewczyk's 7–0 matters as much as it does.

---

The 10-Ball Discipline: Where Luck Is Escorted Off the Table

Within the pocket-billiards family, 9-ball and 10-ball are often merged into one by outsiders. This is the most common mistake I encounter in conversations with Vietnamese readers. Formally, both use cues, balls, and pockets; in essence, they are different sports.

In 9-ball, a player only needs to sink the lowest-numbered ball into any pocket, and a win can come from an imperfect shot. A misjudged angle, a ball rolling off-line, a lucky cushion — and the player can still take the rack. The luck factor in 9-ball is large enough that analysts often must separate run-out rate (clearing the table in one visit) from rack-win rate to properly evaluate true ability.

In 10-ball, the story is completely different. The rules typically apply call-shot — the player must nominate which ball goes into which pocket before shooting. A ball that drops without being called is returned to the table. This means every rack win must be "declared" in advance, and every error is exposed. The 10-ball table also packs a denser ball layout in the early phase, making position control and cue-ball management essential skills.

This leads to an important technical conclusion: an undefeated run in 10-ball carries a far higher signal of genuine ability than the same run in 9-ball. Because in 10-ball, you cannot win by luck. You can only win by calling correctly, shooting correctly, and leaving the correct position for the next visit.

That is why Szewczyk's 7–0 in Ho Chi Minh City is not merely a statistic. It is a technical statement.

---

The 7–0 Number: When Data Learns to Dance

I learned to read matches through numbers, but only when they know how to dance. And Szewczyk's 7–0 run is a dance with a clear rhythm.

Look at his path through the knockout stage. The source records four names he eliminated: Szolnoki (Hungary), Chua (Philippines), Sánchez Ruiz (Spain), Pehlivanovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina), before facing Kaçi (Albania) in the final. Those four names are not easy opponents. Chua is a leading representative of Philippine pool — a country regarded as the Asian cradle of the sport. Sánchez Ruiz is one of the finest Spanish cueists of his generation. Pehlivanovic represents the Balkan school known for defensive discipline. Szolnoki brings the awkwardness of the Hungarian style.

And then there is Kaçi.

What is notable is that Szewczyk faced Kaçi not once but twice in the same tournament. The first time, in group or winners'-bracket play, he won 2–0. The second time, in the final, he won 3–1. Beating the same elite opponent twice in one event — under two different formats — says two things.

First, Szewczyk can adapt. An opponent who loses the first meeting will adjust. That he still won the second encounter shows he was not being figured out.

Second, Kaçi is an attacking player. If Szewczyk beat him twice with a consistent approach, it likely means he had found an effective defensive solution — controlling position, pushing Kaçi into difficult shots, and forcing his opponent to gamble. This is my hypothesis, and I mark it clearly as a hypothesis, because the original report does not provide shot-by-shot detail.

What the data in my hands confirms with certainty is this: in a 96-player tournament, under a double-elimination-then-knockout format, losing no matches at all, and finishing by beating a European champion in the final — that is one of the clearest peak-form signals the pocket-billiards discipline can produce.

But I must be honest with my readers. The original report I hold provides no run-out percentage, no break-success percentage, no safety-success percentage. All I have are scores, opponent names, and format. That is enough to say Szewczyk won convincingly. It is not enough to say he invented a new school.

And perhaps, the modesty of the data is itself the most telling thing.

---

Four Years Between Two Crowns: What the Scoreboard Does Not Say

There is one detail in the report I read over and over. Szewczyk first won the world 10-ball title in 2026. The second came in 2026. Four years.

During those four years, he did not disappear. But he did not dominate either. If he had dominated, no one would have needed the word "again" in the headline. The word "again" in the AZBILLIARDS.COM headline is an indirect confession: there was a period when Szewczyk was not at the top.

What was that period? The report does not say. Injury? Loss of motivation? Personal issues? Scheduling? I do not know, and I will not fabricate. But I know one thing about the psychology of world champions: after touching the summit for the first time, many fall into what I call the "silence after the peak." They still play, still win, but the fire inside no longer burns as it once did.

There are victories that do not live on the scoreboard, but in the breathing of the arena. And there are championships that do not live in the trophy-lifting moment, but in the four silent years before it.

What makes Szewczyk's 2026 title especially meaningful is not that he won. It is that he won without losing a single match — after four years in which people had begun to doubt whether he was still at that level. This is the kind of story pocket billiards rarely produces, because the peak career window of a professional cueist is often shorter than in team sports.

In career-classification terms, this second title lifts Szewczyk from the "one-time champion" group into the "multiple world champion" group — an entirely different category in media value, commercial value, and legacy. In pool, where history is often written by the number of world titles, this is a jump in class.

---

The Format: A Fair Structure and Its Gaps

One aspect I rate highly in this event is the format. The competition was divided into two phases: double elimination (winners' and losers' brackets), then knockout. This is among the fairest formats in world championship competition.

The reason is simple. In a pure knockout event, a single error — one bad shot, one ball rolling off-line, one lost moment of composure — can end a player's entire tournament. That makes results depend too heavily on luck. In double elimination, by contrast, a player must lose twice to be eliminated. This gives a slow-starting cueist room to recover, while protecting genuinely strong players from being knocked out by one bad match.

Combined with the call-shot rules of 10-ball, we have a competition system in which most results are decided by skill and nerve rather than fortune. That makes Szewczyk's title a weighty piece of evidence.

But there is a gap in this structure I want readers to consider. The format also creates an enormous scheduling burden. A player in the losers' bracket must play more matches to reach the final. With 96 entrants, a player might play nearly ten matches, spread across several days, in the humid tropical climate of Ho Chi Minh City. Szewczyk reached the final with 7 matches and no losses — meaning he went through the winners' bracket and never dropped into the losers' side. That is not only a technical achievement. It is also a saving of physical energy.

---

Prize Structure: The Sustainability Question Hidden Behind $80,000

$80,000 for the champion. $300,000 total prize fund. 96 players.

Place these three numbers side by side and look at what they actually say.

The champion takes about 26.7% of the total fund. That is a moderate-to-high concentration. With 96 players, the rest of the fund is shared among 95. If we assume distribution along the common model for professional pool events — runner-up around $40,000, semifinalists around $20,000 each, quarterfinalists around $10,000 each — then by the second round, the figure may drop to only a few hundred dollars per player.

I do not have detailed data on the full prize breakdown, and I will not invent it. But I know enough about the economics of pocket billiards to raise the issue: for players flying in from Europe, the Americas, or the Philippines to Vietnam, the cost of airfare, hotel, and food over a week can reach several thousand dollars. If they exit early, their tournament income may not cover expenses.

This is the structural paradox of professional pool: the bigger the event, the wider the gap between winner and participant. And it is precisely the players on the outer rounds — the ones who make a 96-player field compelling — who carry the highest financial risk.

This is not the fault of the Ho Chi Minh City event. It is a feature of the entire global professional pool system. But when a world championship is staged in Southeast Asia, the question of sustainability becomes more urgent, because it directly affects the growth potential of a young pool market.

---

Southeast Asia: A Hosting Market and a Gap on the Table

This is the section I want to spend the most time on, because it touches something I observe as a Filipino living in Vietnam.

The men's world 10-ball championship was held in Ho Chi Minh City. Immediately afterward, the series moved to Bali, Indonesia. In the list of players who went deep in the knockout stage, I see not a single Vietnamese name. Nor an Indonesian one.

This is a gap that must be named precisely. Southeast Asia is becoming the organizing center of world professional pool, but not yet its producing center. People come here to compete, to promote brands, to build markets — but the crown still belongs to European cueists.

I look at the power distribution of this event and see something interesting. The list of top contenders spans many nations: Poland (Szewczyk), Albania (Kaçi), Germany (Filler), Spain (Sánchez Ruiz), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Pehlivanovic), Hungary (Szolnoki), Philippines (Chua). This is a genuinely multinational picture.

Compared with snooker — a sport where most cueists come from the United Kingdom or China — pocket billiards is far more globalized. No single nation dominates it in a monopolistic way. That is pocket billiards' strength as a global sport, but also its weakness as a media product, because no single national storyline is strong enough to generate frenzy.

Europe, in this picture, holds the deepest squad. Six European nations appear among the deep-running players. The Philippines, as Asia's representative, has only Chua. This is an imbalance I believe will persist for several years.

But there is a positive signal. The series' arrival in Vietnam and Indonesia shows the organizers see the region's potential. Pocket billiards in Vietnam has a solid cultural foundation — from tables in sidewalk cafes to professional clubs. What is missing is a structured training system and an international competition pathway for young cueists.

---

The Tour as an Ecosystem: What the Sponsor Names Reveal

There is one detail in the report that ordinary readers might overlook, but I consider it the most important for understanding the sport's future.

The list of brands attached to the event: Iwan Simonis (cloth), Aramith (balls), Kamui (tips), Predator (cues), Yalin, and Poison. This is the complete equipment supply chain of professional pool. Everything a cueist needs to compete comes from a small, tightly linked group of brands.

What does this mean?

It means professional pocket billiards operates on what I call an "equipment loop." Equipment manufacturers sponsor tournaments. Cueists compete using those brands' equipment. Audiences watch, and some of them buy the equipment. Revenue returns to the brands, and they continue to sponsor.

This is a far healthier model than one dependent on the betting industry — which has caused scandals in other sports. It is also why the integrity of professional pool events has remained relatively clean in recent years.

But this model has a weakness. It depends on a small group of brands. If one pillar brand withdraws, the entire ecosystem could shake. And this model also caps the sport's scale, because equipment revenue cannot compare with broadcast-rights revenue in major sports.

---

A Counter-Intuitive Angle: What Szewczyk's Victory Does Not Say

Here, I want to raise something some readers may not want to hear.

Szewczyk's victory is an outstanding achievement. A 7–0 run in a 96-player event is something very few cueists can accomplish. But if we lift our eyes from the scoreboard and look at the bigger picture, we see something else.

One tournament does not make an era. A seven-match run does not prove long-term dominance.

I have followed professional pool long enough to know that in this sport, the difference between a world champion and a world No. 20 often does not lie in basic technique. It lies in the ability to sustain form across many tournaments, many months, many years.

The four-year gap between Szewczyk's two world titles is not a small detail. It is a central fact. It tells us that even a world-championship-caliber cueist has periods when he cannot sustain his peak. During those four years, there were tournaments Szewczyk entered and did not win. Matches he lost. Moments when he was not himself.

And that is entirely normal. But it means we should not rush to declare a new era of dominance. Seven matches is a small sample. To speak of dominance, we need a full season, with data on run-out rate, safety-success rate, and the ability to convert opportunities into titles across consecutive events.

This is where I must confess something about the sports media, including myself. We tend to exaggerate the meaning of a moment, because a moment is easier to narrate than a process. A championship is a story. Four years without a title is a process with no story. And the human brain is programmed to remember stories, not processes.

But if I must choose between telling you a beautiful story and telling you the truth about the data, I choose the latter. Because I do not write about the pot. I write about what the pot conceals.

---

What Awaits in Bali: A Signal to Track

Immediately after the Ho Chi Minh City championship concluded, the Predator Pro Billiard Series continued its journey to Bali, Indonesia, with three titles staged in one trip: Women's 9-Ball, Men's Open, and Men's Doubles.

This is a strategy I rate highly. Bundling multiple titles into one venue allows organizers to save operating costs while creating a denser field. Cueists do not have to travel multiple times, sponsors get more days of brand exposure, and local audiences get the chance to watch different competition formats within the same window.

But there is one detail I want readers to note. Among the three titles in Bali is a women's title (Women's 9-Ball). It appears in the report only as a listing — no analysis, no player names, no results.

This is an imbalance in how professional pool is covered. While the men's 10-ball event is reported with full names, scores, and prizes, the women's 9-ball event is almost pushed to the margin. I do not accuse the original report — that may simply be a space limitation. But I raise it because it is a recurring pattern in the industry: women's pool always receives less attention than men's pool, even when the quality of play can be equivalent.

If this series truly wants to grow the Southeast Asian market, investing more in communications for women's events is a sensible strategy. Because in Vietnam and Indonesia, the number of women playing pool is rising, and they need role models to look up to.

---

A Few Numbers That Need Independent Verification

Before closing, I must raise something I always do when analyzing any sports event: classifying data reliability.

This entire article rests on a single source — the AZBILLIARDS.COM report of September 26, 2026. The figures on scores (7–0, 2–0, 3–1), prize fund ($300,000 and $80,000), and field size (96 players) all come from this source.

What does that mean?

It means these figures need to be cross-checked against official WPA results and professional pool databases before being cited as fact. In my profession, a single source is never enough. I am not saying this report is wrong. I am saying it is not yet confirmed.

This is not baseless skepticism. It is a professional principle. In sport, one wrong number can ruin an otherwise correct analysis. And for a world-championship-level event, verification is the writer's responsibility, not the reader's.

---

What I Carried Away From That Night

I turned off the television near midnight, Vietnam time. Outside the window, Nha Trang was still lit. I sat a while longer, taking no notes, just thinking about the moment Szewczyk stood still after the 10-ball stopped rolling.

The match truly begins from the moment the ball touches no one. In pool, that silence is the interval between two visits. It is when the player stands, chalks the tip, looks at the table, and calculates. The audience sees nothing. The broadcast shows nothing. But that is when the match is decided.

Szewczyk won this event not because he had the prettiest stroke. He won because across seven matches, he managed those silences better than anyone else. He called the right ball, left the right position, and gave his opponents no chance to come back.

In a sport where we usually remember only spectacular pots, what decides is what happens when there is no pot at all. That is the lesson I took from the Saigon night, and also what I want to send to young Vietnamese cueists training every day in clubs from Hanoi to Can Tho: sinking a ball is something anyone can learn. But the ability to control the silence after the shot — that is what separates a champion from a runner-up.

The question I leave to you, and to myself: if Southeast Asia is becoming the host of the biggest pocket-billiards events in the world, when will we produce a cueist who can stand at that table on final night? That is not a question with an immediate answer. But it is a question I believe will be answered within the next ten years — and I hope I will still be healthy enough to sit down and write about that moment.

---

Reference Fact Sheet

• Event: Iwan Simonis WPA Men's 10-Ball World Championship 2026
• Venue: Phu Tho Indoor Stadium, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
• Date: September 2026 (source dated September 26, 2026)
• Champion: Wojciech Szewczyk (Poland)
• Achievement: 7 matches unbeaten; second world 10-ball title (first in 2026)
• Knockout opponents: Szolnoki (Hungary), Chua (Philippines), Sánchez Ruiz (Spain), Pehlivanovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
• Final: Szewczyk beat Kaçi (Albania) 3–1
• Group/winners'-bracket meeting: Szewczyk beat Kaçi 2–0
• Field size: 96 players
• Total prize fund: $300,000
• Champion's prize: $80,000
• Format: Double elimination, then knockout
• Equipment sponsors: Iwan Simonis (cloth), Aramith (balls), Kamui (tips), Predator (cues), Yalin, Poison
• Broadcaster: Pro Billiard TV
• Next leg: Bali, Indonesia — Women's 9-Ball, Men's Open, Men's Doubles
• Source: AZBILLIARDS.COM, September 26, 2026 (data pending independent verification against official WPA results)