12th US Open One Pocket Championship - Who should be invited?
- Thread starter sunnyday
- Start date
Because this is straight up even tourney. No 18-4 here...
S.
I knew there was a reason, everyone goes to 8.
Last edited:
Still waiting for your list...
it's too bad it can't be bigger, I agree with most. Here's my 16:
Efren
Scott
Shannon
Sylver
Gabe
Cliff
Buddy------He probly wouldn't come
Jose
Bill Incardona
Grady Mathew's
Allen Hopkins-------I know, I know just remember when 5hr matches were the norm
Nick varner
Ronnie allen
Danny Dilaberto (SP?)
Schmit
Deuel
Efren
Scott
Shannon
Sylver
Gabe
Cliff
Buddy------He probly wouldn't come
Jose
Bill Incardona
Grady Mathew's
Allen Hopkins-------I know, I know just remember when 5hr matches were the norm
Nick varner
Ronnie allen
Danny Dilaberto (SP?)
Schmit
Deuel
Mark, fours hours is a lot, even for a 1pocket match. The vast majority of them will be far shorter. As to the whole invitee thing, the more I think about it, the less I believe you have to be worrying about the right guys getting in. If you put out the word now, using traditional outlets like posters and a few magazine ads, as well as the Internet groups, then the well established pool grapevine will do the job. There is more than enough time for it to work (and the $10K added will do the rest). So I think you're going a route that does not need to be traveled in that regard. But, if you're relying on just the internet groups, then that's a different story.
It's true that at $500 you'll shut out most of the wannabes. As you know, the universe of 1pocket players is smaller than the 9ball player universe. But that kind of entry is not going to stop the pros and then it'll be self-limiting to about the 32 you want. However, if you want the event to grow, then I don't think you could go backwards on the entry fee in the out years. I think what you want to do is get the mid-range players (wannabes like me
enthused from the first year of this reincarnation. That's what's going to build the success of the event in terms of field size -- if you don't make it attractive and accessible to that group of players right off the bat, you could be crippling the long term growth of the field. Put another way: the pros are going to come out for the event anyway, especially with the size of the slice of cheese you're putting out there -- they don't need to be courted. It's the rest of the players that you actually need to be going after.I do want to say I applaud you for doing the event, however you see fit. It's great to see a major event like the US Open for 1pocket come back to life.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
I would share this privately with Mark if he asked, but for the time being I want to make it public. The big problem with holding One Pocket tournaments is the possibility of games taking over one hour to play. I won't go into the reasons why or how this can happen, but believe me it is a real problem in scheduling.
We have found a way to successfully avert this from happening. we call it the "four ball" rule. As soon as four balls are down table inside the head string, the next ball(s) that goes up table will result in a ball(s) being spotted. I prefer spotting the ball(s) closest to the end rail. Some people (TD's) like to spot the ball(s) closest to the head string. Either way will work. With this rule, at no time will more than four balls be inside the head string.
It really does not materially change the game of One Pocket, only introducing one more piece of strategy. The best players will still win with this rule. What it does do is put a stop to the ultra long games that plague tournament scheduling. Enough said.
We have found a way to successfully avert this from happening. we call it the "four ball" rule. As soon as four balls are down table inside the head string, the next ball(s) that goes up table will result in a ball(s) being spotted. I prefer spotting the ball(s) closest to the end rail. Some people (TD's) like to spot the ball(s) closest to the head string. Either way will work. With this rule, at no time will more than four balls be inside the head string.
It really does not materially change the game of One Pocket, only introducing one more piece of strategy. The best players will still win with this rule. What it does do is put a stop to the ultra long games that plague tournament scheduling. Enough said.
Open
Just my opinion.
At the present time, Mark is the guru for pool tournaments in our country.
But, shouldn't this event possibly be named the US Masters, since preference will be made for those players on an invited list?
After all, Open means Open to anyone and to limit the field size, especially to only 32 invited players, stipulates more of an special event, than Open.
I mean, where is the Open-ness?
Quite possibly if there were a series of qualifying events in which players could earn their way into the big show, that would certainly renew an Open status. Your past Champion and runner-up list could have automatic rights of qualification.
If I were still a pool room owner, I would jump at the opportunity to hold a Qualifier. For every 8 players in any qualifier, would earn a spot. $50 entry fee, plus a $15 greens fee for the owner, winner takes all, $400 sent to US Open office, winner must play, if not, spot goes to runner-up and so forth.
There are a lot of unknown, but highly skilled players who would probably love to have a shot at this title.
Again, these are only a few of my thoughts on the thing.
Mark deserves a huge Thank You for reaching out and walking the tight rope of trying to look out for what is best for the players, the fans and the Sport.
Just my opinion.
At the present time, Mark is the guru for pool tournaments in our country.
But, shouldn't this event possibly be named the US Masters, since preference will be made for those players on an invited list?
After all, Open means Open to anyone and to limit the field size, especially to only 32 invited players, stipulates more of an special event, than Open.
I mean, where is the Open-ness?
Quite possibly if there were a series of qualifying events in which players could earn their way into the big show, that would certainly renew an Open status. Your past Champion and runner-up list could have automatic rights of qualification.
If I were still a pool room owner, I would jump at the opportunity to hold a Qualifier. For every 8 players in any qualifier, would earn a spot. $50 entry fee, plus a $15 greens fee for the owner, winner takes all, $400 sent to US Open office, winner must play, if not, spot goes to runner-up and so forth.
There are a lot of unknown, but highly skilled players who would probably love to have a shot at this title.
Again, these are only a few of my thoughts on the thing.
Mark deserves a huge Thank You for reaching out and walking the tight rope of trying to look out for what is best for the players, the fans and the Sport.
Invite a Chris Gentile or Jesse Bowman, Joey Gray one of those type of cats. 32 players is like asking for an all star team though.
I was going to suggest the same thing. Or even say something like, if after 2 hours of play the 4 ball rule will come into affect on the very next rack.
I would invite Mitch Ellerman also: http://www.azpoolscene.com/BreakingNews256.aspx
Jesse can mow through a one pocket rack like a city grass cutter getting ready to go on vacation. Haven't seen Joey or Chris one pocket game but they play a mean game of nine rocket so I'm sure they can play some runout one pocket. Those guys would help speed up the tournament for sure.
Mark, fours hours is a lot, even for a 1pocket match. The vast majority of them will be far shorter. As to the whole invitee thing, the more I think about it, the less I believe you have to be worrying about the right guys getting in. If you put out the word now, using traditional outlets like posters and a few magazine ads, as well as the Internet groups, then the well established pool grapevine will do the job. There is more than enough time for it to work (and the $10K added will do the rest). So I think you're going a route that does not need to be traveled in that regard. But, if you're relying on just the internet groups, then that's a different story.
It's true that at $500 you'll shut out most of the wannabes. As you know, the universe of 1pocket players is smaller than the 9ball player universe. But that kind of entry is not going to stop the pros and then it'll be self-limiting to about the 32 you want. However, if you want the event to grow, then I don't think you could go backwards on the entry fee in the out years. I think what you want to do is get the mid-range players (wannabes like me
I do want to say I applaud you for doing the event, however you see fit. It's great to see a major event like the US Open for 1pocket come back to life.
Lou Figueroa
Lou you're splitting the pocket on every point.
Some of us who enjoy getting our one pocket tournament fix by playing some of the professional players need additional time to make our decisions about playing or not playing.
The Kalamazoo Open One Pocket tournament was GREAT.
Ultimately, I hope and expect Mark to bring the U.S. Open One Pocket Championship to a 64 man field. I don't know how much time it would take to play that many players but I REALLY like a Friday Saturday & Sunday One pocket event. It could even start at Friday at Noon and that would be good for working guys like me who fly in to most of the out of state tournaments. Fly back in on Monday morning and your customers don't even know you're gone.
US Open One Pocket
I want to thank everyone for their comments.
I am going to guess that IF we invited 32 players - probably 24 or so would be able to make it.
That will make the rest of the field 'open' - which would end up with about a 50/50 deal.
Jay is right about length of matches. We will be addressing that in the future. But matches can not be stretched out. (No more wedge game!)
Things have to go on a somewhat timely schedule.
We will be having some qualifiers. Caspers event Feb 4-6 in Texas will be a qualifier). If you are interested in holding a qualifier, please contact holly@playcsipool.com. She will get you covered.
JoeyA is right about getting to 64 - I expect that to happen by 2013. Keeping it a 3 day event might be tough. I figure that the last 4 players might have to play on MOnday - they will likely be involved in the US Open 10-Ball and they will be staying for that event. This becomes an issue as the field grows.
Any more ideas on 'time control issues' would be greatly appreciated. I am familiar with the 4-ball rule. Grady used similar rules back around early 2000's.
We are very aware that players must know several months prior to the event whether they are in or out. We will accomplish that.
Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI - BCAPL - USAPL
I want to thank everyone for their comments.
I am going to guess that IF we invited 32 players - probably 24 or so would be able to make it.
That will make the rest of the field 'open' - which would end up with about a 50/50 deal.
Jay is right about length of matches. We will be addressing that in the future. But matches can not be stretched out. (No more wedge game!)
Things have to go on a somewhat timely schedule.
We will be having some qualifiers. Caspers event Feb 4-6 in Texas will be a qualifier). If you are interested in holding a qualifier, please contact holly@playcsipool.com. She will get you covered.
JoeyA is right about getting to 64 - I expect that to happen by 2013. Keeping it a 3 day event might be tough. I figure that the last 4 players might have to play on MOnday - they will likely be involved in the US Open 10-Ball and they will be staying for that event. This becomes an issue as the field grows.
Any more ideas on 'time control issues' would be greatly appreciated. I am familiar with the 4-ball rule. Grady used similar rules back around early 2000's.
We are very aware that players must know several months prior to the event whether they are in or out. We will accomplish that.
Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI - BCAPL - USAPL
A time limit is the best solution imho! In our recent tourney, the 4-ball rule was voted down almost unanimously.. Honoring the game thats been played for a 100 years the same way is Key! Otherwise, whats the point? Just my view.. Terry Osborne
As to the time issue, I've played in several Opens and a bunch of DCCs and *generally speaking* my take is that you only get long matches in two situations: first, if Nick Varner is involved in a match, lol. (I forget if Hopkins is the same.) Second is when you get two bangers who love the game but think the whole idea is to bunt the balls up table and never shoot at their hole.
IMO, the four balls up table rule is an abomination and should not even be being considered for an event like the "Open." (There, I've said it
I think the solution, which while less than ideal -- but if necessary due to table and time constraints -- is to have an active staff monitoring things and that, when it gets to three hours and it's clear that two guys are not shooting at their hole, and the score is 1-1, or something stupid, they go up to the table and make a call like: the winner of this game takes it. Or, at least they warn the players that a call like that might have to be made if they don't speed things up and that they are going to go on some kind of clock and not hold up the whole event. I hate that too, but it's preferable to the four ball rule and, IME, it something that might only have to be invoked two or three times during an entire tournament of this caliber. I mean really, if all the stars show up, no matter who draws who, it's going to be a gun fight. Even Varner drawing Frost Lou Figueroa
The next game wins it SUCKS deep pond scum. (tks George)
I played in one of Grady's Legends of One Pocket in Baton Rouge twelve years ago. Here I was playing inthe biggest tournament of my life. I had practiced like a machine for 30 days, playing 4-8 hours per day and was in dead punch the day of the tournament. I beat my first "big" opponent and was on top of the world. I made everything I shot at and my opponent was cold as ice and just couldn't get it going. He had his worst match of the day and I had the best one of my life.
My next match was against Joe Salazar and I'll never forget it as long as I live. Joe was sloooooooow playing me big time. At that time, I didn't really know my rights as a player and let him sloooooooow shoot every shot. It took about three hours to play two games. By the time Grady came over to the table, Joe was up 2-1 on me. He had put me in the freezer with his slow play and I just manned up and did what most stupid men do, I kept my mouth shut and didn't even complain to Joe. I wasn't happy with what was happening but what was I, a nobody in the one pocket world to say? At the time, I just didn't know that you could complain to your opponent and ask him to speed up play. If he didn't speed up play you could go to the tournament director. At the time, I was kind of shy about making a stink over anything and just let it slide. Grady walked up to the table and while it was supposed to be a race to 4, Grady said whoever wins the next game wins the match. It was Joe's break as I recall and I never had a chance with all of the slow play and now Grady's latest decree. I was steamed that I was the one who had to pay for Joe's slow play. Now I had to pay again and my stroke left me and I lost that match and the next.
Lesson learned: Deal with these problems early on and avoid the time decree.
(History book lesson: If you're JoeyA's opponent he might get lucky and beat you the first match of the day but if you are a professional and you put those ears back and squint those eyes and let that big stroke out, you can win all the rest of your matches and win the tournament no matter who is in the tournament.)
I think I went into a funk after that second match and never played decent again for over a year.
As to the time issue, I've played in several Opens and a bunch of DCCs and *generally speaking* my take is that you only get long matches in two situations: first, if Nick Varner is involved in a match, lol. (I forget if Hopkins is the same.) Second is when you get two bangers who love the game but think the whole idea is to bunt the balls up table and never shoot at their hole.
IMO, the four balls up table rule is an abomination and should not even be being considered for an event like the "Open." (There, I've said it
Lou Figueroa
I played in one of Grady's Legends of One Pocket in Baton Rouge twelve years ago. Here I was playing inthe biggest tournament of my life. I had practiced like a machine for 30 days, playing 4-8 hours per day and was in dead punch the day of the tournament. I beat my first "big" opponent and was on top of the world. I made everything I shot at and my opponent was cold as ice and just couldn't get it going. He had his worst match of the day and I had the best one of my life.
My next match was against Joe Salazar and I'll never forget it as long as I live. Joe was sloooooooow playing me big time. At that time, I didn't really know my rights as a player and let him sloooooooow shoot every shot. It took about three hours to play two games. By the time Grady came over to the table, Joe was up 2-1 on me. He had put me in the freezer with his slow play and I just manned up and did what most stupid men do, I kept my mouth shut and didn't even complain to Joe. I wasn't happy with what was happening but what was I, a nobody in the one pocket world to say? At the time, I just didn't know that you could complain to your opponent and ask him to speed up play. If he didn't speed up play you could go to the tournament director. At the time, I was kind of shy about making a stink over anything and just let it slide. Grady walked up to the table and while it was supposed to be a race to 4, Grady said whoever wins the next game wins the match. It was Joe's break as I recall and I never had a chance with all of the slow play and now Grady's latest decree. I was steamed that I was the one who had to pay for Joe's slow play. Now I had to pay again and my stroke left me and I lost that match and the next.
Lesson learned: Deal with these problems early on and avoid the time decree.
(History book lesson: If you're JoeyA's opponent he might get lucky and beat you the first match of the day but if you are a professional and you put those ears back and squint those eyes and let that big stroke out, you can win all the rest of your matches and win the tournament no matter who is in the tournament.)
I think I went into a funk after that second match and never played decent again for over a year.
What! No more Varner wedges.
Blasphemy, I say. Just kidding Jay. Carry on.
I played in one of Grady's Legends of One Pocket in Baton Rouge twelve years ago. Here I was playing inthe biggest tournament of my life. I had practiced like a machine for 30 days, playing 4-8 hours per day and was in dead punch the day of the tournament. I beat my first "big" opponent and was on top of the world. I made everything I shot at and my opponent was cold as ice and just couldn't get it going. He had his worst match of the day and I had the best one of my life.
My next match was against Joe Salazar and I'll never forget it as long as I live. Joe was sloooooooow playing me big time. At that time, I didn't really know my rights as a player and let him sloooooooow shoot every shot. It took about three hours to play two games. By the time Grady came over to the table, Joe was up 2-1 on me. He had put me in the freezer with his slow play and I just manned up and did what most stupid men do, I kept my mouth shut and didn't even complain to Joe. I wasn't happy with what was happening but what was I, a nobody in the one pocket world to say? At the time, I just didn't know that you could complain to your opponent and ask him to speed up play. If he didn't speed up play you could go to the tournament director. At the time, I was kind of shy about making a stink over anything and just let it slide. Grady walked up to the table and while it was supposed to be a race to 4, Grady said whoever wins the next game wins the match. It was Joe's break as I recall and I never had a chance with all of the slow play and now Grady's latest decree. I was steamed that I was the one who had to pay for Joe's slow play. Now I had to pay again and my stroke left me and I lost that match and the next.
Lesson learned: Deal with these problems early on and avoid the time decree.
(History book lesson: If you're JoeyA's opponent he might get lucky and beat you the first match of the day but if you are a professional and you put those ears back and squint those eyes and let that big stroke out, you can win all the rest of your matches and win the tournament no matter who is in the tournament.)
I think I went into a funk after that second match and never played decent again for over a year.
Just a wild guess here, but I'm thinking that that first "big" opponent was none other than one Shannon "The Cannon" Daulton. It was memorable for all of us on RSB at the time -- that one of our own had taken down such a major hog (and I mean that in the nicest way possible). We were all really proud of you, Joey.
I think there needs to be one distinction, perhaps, and since I wasn't there I can only guess how Tracy Joe oiled it down, but I'm thinking if I'm in that situation I just fly past him and go to the desk and tell them someone needs to watch some of this. The problem is that some events are not setup with a sufficiently experienced staff that someone can break loose, go over, and make a credible call.
Lou Figueroa
forgot there was
a 3rd possible
scenario
US Open One Pocket
JoeyA - I was at that tournament. I watched you beat Shannon Daulton - who was a MONSTER back then.
I think that was the first time I met you.
I want all the input on keeping the matches in a timely fashion.
I remember back in 1991-or 93 LA Open there wer two players and they would not shoot to their hole. Eventually some kind of decision was made that every third shot (or something) had to be an offensive shot.
I do not like the 3 or 4 ball rule. I don't like 'this game wins it all' rule. I don't like the wedge game.
There has to be method of keeping the integrity of the game and making the players play.
Maybe it is time to talk 'chess clocks'.
I want this discussion now so we can have plenty of input to make up our minds. And you never know, all this discussion might not event be needed and we might have all 2 hour matches!
Mark Griffin
JoeyA - I was at that tournament. I watched you beat Shannon Daulton - who was a MONSTER back then.
I think that was the first time I met you.
I want all the input on keeping the matches in a timely fashion.
I remember back in 1991-or 93 LA Open there wer two players and they would not shoot to their hole. Eventually some kind of decision was made that every third shot (or something) had to be an offensive shot.
I do not like the 3 or 4 ball rule. I don't like 'this game wins it all' rule. I don't like the wedge game.
There has to be method of keeping the integrity of the game and making the players play.
Maybe it is time to talk 'chess clocks'.
I want this discussion now so we can have plenty of input to make up our minds. And you never know, all this discussion might not event be needed and we might have all 2 hour matches!
Mark Griffin
Mark, chess clocks would be totally cool and completely fair.
I vote for this option! I think you'd have to set them to some kind of "endless" setting -- IOW, you wouldn't run out of time eventually, you'd just only have X amount of time per shot.
Lou Figueroa
can usually fire a shot off
in less than 30 seconds
(be nice
Yeah, it was Shannon but the big story wasn't me catching lightning in jug and winning that match. It was Shannon losing his first match and then going on to beat like ten CHAMPIONS IN A ROW. It was an incredible feat.
I don't mind completing some of Lou's thoughts and mine as well since you're asking. :smile:
There are slow players in all tournaments. I've heard tournament directors loudly say, "Slow play will not be allowed!" It falls on deaf ears. The deaf ears are those who normally play extremely slow or those who will play slow to put their opponent on "ice", or those who think that if they play REALLY slow, it will help them get back in stroke or keep them from missing. IT WORKS SOMETIMES, but it is at the expense of their opponent and the tournament in general.
One thing that might work is for the tournament director to make a BOLD ANNOUNCEMENT that not only will slow play not be allowed but that he asks that if any player sees another player playing slow, they should report the player, whether they are playing them or not. Once players realize that EVERYONE is watching their slow play and they will be reported, they won't be doing it very long.
Secondly, an eye can be kept on the slow players from the very beginning. We know who they are, at least most of them. The ones who decide to play slow to alter the way their opponent is playing you will just have to catch them in the act and make the penalty very strong. Announce that any player who is warned about slow play that does not immediately begin playing at a normal pace will lose the game they are playing plus one additional game AND THEN ENFORCE IT one time.
After that word will spread like a forest fire with 30 mph wind gusts.
Thirdly, put the SLOW PLAYER on the shot clock. No reason to penalize the non-slow player for an occasional think fest. IN advance ask for some volunteers who know the game and are willing to tell ANY player he has ten seconds left and when that time expires, tell him that he has committed a foul and loses one ball and loses his turn at the table.
Just throwing a few ideas out there Mark. If players didn't abuse the game, these type of extremes wouldn't be necessary. The same players aren't always the same ones who slow play but everyone KNOWS how it works and almost ANYONE competitive enought might stoop to trying to do it. I've resisted doing it so far but who knows what I would do if I was playing for the finals against a fast shooting in stroke player and I wanted to desperately win and the only way I could win is to take the fast shooting player out of his game. Look, I'm not whining about the past. It's all over and life goes on. I'm being realistic and know that no one is without sin. Down here in Louisiana, we don't tell the road players that you can jump up on the table and shoot until that is needed and it's our shot. House rules you know.....
(Most of them already know but those who don't know, we just don't think to tell them this because we play like this every day).If you decide to utilize ANY of these extreme type ideas, you should make it known to the players in ADVANCE of them sending in their entry fee for the tournament and have it in WRITING with the rules. In addition, you would of course cover the same information at the player's meeting.
I'm out of ideas for the moment.
Yeah, it was Shannon but the big story wasn't me catching lightning in jug and winning that match. It was Shannon losing his first match and then going on to beat like ten CHAMPIONS IN A ROW. It was an incredible feat.
I don't mind completing some of Lou's thoughts and mine as well since you're asking. :smile:
There are slow players in all tournaments. I've heard tournament directors loudly say, "Slow play will not be allowed!" It falls on deaf ears. The deaf ears are those who normally play extremely slow or those who will play slow to put their opponent on "ice", or those who think that if they play REALLY slow, it will help them get back in stroke or keep them from missing. IT WORKS SOMETIMES, but it is at the expense of their opponent and the tournament in general.
One thing that might work is for the tournament director to make a BOLD ANNOUNCEMENT that not only will slow play not be allowed but that he asks that if any player sees another player playing slow, they should report the player, whether they are playing them or not. Once players realize that EVERYONE is watching their slow play and they will be reported, they won't be doing it very long.
Secondly, an eye can be kept on the slow players from the very beginning. We know who they are, at least most of them. The ones who decide to play slow to alter the way their opponent is playing you will just have to catch them in the act and make the penalty very strong. Announce that any player who is warned about slow play that does not immediately begin playing at a normal pace will lose the game they are playing plus one additional game AND THEN ENFORCE IT one time.
After that word will spread like a forest fire with 30 mph wind gusts.
Thirdly, put the SLOW PLAYER on the shot clock. No reason to penalize the non-slow player for an occasional think fest. IN advance ask for some volunteers who know the game and are willing to tell ANY player he has ten seconds left and when that time expires, tell him that he has committed a foul and loses one ball and loses his turn at the table.
Just throwing a few ideas out there Mark. If players didn't abuse the game, these type of extremes wouldn't be necessary. The same players aren't always the same ones who slow play but everyone KNOWS how it works and almost ANYONE competitive enought might stoop to trying to do it. I've resisted doing it so far but who knows what I would do if I was playing for the finals against a fast shooting in stroke player and I wanted to desperately win and the only way I could win is to take the fast shooting player out of his game. Look, I'm not whining about the past. It's all over and life goes on. I'm being realistic and know that no one is without sin. Down here in Louisiana, we don't tell the road players that you can jump up on the table and shoot until that is needed and it's our shot. House rules you know.....
If you decide to utilize ANY of these extreme type ideas, you should make it known to the players in ADVANCE of them sending in their entry fee for the tournament and have it in WRITING with the rules. In addition, you would of course cover the same information at the player's meeting.
I'm out of ideas for the moment.
Joey makes an excellent point. Namely: that the "slow play" players are most usually well, well known beforehand. I played in a tournament in Chicago last year and *everyone* knew exactly who the one slow playing player was before the first ball was hit. And yet -- he got away with it, one tedious match after another, until he had to play the owner of the room and was told in no uncertain terms that if he tried that ca-ca during THAT match he was going to get booted.
So I think if there's a problem (or likely problem) you nip it in the bud ASAP.
Lou Figueroa