|
Sports » rec.sport.billiard » Can someone please elaborate.....
| Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56242] |
Fr, 07 Januar 2005 22:51 |
|
on the second paragraph from this link...
http://www.famousbelgians.net/ceulemans.htm
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56245 ] |
Fr, 07 Januar 2005 23:35 |
|
ZigZag Master wrote:
> on the second paragraph from this link...
>
> http://www.famousbelgians.net/ceulemans.htm
You mean you don't freeze your cues when you're not using them?
Fred
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56249 ] |
Sa, 08 Januar 2005 00:26 |
|
> ZigZag Master wrote:
>> on the second paragraph from this link...
>> http://www.famousbelgians.net/ceulemans.htm
Fred Agnir <ohagnir [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> You mean you don't freeze your cues when you're not using them?
Lots of beginners don't know that if you don't keep your cue cold
between matches it will dry out, and lose playability.
Bob <-- expecting a run on replacement ivory ferrules
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56257 ] |
Sa, 08 Januar 2005 02:19 |
|
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:51:49 -0500, "ZigZag Master" <zigzagmasterSPAMNOT [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>on the second paragraph from this link...
>
>http://www.famousbelgians.net/ceulemans.htm
Hey, it's the internet, so it must be true. Like Ceulemans was born
in 1937 and then again in 1938.
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56259 ] |
Sa, 08 Januar 2005 02:29 |
|
"ZigZag Master" <zigzagmasterSPAMNOT [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:348ejrF47hae9U1 [at] individual.net...
> on the second paragraph from this link...
>
> http://www.famousbelgians.net/ceulemans.htm
so what would you expect from a writer who thinks 3 cushion is more
difficult than
Balkline?
CBII
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56264 ] |
Sa, 08 Januar 2005 03:25 |
|
Maybe that's really what's meant by born again.
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co.
bobj [at] cris.com
"RR" <rr [at] not.net> wrote in message
news:h5dut01av4h9p039dn204ukkbvmj69c3k6 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:51:49 -0500, "ZigZag Master"
> <zigzagmasterSPAMNOT [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, it's the internet, so it must be true. Like Ceulemans was born
> in 1937 and then again in 1938.
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56300 ] |
Sa, 08 Januar 2005 18:45 |
|
Hey Bob, I know you are being facetious but freezing takes out moisture.
Dick
--
Richard H. Neighbors
Building fine pool cues for real pool players at affordable prices.
Over 35 years experience in cue repair.
318 Linden st.
Cinti. OH 45216
ph# 513 233-7499
web site: http//www.dickiecues.com
"Bob Jewett" <jewett [at] sfbilliards.com> wrote in message
news:1105140374.842157 [at] cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
>
>> ZigZag Master wrote:
>
>>> on the second paragraph from this link...
>>> http://www.famousbelgians.net/ceulemans.htm
>
> Fred Agnir <ohagnir [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You mean you don't freeze your cues when you're not using them?
>
> Lots of beginners don't know that if you don't keep your cue cold
> between matches it will dry out, and lose playability.
>
> Bob <-- expecting a run on replacement ivory ferrules
>
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56301 ] |
Sa, 08 Januar 2005 20:42 |
|
Nope. Do you?
nat
>> http://www.famousbelgians.net/ceulemans.htm
> You mean you don't freeze your cues when you're not using them?
>
> Fred
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56366 ] |
Mo, 10 Januar 2005 19:07 |
|
cueboy2 <spamblock [at] nospam.net> wrote:
> so what would you expect from a writer who thinks 3 cushion is
> more difficult than Balkline?
But 3-C is more difficult, judging from how often good players
run out the whole match at each one.
--
Bob Jewett
http://www.sfbilliards.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56375 ] |
Mo, 10 Januar 2005 21:50 |
|
ZigZag Master wrote:
> on the second paragraph from this link...
>
> http://www.famousbelgians.net/ceulemans.htm
Evidently Torbjorn Blomdahl is just "chopped liver".
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56388 ] |
Di, 11 Januar 2005 15:00 |
|
<rsb-asp-google [at] s-c-ellis.com> wrote in message
news:1105390233.907838.162450 [at] c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> http://www.famousbelgians.net/ceulemans.htm
> Evidently Torbjorn Blomdahl is just "chopped liver".
>
OK, I am confused. Do you think a Swede should make the list of famous
Belgians?
Jim Eales
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56409 ] |
Di, 11 Januar 2005 20:43 |
|
No but the article at the link stated "Raymond Ceulemans of Belgium is
generally considered to be the best billiard player of all time",
dismissing Blomdahl out of hand. That is what I am referring to.
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56432 ] |
Mi, 12 Januar 2005 00:11 |
|
Blomdahl, while being a great player and easily one of the best ever, will
probably never come close to the dominance Ceulemans has had over the sport
for nearly a half-century. He's won world championships in every discipline
of carom games and multiple world championships in many of them, as well as
countless Euro, National and international events numbering in the hundreds.
Blomdahl maybe the toughest of the current players, but so much of what is
known today is stuff that Ceulemans taught the world of billiards.
Deno
<rsb-asp-google [at] s-c-ellis.com> wrote in message
news:1105472616.210050.314160 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> No but the article at the link stated "Raymond Ceulemans of Belgium is
> generally considered to be the best billiard player of all time",
> dismissing Blomdahl out of hand. That is what I am referring to.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56450 ] |
Mi, 12 Januar 2005 10:00 |
|
<rsb-asp-google [at] s-c-ellis.com> wrote in message
news:1105472616.210050.314160 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> No but the article at the link stated "Raymond Ceulemans of Belgium is
> generally considered to be the best billiard player of all time",
that is probably due to the fact that Ceulemans is generally considered to
be
the best billiard player of all time
try to keep up
CBII
> dismissing Blomdahl out of hand. That is what I am referring to.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56452 ] |
Mi, 12 Januar 2005 10:18 |
|
"Bob Jewett" <jewett [at] sfbilliards.com> wrote in message
news:1105380476.524020 [at] cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
> cueboy2 <spamblock [at] nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > so what would you expect from a writer who thinks 3 cushion is
> > more difficult than Balkline?
>
> But 3-C is more difficult, judging from how often good players
> run out the whole match at each one.
well, hesitant as I am to argue with a legend, just let me say
1. I know you read/collect old billiard books, ergo I have to beleive
you have read the same ones I have wherin authors expressed
that same exact thought
"Balkline is the most demanding cue disipline" or words too that effect
2. "judging from how often good players run out the whole match at each
one."
a valid guideline?...perhaps, but not the whole story
especialy when you say "...the whole _match_"
two thoughts
running out the whole 'match' at 9 Ball is virtually unheard of(twice in
history?)
at a top level 14.1 tournament, running out the whole match happens
often-ish
esp when you allow for how little straight pool is played these days
if you adjust the criteria to running 75% of the match,
the ratio becomes overwhelming
I don't think many would conclude that 9 Ball is harder than straight pool
secondly,
good old one pocket, most complex of the cue sports
even tho it may be harder to run out a single game of one pocket than
a single game of 8 Ball, that isn't the reason one pocket is dramatically
harder
CBII
>
> --
>
> Bob Jewett
> http://www.sfbilliards.com/
>
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56459 ] |
Mi, 12 Januar 2005 15:18 |
|
Deno, thanks for the informative reply as a opposed to cueboy2's
wisecracking attitude.
Steve.
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56463 ] |
Mi, 12 Januar 2005 17:26 |
|
In article
<gX5Fd.5702$7N1.1559 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"cueboy2" <spamblock [at] nospam.net> wrote:
> I don't think many would conclude that 9 Ball is harder than straight pool
If you measure difficulty by how hard it is to score points or
pocket balls, both individually and in long runs, then yes, many of
us would conclude that 9-ball is "harder" than straight pool. There
are other ways to measure game difficulty, but that is one objective
measure.
> secondly,
> good old one pocket, most complex of the cue sports
>
> even tho it may be harder to run out a single game of one pocket than
> a single game of 8 Ball, that isn't the reason one pocket is dramatically
> harder
There are other ways to measure difficulty, but if you go by
runlength statistics, then yes, one-pocket is more difficult than
8-ball.
Another advantage of this approach is that you can compare equipment
the same way. If your runs are longer on one table than on another,
then you can quantify exactly how "difficult" one table is compared
to the other. You can also compare completely different games in
this way. For example, you can quantify how much more difficult 3C
is than snooker, or snooker compared to 14.1.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56464 ] |
Mi, 12 Januar 2005 18:07 |
|
Ron Shepard wrote:
> If you measure difficulty by how hard it is to score points or
> pocket balls, both individually and in long runs, then yes, many of
> us would conclude that 9-ball is "harder" than straight pool. There
> are other ways to measure game difficulty, but that is one objective
> measure.
> ... if you go by
> runlength statistics, then yes, one-pocket is more difficult than
> 8-ball.
As a universal measure of how "hard" a game is, I've always liked your
idea of a game's "sharpness": how likely it is that the most-skilled
player will win. Another way to think of it is how much luck is
involved in the game. Flipping coins is not a sharp game at all, while
chess is very sharp, so flipping coins is "easy" and chess is "hard".
I think most pool/billiards games are about equally "sharp" even though
the difficulty of scoring individual points or the average runlength in
each varies widely, because competitive matches in each game are made
longer or shorter to take these things into consideration - the more
skilled player will usually prevail over the number of individual games
it usually takes to make a match.
Of course, there are also many different skills involved in
pool/billiards games - pocketing, CB control, strategy, specialty shots,
etc. - and each game tests a different mix of them. So trying to decide
simplistic questions like which game is "hardest", or even which of two
games is "harder", will never result in much consensus because it's like
comparing apples to orangutans.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56479 ] |
Mi, 12 Januar 2005 18:51 |
|
"cueboy2" <spamblock [at] nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gX5Fd.5702$7N1.1559 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Bob Jewett" <jewett [at] sfbilliards.com> wrote in message
> news:1105380476.524020 [at] cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
> > cueboy2 <spamblock [at] nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > so what would you expect from a writer who thinks 3 cushion is
> > > more difficult than Balkline?
> >
> > But 3-C is more difficult, judging from how often good players
> > run out the whole match at each one.
>
Yes, from what I've read 3-C became popular after certain people got so good
at balkline it became ridiculous to even have matches.
>
> two thoughts
> running out the whole 'match' at 9 Ball is virtually unheard of(twice in
> history?)
I'm sure it has happened more often than that. I've heard plenty of stories
where even a non-professional player has run six to eleven racks of nine
ball. Depending on the format, many of those would seal the deal. I think
I read a claim somewhere for a 15 rack run. Obviously many runs are limited
by alternate break formats and the rotational nature of the game.
It is possible for a lesser player to win a nine ball match esp. if its a
short race, by which I mean a race to three, five, or even seven. I've
defeated numerous superior player in a race to five. In a race to eleven I
probably wouldn't have managed the win. In straight pool, luck is not so
much a factor since any ball can be pocketed and counted if it is called, or
if it goes in on the same shot as when a called ball is pocketed. Nine ball
is slop. I won a game the other day by attempting to shoot the nine into
the side from approximately the foot spot. It rebounded off the point of
the pocket and came directly back into the corner by which I was standing.
Nine ball requires a player to be able to move the cue ball all over the
table in ways that straight pool rarely does. I would say that overall,
nine ball requires the greater skill precisely because it battles the
opposing player's luck as well as his skill. On the same note, the ability
to run 150 balls in straight pool is no mere mortal feat. The difference
between great and mediocre straight pool players is as great as the
difference between great and mediocre nine ballers. I've run a rack of nine
ball, I've never run 150 balls in straight pool. Granted, I don't play
straight more than 3 times/year. Johnny Archer running 150 and out in his
first straight pool tournament, after only playing it for two weeks, now
that is a testament not only to Johnny's skill but to the cue ball control
that mastering nine ball requires. Of course, not every great nine ball
player could do that... If I said that nine ball is harder to play, but
straight pool is harder to win, would that make sense to anybody in here?
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56486 ] |
Mi, 12 Januar 2005 19:37 |
|
Nat wrote:
> Nope. Do you?
> nat
>
>
> >> http://www.famousbelgians.net/ceulemans.htm
> > You mean you don't freeze your cues when you're not using them?
> >
> > Fred
I thought I already answered this, but....
No, Nat I do not.
I assume that there is an error in translation and that the word
"storage" has accidentally translated to "freezer."
Fred
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56488 ] |
Mi, 12 Januar 2005 19:49 |
|
cueboy2 <spamblock [at] nospam.net> wrote:
> 1. I know you read/collect old billiard books, ergo I have to
> beleive you have read the same ones I have wherin authors
> expressed that same exact thought "Balkline is the most
> demanding cue disipline" or words too that effect
This is true in some sense. Certainly balkline requires
different skills in the player than 3-C, especially prolonged
concentration and fine control of the first object ball. Each
game requires shots the other usually doesn't have. But I think
those authors were writing at a time when 3-C was a considered
novelty and diversion and they never saw players who often
averaged 2.000 in a tournament.
> 2. "judging from how often good players run out the whole match at each
> one."
> a valid guideline?...perhaps, but not the whole story
> especialy when you say "...the whole _match_"
I think it's a reasonable place to start. At balkline you
sometimes see runs that go on for an hour. This is true at 3-C
only for a very slow player.
> two thoughts running out the whole 'match' at 9 Ball is
> virtually unheard of(twice in history?)
I know of Bob Vanover in the Texas State Championship (9 and
out?), but who was the other?
[people run out semi-regularly at straight pool but rarely at nine ball]
> I don't think many would conclude that 9 Ball is harder than
> straight pool
I think they require different sets of skills.
> secondly, good old one pocket, most complex of the cue sports
> even tho it may be harder to run out a single game of one
> pocket than a single game of 8 Ball, that isn't the reason one
> pocket is dramatically harder
I would consider one pocket harder because you have to master a
much wider range of shots to be a champ than at other pool games.
(I also think a good one pocket player could be a decent balkline
player fairly quickly and vice versa, with motivation.)
But if likelihood of running out the (90-minute) match is not
a good criteria for judging which is the "harder game," what
do you suggest? I suppose we could ask Ceulemans about balkline
and 3-C, but he might have specific personal reasons for chosing
one over the other.
Mine own choice -- in a world of complete statistics -- would be
the game that separates players into the largest number of
levels. Take a game, adjust the length to last about 90 minutes
(or two days, or whatever you prefer), have all players compete
in a challenge ladder, and figure out how many different rungs
are on the ladder. An example of a game with only two rungs is
tic-tac-toe, with almost everyone on the top rung, and the people
who don't understand the game on the bottom rung.
What's a rung? If player A is a 2:1 favorite to win a match
against player B, they are one rung apart. Note that the number
of rungs depends on the length of the match. You can break this
down into sub-rungs as Mike Page did in his ratings of players at
the World Nineball Championships.
With game difficulty stated this way -- which I think is a
reasonable general way to do it -- I have to admit that I don't
have any idea which game is harder.
--
Bob Jewett
http://www.sfbilliards.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56512 ] |
Mi, 12 Januar 2005 23:02 |
|
"Bob Jewett" <jewett [at] sfbilliards.com> wrote in message
news:1105555744.753506 [at] cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
> cueboy2 <spamblock [at] nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > 1. I know you read/collect old billiard books, ergo I have to
> > beleive you have read the same ones I have wherin authors
> > expressed that same exact thought "Balkline is the most
> > demanding cue disipline" or words too that effect
>
> This is true in some sense. Certainly balkline requires
> different skills in the player than 3-C, especially prolonged
> concentration and fine control of the first object ball. Each
> game requires shots the other usually doesn't have. But I think
> those authors were writing at a time when 3-C was a considered
> novelty and diversion and they never saw players who often
> averaged 2.000 in a tournament.
>
> > 2. "judging from how often good players run out the whole match at each
> > one."
> > a valid guideline?...perhaps, but not the whole story
> > especialy when you say "...the whole _match_"
>
> I think it's a reasonable place to start. At balkline you
> sometimes see runs that go on for an hour. This is true at 3-C
> only for a very slow player.
>
> > two thoughts running out the whole 'match' at 9 Ball is
> > virtually unheard of(twice in history?)
>
> I know of Bob Vanover in the Texas State Championship (9 and
> out?), but who was the other?
bonus points for you
the second was Earl Strickland in his famous
ok-you-so-won-a-million-but-let's-negotiate performance
>
> [people run out semi-regularly at straight pool but rarely at nine ball]
> > I don't think many would conclude that 9 Ball is harder than
> > straight pool
>
> I think they require different sets of skills.
>
> > secondly, good old one pocket, most complex of the cue sports
>
> > even tho it may be harder to run out a single game of one
> > pocket than a single game of 8 Ball, that isn't the reason one
> > pocket is dramatically harder
>
> I would consider one pocket harder because you have to master a
> much wider range of shots to be a champ than at other pool games.
> (I also think a good one pocket player could be a decent balkline
> player fairly quickly and vice versa, with motivation.)
>
> But if likelihood of running out the (90-minute) match is not
> a good criteria for judging which is the "harder game," what
> do you suggest? I suppose we could ask Ceulemans about balkline
> and 3-C, but he might have specific personal reasons for chosing
> one over the other.
>
> Mine own choice -- in a world of complete statistics -- would be
> the game that separates players into the largest number of
> levels. Take a game, adjust the length to last about 90 minutes
> (or two days, or whatever you prefer), have all players compete
> in a challenge ladder, and figure out how many different rungs
> are on the ladder. An example of a game with only two rungs is
> tic-tac-toe, with almost everyone on the top rung, and the people
> who don't understand the game on the bottom rung.
>
> What's a rung? If player A is a 2:1 favorite to win a match
> against player B, they are one rung apart. Note that the number
> of rungs depends on the length of the match. You can break this
> down into sub-rungs as Mike Page did in his ratings of players at
> the World Nineball Championships.
>
> With game difficulty stated this way -- which I think is a
> reasonable general way to do it -- I have to admit that I don't
> have any idea which game is harder.
my own inclination, which has the pitfall of subjectivity, would be along
the lines
of:
how long does it take to become a player of skill level X?
though time is not, by itself, an adequate indicator
idealy, the range and complexity of skills need to reach a given level
should be considered
but as I indicated before, objective quantification of these kinds of
concepts
is a tuff game, in a game where we don't even have the equivalent
of a baseball batting average
CBII
>
> --
>
> Bob Jewett
> http://www.sfbilliards.com/
>
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56526 ] |
Do, 13 Januar 2005 00:54 |
|
cueboy2 <spamblock [at] nospam.net> wrote:
> bonus points for you
> the second was Earl Strickland in his famous
> ok-you-so-won-a-million-but-let's-negotiate performance
That match was a race to 15, and Earl only ran* 11. His
opponent ended up getting one game.
* ran if you count break shots and early nines, which the
insurance company really didn't want to do.
--
Bob Jewett
http://www.sfbilliards.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56534 ] |
Do, 13 Januar 2005 01:47 |
|
From the late Mr. McChesney:
Earl and the truth about the "Dallas Million Dollar Challenge"
The " Dallas Million Dollar Challenge" where Earl ran the 11 racks ...
Thursday, April 11, 1996
I - John McChesney, Robin Adair and Jay Helfert were the tournament
directors at the event at CJ's Billiard Palace in Dallas, Texas.
The stipulation in the ( payment ) rules were instituted by the insurance
company underwriter: SDS ... as follows:
the last 5 racks had to be racked by a neutral racker and filmed/taped. The
reason Earl had to run 11 racks is that the tournament format was "rack you
own" and he simply would not stop at 5 .. and racked his own at 6 and ran
out; then, I forced him to stop by stating that he would have to run 11 and
Jay Helfert then began the racking for racks number: 7,8,9,10 & 11 ( the
last 5 racks ); and the filming/taping began.
Every spectator and every player in the event witnessed the remaining 5
racks .. as tournament play completely halted when it became apparent that
Earl had a chance to complete the run.
I assure you that nothing was rigged in this event .. particularly the
tables .. they were all triple shimmed new black Gold Crowns with new
Championship Tournament grade cloth.
The reason for the delay in payment to Earl was due to lack of
communications between the following 2 parties; The Marketing Continuum (
the PCA/CJ Wiley hired them as their marketing company ); and, SDS
underwriters.
The insurance had been "bound" pursuant to Texas State Law, but the
insurance company wanted to fight .. but in the end settled with both Earl
and the PCA/CJ.
Incidently, in order for SDS to underwrite the event .. statistical
information had to be obtained and certified as to how difficult running 10
racks in tournament play would be; that information was provided by the PHD
and Department of Statistical Information at the University of Texas and
his/their department concluded that the odds were 1 in 6.5+- million
attempts.
By the way .. Earl was playing Nick Mannino in the match and the final score
was 15-1.
If you ( readers' ) bad information came to you via the rumormill about this
event or you simply think that it was an "urban legend" .. then you can use
this information in the future to inform others that this is the real-deal
about the "Dallas Million Dollar Challenge".
Lastly, Earl had an option ( when this was settled with SDS ) to accept
either the annuity ( $50k per year x 20 years ); or, a lump sum settlement
( of the principle ) .. which was less ( in total ) to the annuity .. he
accepted the lump sum payment.
John McChesney
CEO - Texas Express
and on behalf of:
Robin Adair, Texas Express
Jay Helfert, Championship Billiards
CJ Wiley, CJ's Billiard Palace and Carson's
Earl Strickland
and the hundreds of others who were either
participants or spectators at the event
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co.
bobj [at] cris.com
"Bob Jewett" <jewett [at] sfbilliards.com> wrote in message
news:1105574071.393981 [at] cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
> cueboy2 <spamblock [at] nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> bonus points for you
>> the second was Earl Strickland in his famous
>> ok-you-so-won-a-million-but-let's-negotiate performance
>
> That match was a race to 15, and Earl only ran* 11. His
> opponent ended up getting one game.
>
> * ran if you count break shots and early nines, which the
> insurance company really didn't want to do.
>
> --
>
> Bob Jewett
> http://www.sfbilliards.com/
>
|
|
|
| Re: Can someone please elaborate..... [message #56544 ] |
Do, 13 Januar 2005 06:20 |
|
"Bob Jewett" <jewett [at] sfbilliards.com> wrote in message
news:1105574071.393981 [at] cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
> cueboy2 <spamblock [at] nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > bonus points for you
> > the second was Earl Strickland in his famous
> > ok-you-so-won-a-million-but-let's-negotiate performance
>
> That match was a race to 15, and Earl only ran* 11. His
> opponent ended up getting one game.
>
> * ran if you count break shots and early nines, which the
> insurance company really didn't want to do.
>
I read somewhere that Allison Fisher won all 7 racks of the 2000 WPBA
National Championships, allowing her opponent only one actual shot, which
resulted in a scratch. I do not know if this was winner breaks or alternate
breaks. A buddy of mine lost 1100 jellybeans to a guy who ran 11 racks on
him, my buddy didn't even get to shoot. This is the same guy who was just
mentioned in the IP article about the Glass City Open for stomping on Nick
Varner. In nine ball, I would consider nines on the break and early nines
as a run rack because of the many times that the low ball is in no position
to be pocketed. It balances out. I would not consider it a run rack if it
was only one or two racks in a row, but in a run of three+ wins, those
should be counted.
Mike
Mike
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mär 12 14:03:13 CET 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06259 Sekunden |
