loggerhead12 said:

Kevin was resplendent in yacht club attire - blue blazer with gold buttons, starched white shirt and immaculately pressed tan slacks. The only thing missing was a jaunty hat. It was pretty shocking amongst all the pool hall grunge.

Click to expand...

AtLarge said:

Regarding The Shot/Decision after the Break

Here are the counts on offensive vs. defensive play following the break for the 12 matches covered in post #1 above.

• Match winners broke 116 times -- 99 successful (including one 9-ball), 6 fouled, and 11 dry (with no foul).
• Match losers broke 82 times -- 67 successful, 6 fouled, and 9 dry.

So, if we eliminate the one 9-ball on the break (no next shot) and the 12 fouled breaks (BIH for next shot, offensive every time, no missed first shots), we have 107 breaks for match winners (their 98 successful plus match losers' 9 dry) and 78 for match losers (their 67 successful plus match winners' 11 dry) for which they had to decide between offense and defense following the break. Here's the distribution of those 107 and 78 decisions:

Match Winners:

Attempted to pocket a ball -- 65 (61%); [4 misses -- 2 by Sanchez-Ruiz, 1 each by Thorpe and Shaw]​

Played safe -- 20 (19%)​

Pushed out -- 22 (21%)​

Total -- 107​

Match Losers:

Attempted to pocket a ball -- 49 (63%); [10 misses -- 2 each by Capito, Gorst, and Styer, and 1 each by Baoanan, Holem, SVB, and Filler]​

Played safe -- 15 (19%)​

Pushed out -- 14 (18%)​

Total -- 78​

So the percentages of taking a shot, playing safe, and pushing out were all quite close for each group. But the match winners' pocketing percentage when they went offensive [94% (61 of 65)] was quite a bit higher than the match losers' percentage [80% (39 of 49)].

Push outs numbered 38, the 36 shown above by the breaker and 2 more by the non-breaker after dry breaks. Match winners won 50% of the 22 games in which they pushed outs, and match losers won 50% of the 16 games in which they pushed out.

Click to expand...

skogstokig said:

if MW is mark wilson, that wasn't mark wilson. the third guy is scott frost

Click to expand...

dquarasr said:

JJ and KB were good and MW was good, too.

Click to expand...

GideonF said:

From the equipment specs:

“The cue tip may not be of a material that can scratch or damage the addressed ball. The cue tip on any stick must be composed of a piece of specially processed leather or other fibrous or pliable material that extends the natural line of the shaft end of the cue and contacts the cue ball when the shot is executed.”

That still doesn’t tell me which tips are okay! I’m assuming that impregnated leather like Predator, Kamui and Samara are okay, as are composites like Taom 2.0 and the wound glass fibers on the new Cuetecs are all fine, if for no other reason than it would be surprising to me that the major manufacturers are making something non-compliant. Plus, the sponsored players using those cues have all played in WPA championships without any apparent issue.

As an aside, the line about having to extend the natural line of the shaft makes me think that technically a mushrooming tip would be noncompliant. As you may know, many top snooker players deliberately have tips that are wider than their ferrule.

Click to expand...

jay helfert said:

You called it "An unexpected pleasure chatting with him and Mike." He is and was a con man Stu!

Click to expand...

sjm said:

LOL, I had been chatting with Sigel only for a while when Kevin Trudeau, whom I'd never met before, came over to join us. Mike introduced me to him as somebody who'd seen as many of his greatest victories as almost anybody. We certainly didn't discuss business of any kind, past or present.

Click to expand...