|
Sports » rec.sport.billiard » Re: Siegel and the IPT final.
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073375] |
Mon, 10 July 2006 20:46 |
|
In article <1152485844.999669.253660 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
robert.nicholson [at] gmail.com says...
> Firstly what kind of cue is he playing with it sounds terrible but
> what's with his stroke. This guy looks like an amateur when he's
> playing. Jumps on , waves the cue whenever he makes his shot.
I was really surprised at the jumping up, etc. I hate to say this
because I think this excuse is generally overused, but Sigel got really
unlucky in that match. Jones called it "spooky" a few times how every
time Reyes came up dry on the break or missed a shot, Sigel had
absoulutely nothing to work with. He basically got nothing the whole
first set. He did well in the second set but made one mistake that cost
him the set. Under normal (i.e. not spooky unlucky) conditions, Reyes
may very well have still won, but it should have been closer than that.
John Black
|
|
|
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073401 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 13:47 |
|
John Black wrote:
> In article <1152485844.999669.253660 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> robert.nicholson [at] gmail.com says...
> > Firstly what kind of cue is he playing with it sounds terrible but
> > what's with his stroke. This guy looks like an amateur when he's
> > playing. Jumps on , waves the cue whenever he makes his shot.
>
> I was really surprised at the jumping up, etc. I hate to say this
> because I think this excuse is generally overused, but Sigel got really
> unlucky in that match. Jones called it "spooky" a few times how every
> time Reyes came up dry on the break or missed a shot, Sigel had
> absoulutely nothing to work with. He basically got nothing the whole
> first set. He did well in the second set but made one mistake that cost
> him the set. Under normal (i.e. not spooky unlucky) conditions, Reyes
> may very well have still won, but it should have been closer than that.
>
> John Black
I agree that luck played an important part in the first match. The
"luck factor" plays an important part in ANY game/sport. Many times
when I win a match and I haven't been shooting up to my normal, I say
to my opponent that I got lucky, which I did. Luck comes in many forms.
Only a few times when I have lost due to bad luck, my opponent actually
agreed he got lucky. In my last state tournament I beat the favorite.
It is obvious that he is a better player than I, but I got lucky when
he missed. Shit happens.
Hank <~~Lucky guy
|
|
|
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073402 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 14:21 |
|
ninebal310 [at] aol.com wrote:
> John Black wrote:
> > In article <1152485844.999669.253660 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > robert.nicholson [at] gmail.com says...
> > > Firstly what kind of cue is he playing with it sounds terrible but
> > > what's with his stroke. This guy looks like an amateur when he's
> > > playing. Jumps on , waves the cue whenever he makes his shot.
> >
> > I was really surprised at the jumping up, etc. I hate to say this
> > because I think this excuse is generally overused, but Sigel got really
> > unlucky in that match. Jones called it "spooky" a few times how every
> > time Reyes came up dry on the break or missed a shot, Sigel had
> > absoulutely nothing to work with. He basically got nothing the whole
> > first set. He did well in the second set but made one mistake that cost
> > him the set. Under normal (i.e. not spooky unlucky) conditions, Reyes
> > may very well have still won, but it should have been closer than that.
> >
> > John Black
>
> I agree that luck played an important part in the first match. The
> "luck factor" plays an important part in ANY game/sport. Many times
> when I win a match and I haven't been shooting up to my normal, I say
> to my opponent that I got lucky, which I did. Luck comes in many forms.
> Only a few times when I have lost due to bad luck, my opponent actually
> agreed he got lucky. In my last state tournament I beat the favorite.
> It is obvious that he is a better player than I, but I got lucky when
> he missed. Shit happens.
>
> Hank <~~Lucky guy
************************************************************ ***********************
There is no excuse for jumping up or missing easy shots. Face the
facts, the guy choked like a dog. The mouth kissed cavus, he had it
coming. Maybe that will shut his mouth up now and show him some
humulity. Actually the biggest mouth out there is Earl. That boy is
slowly sliding off the deep edge into darkness. He choked like a dog
too, as did Archer vs Korr. Pressure and big money affects everyone at
all stages of the game. The mouth, sits on his ass all week, loses 12
games in a row and collects 2nd place money for playing like an apa 5.
Why can't I get a job like that.
|
|
|
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073403 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 14:35 |
|
ninebal310 [at] aol.com wrote:
> I agree that luck played an important part in the first match. The
> "luck factor" plays an important part in ANY game/sport. Many times
> when I win a match and I haven't been shooting up to my normal, I say
> to my opponent that I got lucky, which I did. Luck comes in many forms.
Luck is unexpected skill, which may be unexpectedly rich or poor. :-)
|
|
|
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073409 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:47 |
|
On 11 Jul 2006 04:47:13 -0700, ninebal310 [at] aol.com wrote:
>
>John Black wrote:
>> In article <1152485844.999669.253660 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>> robert.nicholson [at] gmail.com says...
>> > Firstly what kind of cue is he playing with it sounds terrible but
>> > what's with his stroke. This guy looks like an amateur when he's
>> > playing. Jumps on , waves the cue whenever he makes his shot.
>>
>> I was really surprised at the jumping up, etc. I hate to say this
>> because I think this excuse is generally overused, but Sigel got really
>> unlucky in that match. Jones called it "spooky" a few times how every
>> time Reyes came up dry on the break or missed a shot, Sigel had
>> absoulutely nothing to work with. He basically got nothing the whole
>> first set. He did well in the second set but made one mistake that cost
>> him the set. Under normal (i.e. not spooky unlucky) conditions, Reyes
>> may very well have still won, but it should have been closer than that.
>>
>> John Black
>
>I agree that luck played an important part in the first match. The
>"luck factor" plays an important part in ANY game/sport. Many times
>when I win a match and I haven't been shooting up to my normal, I say
>to my opponent that I got lucky, which I did. Luck comes in many forms.
>Only a few times when I have lost due to bad luck, my opponent actually
>agreed he got lucky. In my last state tournament I beat the favorite.
>It is obvious that he is a better player than I, but I got lucky when
>he missed. Shit happens.
You didn't get lucky. You just ed missed better than he did. ;-)
>
>Hank <~~Lucky guy
|
|
|
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073417 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 16:25 |
|
In article <1152618433.704412.9030 [at] m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
ninebal310 [at] aol.com says...
> John Black wrote:
> > In article <1152485844.999669.253660 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > robert.nicholson [at] gmail.com says...
> > > Firstly what kind of cue is he playing with it sounds terrible but
> > > what's with his stroke. This guy looks like an amateur when he's
> > > playing. Jumps on , waves the cue whenever he makes his shot.
> >
> > I was really surprised at the jumping up, etc. I hate to say this
> > because I think this excuse is generally overused, but Sigel got really
> > unlucky in that match. Jones called it "spooky" a few times how every
> > time Reyes came up dry on the break or missed a shot, Sigel had
> > absoulutely nothing to work with. He basically got nothing the whole
> > first set. He did well in the second set but made one mistake that cost
> > him the set. Under normal (i.e. not spooky unlucky) conditions, Reyes
> > may very well have still won, but it should have been closer than that.
> >
> > John Black
>
> I agree that luck played an important part in the first match. The
> "luck factor" plays an important part in ANY game/sport.
How about pool vs. golf? In pool there seems to be a lot more ways that
luck can be a factor. At the beginning of every game the rack is
smashed open and there are many collisions. Balls may drop, they may
not. The cueball may get hooked or kicked it, it may not. There may be
difficult clusters, there may not be. And that is just the break. In
eight ball especially, you may miss position and luck into another
option, or your opponent may miss his shot and luck into hooking you.
Golf by comparison seems to be relatively free of these kinds of
opportunities for luck to play a factor. No random collisions, no
opponent playing your same ball -- its just you hitting a ball
progressively toward a hole.
John Black
|
|
|
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073420 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 16:54 |
|
John Black wrote:
> In pool there seems to be a lot more ways that
> luck can be a factor. At the beginning of every game the rack is
> smashed open and there are many collisions. Balls may drop, they may
> not. The cueball may get hooked or kicked it, it may not. There may be
> difficult clusters, there may not be. And that is just the break. In
> eight ball especially, you may miss position and luck into another
> option, or your opponent may miss his shot and luck into hooking you.
> Golf by comparison seems to be relatively free of these kinds of
> opportunities for luck to play a factor. No random collisions, no
> opponent playing your same ball -- its just you hitting a ball
> progressively toward a hole.
John, every one of the pool things you mention is completely
predictable and controllable.
In golf, you have no control over wind, migratory fowl, ball-chasing
dogs, alligators, rain, lightning, etc. You cannot even see the spot
where you ball is going to land, so you cannot predict and control how
it is going to bounce or roll.
It is absurd to claim that random chance plays a bigger role in pool
than in golf.
|
|
|
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073423 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 17:29 |
|
Dhakala wrote:
> John Black wrote:
>
> > In pool there seems to be a lot more ways that
> > luck can be a factor. At the beginning of every game the rack is
> > smashed open and there are many collisions. Balls may drop, they may
> > not. The cueball may get hooked or kicked it, it may not. There may be
> > difficult clusters, there may not be. And that is just the break. In
> > eight ball especially, you may miss position and luck into another
> > option, or your opponent may miss his shot and luck into hooking you.
> > Golf by comparison seems to be relatively free of these kinds of
> > opportunities for luck to play a factor. No random collisions, no
> > opponent playing your same ball -- its just you hitting a ball
> > progressively toward a hole.
>
> John, every one of the pool things you mention is completely
> predictable and controllable.
>
> In golf, you have no control over wind, migratory fowl, ball-chasing
> dogs, alligators, rain, lightning, etc. You cannot even see the spot
> where you ball is going to land, so you cannot predict and control how
> it is going to bounce or roll.
>
> It is absurd to claim that random chance plays a bigger role in pool
> than in golf.
************************************************************ ****************
No chit, fo show dis guy never golfed his ball. Once Joe Louis hit his
ball on a green and wonder dog ran up, grabbed it in his mouth and ran
200 yrds back into the woods and spit it out and they made him play it
from there.
You hit into the woods, it hits a tree and comes back in the fairway.
A triple bogey becomes a birdie? I have never seen a cue ball on the
break go off the table and come back on? I once shanked a 6 iron, was
170 yrds away, the ball never got higher than a quail flies, hits the
green at warp speed, is going off the back down a hill into triple
bogey land and the ball hits the flag 5' up on the stick off the first
bounce and slam dunks into the hole for a duce eagle and I won the
match and the loot. The guys I was playing with did not speak to me
for a month. From dat moment on my new name was lucky bong bong.
|
|
|
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073428 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 18:31 |
|
ninebal310 [at] aol.com wrote:
> I agree that luck played an important part in the first match. The
> "luck factor" plays an important part in ANY game/sport. Many times
> when I win a match and I haven't been shooting up to my normal, I say
> to my opponent that I got lucky, which I did. Luck comes in many forms.
> Only a few times when I have lost due to bad luck, my opponent actually
> agreed he got lucky. In my last state tournament I beat the favorite.
> It is obvious that he is a better player than I, but I got lucky when
> he missed. Shit happens.
After knocking my opponent off the B side in a small local tourney, he
turns to me and being the picture of grace says, "That's a joke, you are
so lucky you got horseshoes up yer ass". Very sportmanlike and very
original.
I did just as you advise, Hank. I turned to him and said, "Yes, It's
really lucky I'm better than you. See you in the final, oh wait, you
won't be there. See how lucky I am?"
Don't think I made it to the money that time.
Stephen N.---> but I did beat Mr. Class Act...
|
|
|
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073479 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 15:08 |
|
On Jul 11 2006 11:54 AM, Dhakala wrote:
...
>
> John, every one of the pool things you mention is completely
> predictable and controllable.
>
> In golf, you have no control over wind, migratory fowl, ball-chasing
> dogs, alligators, rain, lightning, etc. You cannot even see the spot
> where you ball is going to land, so you cannot predict and control how
> it is going to bounce or roll.
>
> It is absurd to claim that random chance plays a bigger role in pool
> than in golf.
I don't play golf (frustration level too high), but, fwiw, I concur
completely with every statement you made. The unpredictability of the
terrain where the ball lands is by itself enough of a wild card to make
luck a big factor.
____________________________________________________
Better to wear out than to rust out.
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
|
|
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073480 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 15:51 |
|
Stephen N. wrote:
> ninebal310 [at] aol.com wrote:
> > I agree that luck played an important part in the first match. The
> > "luck factor" plays an important part in ANY game/sport. Many times
> > when I win a match and I haven't been shooting up to my normal, I say
> > to my opponent that I got lucky, which I did. Luck comes in many forms.
> > Only a few times when I have lost due to bad luck, my opponent actually
> > agreed he got lucky. In my last state tournament I beat the favorite.
> > It is obvious that he is a better player than I, but I got lucky when
> > he missed. Shit happens.
>
> After knocking my opponent off the B side in a small local tourney, he
> turns to me and being the picture of grace says, "That's a joke, you are
> so lucky you got horseshoes up yer ass". Very sportmanlike and very
> original.
>
> I did just as you advise, Hank. I turned to him and said, "Yes, It's
> really lucky I'm better than you. See you in the final, oh wait, you
> won't be there. See how lucky I am?"
>
> Don't think I made it to the money that time.
>
> Stephen N.---> but I did beat Mr. Class Act...
************************************************************ ****************
I have lost several matches now hill hill on the tour where lucky rolls
for the other guy beat me. You don't blame the rolls, call the other
guy lucky, you just smile and congratulate the winner for playing so
well, even if that was not the case.
When people pull that lucky BS on me I say, yeah yeah, the more I
practice, the luckier I get dude.
|
|
|
| Re: Siegel and the IPT final. [message #1073483 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 16:48 |
|
The old King died and retired in 1997 at the Riveria in Vegas, I spent
an entire day with him trying to talk him out of it. His comeback
failed. You can not turn back father time.
The King is dead. I wanted him to win but would have never bet on him.
Long live the new King, Efren. To me, its totally amazing he is on top
at his age, which just shows how great this guy really is.
www.fastlarrypool.com
www.poolchat.net
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fri Jan 9 21:47:36 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.14708 Sekunden |
