PDA

View Full Version : Question for Earl Strickland


Blackjack
04-03-2003, 08:36 AM
Question for Earl, or for anyone that has the answers:

Tiger Woods has made 101 consecutive cuts and is ready to surpass Jack Nicklaus (105 consecutive cuts) and Byron Nelson (113 consecutive cuts). In my opinion, the closest thing that pool has to this record is possibly your run in the rankings. Is there anything that accurately documents just how long you have been ranked in the top 32, top 20, top 10, or top 5 continuously? I believe that you have been consistently ranked since 1983. Since that time, many players have come an gone, and you have been one of the mainstays, and I do not believe that anybody else's success or ranking compares to your run. Also, is there any other player that has won more world titles than you in the last 20 - 25 years? What about majors? Teh picture below is much better than the one you are posting with. Thanks in advance.

warrenpfunk
04-03-2003, 01:52 PM
Blackjack:

I think a better correlation to cuts made on the PGA Tour would be how many times in a row the player got in the money. That would be much more impressive than staying in the top 32 in the world or on a tour. There are so many different ranking systems that it would be difficult to do because of the disputes in the mens game. On the other hand how many times in a row a player cashed is irrefutable.

wp

Earl Strickland
04-03-2003, 04:44 PM
DearBlackjack,
You are correct somethings are comparable,but comparing golf to pool in our situation is like comparing oranges and apples but on the same hand I have been very consistant at times in my life .Tournaments are far and few between,if pool was like golf where you had a schedule of about 35-40 tournaments a year you could train and prepare your self because you have some thing to look forward to.If pool was in a better perspective like golf ,poolplayers stats would be more accurate .It's very misleading in Billiards because of all the different tours that come and go, so it makes it hard to keep a consistant ranking system.

Sincerely Earl Strickland

Jimmy M.
04-03-2003, 05:20 PM
Another poster also suggested comparing a streak of cuts made to a streak of tournaments cashed in. I don't believe this is an accurate comparison either because of the fact that, as a pool player, you may not have the opportunity to win a match. It is possible to play an entire match and never really get an opportunity to win because of what your opponent does. In golf, however, all players have the same opportunities because they're not playing an opponent who can leave them safe, or run out on them. They all tee it up from wherever they want on the tee box, and make their own destiny from there. For this reason, I believe it would be next to impossible for any pool player to match a "made cuts" streak, like Tiger's, Jack's, or Nelson's, with a streak of tournaments cashed in. And that would be even if there were an organized tour that offered the same number of tournaments a year as the PGA tour offers.

Since Earl has participated in this thread, and his name also came up in one of the posts, I'll offer a good example of this using one of his matches. There was a year when Nick Varner was ranked #1 (I can't remember if it was 1989 or 1990, but I think it was one of those two). Anyway, Earl and Nick had to play each other in the open at the Sands in Reno. Earl beat Nick 11-0 that match, and it wasn't because Nick dogged it! He never had an opportunity to do anything, much less win the match (I still remember Earl shooting a combination/long rail bank to get out one game - he put on a clinic that match).

Celtic
04-03-2003, 07:47 PM
Has Rempe had some lean years since he started playing pro? That guy has been around for a very long time and I would imagine might have been top 32 since the 70's.

Top Muscle Pool
04-04-2003, 01:19 PM
Im glad you guys are starting to see my point on the history and records of the game.....keep it up. aka Man of A Thousand Ideas:D

Blackjack
04-04-2003, 02:05 PM
It is still my opinion, that regardless of how records have been kept within "organizations", publications such as P&B magazine and BD must have an archive that could talley the accomplishments of players over the past 25 years. I know Earl Strickland has a fistful of US Open titles, and quite a few 9 ball world crowns, but what is the official talley? No offense to other players of the era, but I'm not really sure if anyone comes close to Earl Strickland's accomplishments over the last 20 years. I believe that if we looked back over the last 20 years, it would be hard to find a period of time where Earl was not ranked in the top 10.

PoolBum
04-29-2005, 02:14 PM
Since Earl has participated in this thread, and his name also came up in one of the posts, I'll offer a good example of this using one of his matches. There was a year when Nick Varner was ranked #1 (I can't remember if it was 1989 or 1990, but I think it was one of those two). Anyway, Earl and Nick had to play each other in the open at the Sands in Reno. Earl beat Nick 11-0 that match, and it wasn't because Nick dogged it! He never had an opportunity to do anything, much less win the match (I still remember Earl shooting a combination/long rail bank to get out one game - he put on a clinic that match).

Actually, Nick had a few good opportunities at an open table early on in that match but was just not comfortable with the speed of the table and got out of line and missed some shots he would normally make. Take nothing away from Earl though, after that Earl just steamrolled over him playing close to perfect. If I reall Nick also had a good chance at the table in the last rack as well, but once again couldn't get out.

bruin70
04-29-2005, 02:29 PM
rankings are not the same thing as making a cut.

for instance, woods can miss a cut but still be ranked. and there's no such thing as making the cut in a pool tourney is there? also,,,aren't the "rankings" as listed in bd et al pretty much set in stone in terms of who is listed. i mean, pretty much all the pros who can afford to play are on the list. it's not like they drop out of list unless they completely stop playing and miss some points. a few point here and there keeps you on the list, right?

frankncali
04-29-2005, 02:43 PM
DearBlackjack,
You are correct somethings are comparable,but comparing golf to pool in our situation is like comparing oranges and apples but on the same hand I have been very consistant at times in my life .Tournaments are far and few between,if pool was like golf where you had a schedule of about 35-40 tournaments a year you could train and prepare your self because you have some thing to look forward to.If pool was in a better perspective like golf ,poolplayers stats would be more accurate .It's very misleading in Billiards because of all the different tours that come and go, so it makes it hard to keep a consistant ranking system.

Sincerely Earl Strickland

Earl

I would love to see a tour of 35-40 events per year. In you opinion what would the minimum amount added have to be for you and some of the
other Pros to commit to say 28 of the 35.
Do you think Pros would be willing to do this for a little under what they think its worth for a year or so or do you think the majority would have to
have major $$$$ in each event for it to start.

thanks
frankncali

macguy
04-29-2005, 03:22 PM
DearBlackjack,
You are correct somethings are comparable,but comparing golf to pool in our situation is like comparing oranges and apples but on the same hand I have been very consistant at times in my life .Tournaments are far and few between,if pool was like golf where you had a schedule of about 35-40 tournaments a year you could train and prepare your self because you have some thing to look forward to.If pool was in a better perspective like golf ,poolplayers stats would be more accurate .It's very misleading in Billiards because of all the different tours that come and go, so it makes it hard to keep a consistant ranking system.

Sincerely Earl Strickland

Players come and go as well in pool. Many, maybe potentially great players have just move on to other things, jobs, business, school and so on. Pool is just not a profession and offers little for someone to devote what it really takes to be a great player. That is just a harsh reality, it is not a professional sport to speak of.

Blackjack
04-29-2005, 04:48 PM
I think if you check at the top, I asked this question to Earl a couple of years ago. Someone bumped it.

recoveryjones
04-29-2005, 07:45 PM
It is still my opinion, that regardless of how records have been kept within "organizations", publications such as P&B magazine and BD must have an archive that could talley the accomplishments of players over the past 25 years. I know Earl Strickland has a fistful of US Open titles, and quite a few 9 ball world crowns, but what is the official talley? No offense to other players of the era, but I'm not really sure if anyone comes close to Earl Strickland's accomplishments over the last 20 years. I believe that if we looked back over the last 20 years, it would be hard to find a period of time where Earl was not ranked in the top 10.

Good observations Blackjack.The US Open and the World Pool Championships are considred our sports MAJOR titles.If you compared those titles to golf they would be like The British Open, The Masters, The US Open and The PGA. Compared to tennis, Wimbeldon, The French Open , the US Open etc.I'm not sure of the numbers, however, Earl has won at least 8-10 majors in his sport and more than anyone in the world.In all other sports a players greatness is measured by majors won.

Having said all of this I think it's really shameful that the political idiots at the BCA keep passing Earl by in the Hall of Fame selection.You'd never in a million years see it in tennis or golf that's for sure.For me personally,snubbing Earl in this regard is really hurtful to our sport. RJ

.....RJ ,heading to the medicine cabinet for some valium :D

.....and digging me a bunker for the oncoming attack from all the Earl haters :p

titanic
04-29-2005, 08:07 PM
I Will Go To My Grave Never Understanding Why Most Other People Do Not See The Similarities Between Earl Strickland And Bobby Fisher. They Both Just Surpassed The Field In Their Endeavor.
Trying To Discuss Pool With Earl Is Like Trying To Discuss Chess With Bobby.
They Are Without Peers In Their Games. Why Do They Get So Frustrated? I Think Even They Cannot Explain What They Know. Break Down That Manila Match With Efren Any Way You Want And The Only Way Efren Wins Is In Total Games Won Or Lost. Sdo Not Take My Word For It Do The Math.
The Writers And Announcers And Tournament Directors Spend Too Much Time On Personalitys And Not Enough On The Game To Give Credit Where Credit Is Due.

Not Putting Earl Into The Hall Of Fame Would Be Like Calling The Match Between Bobby And The Computer A Foul And Taking The Victory Away From Bobby.


Titanic Jerry

MikeJanis
04-30-2005, 01:01 AM
Having said all of this I think it's really shameful that the political idiots at the BCA keep passing Earl by in the Hall of Fame selection.You'd never in a million years see it in tennis or golf that's for sure.For me personally,snubbing Earl in this regard is really hurtful to our sport. RJ



1st of all, I don't hate Earl and would never bash/snub him. Earl has been one of the most contriversial and greatest players in our sport and I don't hate him for it. In fact, I love it! However, I do think Earl should be more respectfull to his sopponents. Earl has probably been passed over in the hall of fame because of his disrespect for his opponents and his attitude during match play.

If you beat Earl, he should congratulate you because you practiced as hard as you could and you out-ran the nuts. Earl should should not ridicule you because you played by the current rules and overcame a big deficit. He needs to continue to work on this.

Earl, I have seen you as a gentleman and an A-hole. The gentleman suits you better. Please understand that all any palyer wants is to beat you, and you should respect them for that. They have to try very hard to get there.

Mj

recoveryjones
04-30-2005, 01:32 AM
1st of all, I don't hate Earl and would never bash/snub him. Earl has been one of the most contriversial and greatest players in our sport and I don't hate him for it. In fact, I love it! However, I do think Earl should be more respectfull to his sopponents. Earl has probably been passed over in the hall of fame because of his disrespect for his opponents and his attitude during match play.

If you beat Earl, he should congratulate you because you practiced as hard as you could and you out-ran the nuts. Earl should should not ridicule you because you played by the current rules and overcame a big deficit. He needs to continue to work on this.

Earl, I have seen you as a gentleman and an A-hole. The gentleman suits you better. Please understand that all any palyer wants is to beat you, and you should respect them for that. They have to try very hard to get there.

Mj


First of all my apology to the BCA. I certainly wasn't trying to paint the whole group with the same brush.Having said that, I still think it's wrong to ignore overwhelming strong accomplishments because you don't like someones behavior.The catergory he is nominated for every year is "greatest pool player", and not "most gentlemanly player". If all those major titles aren't great I don't know what is.

No disrespect to Ewa Laurance or Robin Dodson, however, Earls done much greater things on the pool table than either of them.Furthermore John McInroe made the HOF in tennis and Ty Cobb made it in baseball and their reputations as sportsmen and gentlemen weren't any better than Earl.No matter how bad they were, the selection comitee just wouldn't let their hatred,dislike or other politcal viewpoints ignore how great they were at their sport. RJ

ps. And please everyone,spare the Pete Rose situation as he broke the law,and gambled on baseball.Even at that he has more hits than anyone in the history of baseball,didn't cheat to get those hits, and should get in JMO.

Poolhalljunkie
04-30-2005, 03:26 AM
Earl is getting passed because his antics are making the wrong people unhappy which dosen't make any sense to me since I have never heard of anything other than verbal altercations and heated exchanges of words from EARL. I have heard of several stories of Pools greatest legend punching people that pissed him off after matches and during awards presntations but I guess those were different times. Just my .02 worth

JAM
04-30-2005, 05:02 AM
...I have heard of several stories of Pools greatest legend punching people that pissed him off after matches and during awards presntations but I guess those were different times. Just my .02 worth

Be a little more clear, Poolhalljunkie. For clarity's sake, before I respond with my 2 cents, who or what is a "Pools greatest legend"?

To stay on topic of the thread, I gotta question for Earl:

When you arrive at an event, after traveling hundreds or thousands of miles, when you hit your FIRST ball in the pit during warm-up, do you immediately have a sense whether you're going to play well or not?

AND what do you think is the answer for the infamous 9-ball rack-rigging debacle? It's pretty well known that there are some players who will attempt to rig a rack, with malice aforethought, especially in breakers-rack-their-own formats, and when they run 6-, 7-, and 8-packs after racking their own balls, I don't think it's due to their straight-shooting capabilities. I think it's hurting the game of 9-ball, which is why the format of the Florida Pro Tour this season is 10-ball (IMO).

One more question, do you like the alternate-break format which is used in some 9-ball events?

JAM

RSB-Refugee
04-30-2005, 07:11 AM
One more question, do you like the alternate-break format which is used in some 9-ball events?

JAM
I'm no Pearl ;) , but I have an answer. Alternate breaks are only good for slowing down the fastest horse. Just like a no soft breaks rule was designed to slow down Corey, who at the time was the fastest horse. Spectators love to see racks strung together, alternating breaks kills any chance of that. Any thing that gives the lesser players in a tournament weight, is a bad thing IMO.

Tracy

Blackjack
04-30-2005, 07:46 AM
One more question, do you like the alternate-break format which is used in some 9-ball events?

JAM

JAM,

In 1987 I was putting on a local tournament in El Paso, Texas. A friend of mine looked at the tournament format (Race to 7, double elimination, winner breaks). He told me I should switch to an alternate break format because "What if someone gets in stroke?", so I changed to the alternating break. What happened was that none of the top players in the city signed up for the event. The players basically boycotted the event, and one local top player told me straight out, that he didn't like the idea of giving the table back to anybody. Another problem I ran into was time constraints. It took a lot longer to finish that tournament with the alternating break format, an average of 15 minutes per match. That adds up after a while. Anyway, I haven't run any other tournaments since that disaster. I credit the failure of that tournament to the decision to switch to the alternating break. There were other problems as well, but it all connected to that decision, which I made.

I have never understood alternating break as anything more than a stopper for guys like Earl or Johnny. I know what its like to sit in the electric chair watching them run a 6 pack on you, and its no fun. But hey, to me that's just pool. I watched Danny Medina back in 1989 string 8 & 9 packs together (back to back) on a bar box at the Huebler tournament in Colorado Springs, I saw Earl's Million Dollar match against Nick Mannino at CJ's, and I'd love to start seeing stuff like that happen again on the tours. That's the stuff that makes our players legends. Why prevent that from occurring?

drivermaker
04-30-2005, 08:14 AM
1st of all, I don't hate Earl and would never bash/snub him. Earl has been one of the most contriversial and greatest players in our sport and I don't hate him for it. In fact, I love it! However, I do think Earl should be more respectfull to his sopponents. Earl has probably been passed over in the hall of fame because of his disrespect for his opponents and his attitude during match play.

If you beat Earl, he should congratulate you because you practiced as hard as you could and you out-ran the nuts. Earl should should not ridicule you because you played by the current rules and overcame a big deficit. He needs to continue to work on this.

Earl, I have seen you as a gentleman and an A-hole. The gentleman suits you better. Please understand that all any palyer wants is to beat you, and you should respect them for that. They have to try very hard to get there.

Mj


Every professional athlete isn't a candidate for the Bobby Jones award, and you have players like Earl throughout ALL sports. Any reason why your words of advice couldn't have gone in a PM or eyeball to eyeball conversation?

chefjeff
04-30-2005, 08:31 AM
(snip)

I have never understood alternating break as anything more than a stopper for guys like Earl or Johnny. I know what its like to sit in the electric chair watching them run a 6 pack on you, and its no fun. But hey, to me that's just pool. I watched Danny Medina back in 1989 string 8 & 9 packs together (back to back) on a bar box at the Huebler tournament in Colorado Springs, I saw Earl's Million Dollar match against Nick Mannino at CJ's, and I'd love to start seeing stuff like that happen again on the tours. That's the stuff that makes our players legends. Why prevent that from occurring?

Why? Because that, too, can be boring. Especially if I've come to watch BOTH players play a match. If I want to see continous runouts, I'll gamble or watch a great player practice....or watch myself--lol.

I know you've got much more experience in pool than I, so I'm talking from an average sports spectator's viewpoint.

Think of any other sport. What if...what if everytime a basketball team made a basket they would get the ball back again so the fans could see them string together a 6 pack, or whatever. Or imagine the Super Bowl with the scoring team getting the ball right back to try to score again. Would this make those games better for the fans? I think not.

The only fair and spectator friendly method is for loser to break. Let me see a match, not a practice session.

Jeff Livingston

drivermaker
04-30-2005, 09:14 AM
Think of any other sport. What if...what if everytime a basketball team made a basket they would get the ball back again so the fans could see them string together a 6 pack, or whatever. Or imagine the Super Bowl with the scoring team getting the ball right back to try to score again. Would this make those games better for the fans? I think not.

The only fair and spectator friendly method is for loser to break. Let me see a match, not a practice session.

Jeff Livingston


OK, I've thought of a couple other sports. Boxing, extreme fighting, and olympic style wrestling.

Sure, you might tune in or go to see it live expecting two people to do battle with each other like in pool. However, one combatant might just be too strong, too fast, or too skilled and the other one can't hardly do a thing and gets pummeled. So what...that's part of the sport also and those blood letting matches can be equally as exciting. It's not horrible to see one opponent totally dominate another in a match. Otherwise...watch tennis or ping pong where you can see them go back and forth. (did I leave out badminton?)

sniper
04-30-2005, 02:16 PM
Blackjack, that first picture of Earl is awesome! Where did you get it?

chefjeff
04-30-2005, 03:14 PM
OK, I've thought of a couple other sports. Boxing, extreme fighting, and olympic style wrestling.

Sure, you might tune in or go to see it live expecting two people to do battle with each other like in pool. However, one combatant might just be too strong, too fast, or too skilled and the other one can't hardly do a thing and gets pummeled. So what...that's part of the sport also and those blood letting matches can be equally as exciting. It's not horrible to see one opponent totally dominate another in a match. Otherwise...watch tennis or ping pong where you can see them go back and forth. (did I leave out badminton?)

Yeah, nothing like sitting down with a bag-o-chips and a beer to watch a boxing match, e.g., and then have it end in the first round before the beer is half drunk. Exciting....NOT!

It's great if it's YOUR guy doing the pummeling, but it ain't great for spectators as a whole. And for anyone who hasn't been paying attention: spectators (ergo, money) are what's missing from pool.

OK, I won this argument, so it's my turn again to post. You just sit there quietly in your chair until I'm done posting.

Jeff Livingston

drivermaker
04-30-2005, 03:57 PM
Yeah, nothing like sitting down with a bag-o-chips and a beer to watch a boxing match, e.g., and then have it end in the first round before the beer is half drunk. Exciting....NOT!

It's great if it's YOUR guy doing the pummeling, but it ain't great for spectators as a whole. And for anyone who hasn't been paying attention: spectators (ergo, money) are what's missing from pool.

OK, I won this argument, so it's my turn again to post. You just sit there quietly in your chair until I'm done posting.

Jeff Livingston


I was thinking more in terms of a multiple round pummeling, although the one round knockouts do occur. In Mike Tyson's heyday he was knocking them ALL out in 1-3 rounds and it didn't hurt attendance. That's actually what they came to see. It was disappointing to see it drag on.

There are a wide variety of reasons why spectators are missing from pool other than winner breaks.

Are you sure you won that round? OK...I'll sit it out anyway...let me have your beer. :D

vagabond
04-30-2005, 04:24 PM
OK, (did I leave out badminton?)


Hey ,
u forgot the girls in Bikinis-Beach Volley Ball,my favorite sport.
Vagabond

drivermaker
05-01-2005, 05:24 AM
Hey ,
u forgot the girls in Bikinis-Beach Volley Ball,my favorite sport.
Vagabond


Ahhhh yes....how could I have forgotten about Misty May (love that name)
(and more) :D

Blackjack
05-01-2005, 06:15 AM
Blackjack, that first picture of Earl is awesome! Where did you get it?
I can't remember where I got that picture. Its been two years since I posted it. Probably from this site. Great picture though, isn't it?

Wally in Cincy
05-02-2005, 06:40 AM
Blackjack, that first picture of Earl is awesome! Where did you get it?


That surely is from the Matchroom site. Some beer company sponsored the WPC the year Earl won (2002 IIRC) when he won the final against Bustamante.

Celtic
05-02-2005, 06:46 AM
You think that picture is great you outa see the one of Earl taken 15 minutes later when the glass was empty~