Earl and the truth about the "Million Dollar Challenge"

[seven_7days]

do me a favor and...

...compute these odds for me.
In one of the older accu-stats videos, one of the commentators (don't remember who) were talking about how they were present at this one tournament where Earl ran 6 racks...ran another 5 racks...and then another 6 racks on three different opponents...all in the SAME tournament!

I don't think the law of averages should apply to Earl.

The fractional error is roughly one over the square root of the number of samples. That means that if you have 30 samples, your estimate is likely off by 18% and it would not be surprising if your estimate is off by twice that. (This depends a lot on exactly what you are trying to "measure.")

In polls you often hear "the results are about +- 3%". That's one in 33 which means they had about 1000 people in the poll (roughly 33x33).

Another example is flipping coins. If you flip a coin 100 times you expect 50 heads on average but the expected variation is 1/10th of that or 5. And a deviation from 50 of 10 would not be surprising.

 

[TATE]

He goes into a bit of a rant about how the money was spent and hindsight is always 20/20 ... I'm just glad he was happy about how it turned out, because it was a pretty brutal experience at times on my end. But it's funny now Chris

It's always interesting to see how fate works and the twists and turns that result from something like this happening. It had a dramatic effect on several people and at least one business was closed down. I found out when there's a million dollars at stake it makes the game of life and business very serious.....but now I can look back and laugh because everything worked out in the end. Now it's time to do it again, just in a slightly different way. :wink:

Honestly, when I read about this years ago I felt incredibly sorry for you. In my business, I'm always in the middle between customers and suppilers. To be in the middle of a dispute this large is scary. It can literally wipe out a person financially for life. By putting up your own money for the initial payment, you did something few other businesspeople would do. You took personal responsibility for your representation. I am not sure if I would have done the same, but I respect that immensely.

When it comes to the money, realistically Earl needed professional assistance in managing the financial end of this. There are many angles - taxes and security being two important onea. Getting assets is 90% of the game, but it's not what you get it's what you keep, how to safeguard them and how you put them to work.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I was drunk and I thought you were serious about the 1 in 27 joke at the time.

It wasn't a joke, it was just a calculation given the stated assumptions. I suppose the assumptions were a little funny, but the calculations were pretty dry. And maybe correct.

So, with the knowledge that only about 20% of the racks were early nines and with the assumption that Earl is 30% to run out from the break when he is really, really motivated, I re-ran the numbers. This also assumes that Earl's opponent doesn't win the match. With those assumptions, the numbers say that Earl has roughly a 1 in 1000 chance of a 10-pack.

If you change the assumptions to 10% nines and 20% to run out, which is a very reasonable run-out rate even on a tight table, the odds change to 1 in 73000 or so. My point here is that the guy who calculated odds of over a million to one must have been operating with bad assumptions, just as the 1/27 number was the result of bad info.

Also, the rate of nines on the break has a huge influence. If you assume that there is no chance for a nine on the break, and the run-out rate is 17.37%, you get the 7.8 million-to-one odds that the stats guy got. For this kind of problem, relatively small changes in the assumptions can have a huge influence on the result.

 

[Bob Jewett]

...compute these odds for me.
In one of the older accu-stats videos, one of the commentators (don't remember who) were talking about how they were present at this one tournament where Earl ran 6 racks...ran another 5 racks...and then another 6 racks on three different opponents...all in the SAME tournament!

I don't think the law of averages should apply to Earl.

No, Earl just has higher averages than most of us.

I wonder if anyone has his stats from the race to 120 that Earl had with Efren. It would be interesting to know what his bread-and-run percentage was in that.

 

[hang-the-9]

No, Earl just has higher averages than most of us.

I wonder if anyone has his stats from the race to 120 that Earl had with Efren. It would be interesting to know what his bread-and-run percentage was in that.

If you want to get the details of that match, get a hold of Mark Wilson. I was talking to him earlier this year and he had some nice stats about that match, he said that in a game where Earl broke and did not run out, Efren won most of those games. He, and probably AccuStats have all the info on that race to 120.

Until I saw the race to 100 with Shane and Cory, I have never seen such a domination of break and run outs by anyone. Earl would just slam the break, run out in 2 minutes, sit, repeat. I think how Sane played in the first TAR match is the only think that I've seen that matched that. Maybe the recent 8-ball sets between Dennis and Shane could be added to this where they both were running 6+ racks on a very tight table could be added to this list.

 

[CJ Wiley]

Making the 9 Ball on the break is mostly luck

It wasn't a joke, it was just a calculation given the stated assumptions. I suppose the assumptions were a little funny, but the calculations were pretty dry. And maybe correct.

So, with the knowledge that only about 20% of the racks were early nines and with the assumption that Earl is 30% to run out from the break when he is really, really motivated, I re-ran the numbers. This also assumes that Earl's opponent doesn't win the match. With those assumptions, the numbers say that Earl has roughly a 1 in 1000 chance of a 10-pack.

If you change the assumptions to 10% nines and 20% to run out, which is a very reasonable run-out rate even on a tight table, the odds change to 1 in 73000 or so. My point here is that the guy who calculated odds of over a million to one must have been operating with bad assumptions, just as the 1/27 number was the result of bad info.

Also, the rate of nines on the break has a huge influence. If you assume that there is no chance for a nine on the break, and the run-out rate is 17.37%, you get the 7.8 million-to-one odds that the stats guy got. For this kind of problem, relatively small changes in the assumptions can have a huge influence on the result.

Making the 9 Ball on the break is mostly luck. That table wasn't any different than any other table there...Remeber, I own THAT very table...the nine hasn't went in much since I've had it and it didn't the rest of the tournament there either.

No, even Earl Strickland is lucky to make the 9 on the break.....and the odds are 7.8 Million to 1 still to this very day...just ask Earl what he thinks....I already did and he knows how difficult it is....he's only done 10 or more twice in his life and that includes practicing where it's MUCH easier to do....and those tables had 4.25 inch pockets - tighter than a clam with lockjaw :wink:

 

[wahcheck]

yep

Making the 9 Ball on the break is mostly luck. That table wasn't any different than any other table there...Remeber, I own THAT very table...the nine hasn't went in much since I've had it and it didn't the rest of the tournament there either.

No, even Earl Strickland is lucky to make the 9 on the break.....and the odds are 7.8 Million to 1 still to this very day...just ask Earl what he thinks....I already did and he knows how difficult it is....he's only done 10 or more twice in his life and that includes practicing where it's MUCH easier to do....and those tables had 4.25 inch pockets - tighter than a clam with lockjaw :wink:

I keep repeating this; this was one of the greatest feats in pool history; yet there seem to be those who want to debate that it wasn't as difficult a thing to do, quoting lesser odds and the such; maybe they want to lessen or belittle what Earl did, take something away from it, but for me, it was a phenomenal occurrence, given the circumstances; also considering that it was a tight table, and the last nine ball he combo'd in, as Jay described it.

 

[CJ Wiley]

we had 4.25 inch pockets on that table...it was super tough

I keep repeating this; this was one of the greatest feats in pool history; yet there seem to be those who want to debate that it wasn't as difficult a thing to do, quoting lesser odds and the such; maybe they want to lessen or belittle what Earl did, take something away from it, but for me, it was a phenomenal occurrence, given the circumstances; also considering that it was a tight table, and the last nine ball he combo'd in, as Jay described it.

Is that why there's the discussion about how the odds were wrong? I was wondering, because when you see what I've seen you would know it was next to impossible to do....I still don't think it's understood that we had 4.25 inch pockets on that table...it was super tough, not like the tables these days. And even today no one has even got close to running 11 racks in a tournament. Maybe you could playing 10 Ball, but it's easier to make balls, pattern rack and get on the 1 than 9Ball if you know how to break well.

 

[hang-the-9]

Making the 9 Ball on the break is mostly luck. That table wasn't any different than any other table there...Remeber, I own THAT very table...the nine hasn't went in much since I've had it and it didn't the rest of the tournament there either.

No, even Earl Strickland is lucky to make the 9 on the break.....and the odds are 7.8 Million to 1 still to this very day...just ask Earl what he thinks....I already did and he knows how difficult it is....he's only done 10 or more twice in his life and that includes practicing where it's MUCH easier to do....and those tables had 4.25 inch pockets - tighter than a clam with lockjaw :wink:

4.25 is damn tight, especially to run 10 racks on. Making the 9 on the break, if the people putting up the money knew anything about pool, should have not counted towards the 10, or maybe only counted for 1 or 2 wins. I posted this before about this, and other large packages, a 9 on the break, or even an early combo with the 1 or 2, should not count as a run-out, but as just a win. I love how the USAPL league I played in counted a "Table Run" or a "Break and Run" for the patch. You needed to have pocketed at least 5 balls on your turn at the table for it to be counted as a "Run".

If the 2 balls behind the 9 are not frozen, the 9 will shoot off to one corner or the other every time, may not go in, but often can sit there waiting for an early combo. One of the things I hate about short races on tables that don't rack well. I play in some tournaments where you have a race to 2 or 3 and I've seen 2 9-ball breaks on those races. Bit unfair.

 

[wahcheck]

yes

Is that why there's the discussion about how the odds were wrong? I was wondering, because when you see what I've seen you would know it was next to impossible to do....I still don't think it's understood that we had 4.25 inch pockets on that table...it was super tough, not like the tables these days. And even today no one has even got close to running 11 racks in a tournament. Maybe you could playing 10 Ball, but it's easier to make balls, pattern rack and get on the 1 than 9Ball if you know how to break well.

Well, I can't say for sure, but it sure seems like some people like to say it wasn't such tremendous odds that it could be done; I prefer to see it from my perspective; it was really so extraordinary and awesome that such a proposition could be achieved.....and it certainly helps that a person of your experience and stature witnessed it and can attest to its improbability.
Thanks for your input and I will be looking forward to the documentary.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I kept an archive of the newsgroup rec.sport.billiard from its creation until June 22, 1998. Here is a posting from John McChesney that has some other information about Earl's run:

From: "John McChesney" <jm@texasexpress.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:21:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Earl´s eleven racks?????
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard

I was the tournament director, along with Robin Adair and Jay Helfert.
Earl and CJ have a suit against the Marketing Continuum, the sports
marketing company representing the PCA, and joint suit against SDS
Underwriting Co.

The PCA has been offered an out of court settlement and refused. They will
win, as it was the marketing company who fouled the insurance contract up.
Have direct info. from the attorney/s, etc.

Earl made 5 (9's) on the break in the run of 11. He racked his own balls
for the first 6, and Jay Helfert racked 7-11. ( Winner rack is a rule per
the PCA Tour and Senior Tour adopted from Texas Express).

I hosted the pre-event player meeting where the rep. from the marketing
company confirmed that the million dollar challenge was on..to all the
players verbally at the player meeting.

The criteria from the insurance company was: when a player ran a rack, he
must call it out "on 1", etc. When the player was at the end of the fifth
rack run, a rep. from the event was to watch all shots, etc. The criteria
stated..the last 5 racks must be taped, and a neutral racker had to be in
place. Jay Helfert racked the last 5, and racks 7,8,9,10 & 11 were taped (
last 5 ). Additionally, 40 plus spectators and players all signed an
affidavit as to what they witnessed. When Earl announced he was on "5"..all
the players participating stopped...and came over to watch. That's the
real deal...CJ Wiley and I sat next to each other approx. 8' from the table
during the last 7 racks...

Sincerely,
John McChesney
Chairman
Texas Express​

As a side note, the thread was started by John Barton when his name was John Collins. Here's a link to the original thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/rec.sport.billiard/suasDYD4r5A

 

[TATE]

I kept an archive of the newsgroup rec.sport.billiard from its creation until June 22, 1998. Here is a posting from John McChesney that has some other information about Earl's run:

From: "John McChesney" <jm@texasexpress.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:21:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Earl´s eleven racks?????
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard

I was the tournament director, along with Robin Adair and Jay Helfert.
Earl and CJ have a suit against the Marketing Continuum, the sports
marketing company representing the PCA, and joint suit against SDS
Underwriting Co.

The PCA has been offered an out of court settlement and refused. They will
win, as it was the marketing company who fouled the insurance contract up.
Have direct info. from the attorney/s, etc.

Earl made 5 (9's) on the break in the run of 11. He racked his own balls
for the first 6, and Jay Helfert racked 7-11. ( Winner rack is a rule per
the PCA Tour and Senior Tour adopted from Texas Express).

I hosted the pre-event player meeting where the rep. from the marketing
company confirmed that the million dollar challenge was on..to all the
players verbally at the player meeting.

The criteria from the insurance company was: when a player ran a rack, he
must call it out "on 1", etc. When the player was at the end of the fifth
rack run, a rep. from the event was to watch all shots, etc. The criteria
stated..the last 5 racks must be taped, and a neutral racker had to be in
place. Jay Helfert racked the last 5, and racks 7,8,9,10 & 11 were taped (
last 5 ). Additionally, 40 plus spectators and players all signed an
affidavit as to what they witnessed. When Earl announced he was on "5"..all
the players participating stopped...and came over to watch. That's the
real deal...CJ Wiley and I sat next to each other approx. 8' from the table
during the last 7 racks...

Sincerely,
John McChesney
Chairman
Texas Express​

As a side note, the thread was started by John Barton when his name was John Collins. Here's a link to the original thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/rec.sport.billiard/suasDYD4r5A

OK so now I understand where you got your numbers.

Although it says five 9's on the break, that just defies logic. Normal odds on 9 on the break, even for Earl, must be like 1 in 30 or 1 in 50 something like that. A loose rack is more prone to 9 on the break, but a loose rack can also be a slug and a dry break.

There aren't many stats on this, but in one of the accu-stats flyers from 1986, they mentioned that Hopkins and Sigel had 237 breaks without making a 9 on the break!

 

[Bob Jewett]

OK so now I understand where you got your numbers.

Although it says five 9's on the break, that just defies logic. Normal odds on 9 on the break, even for Earl, must be like 1 in 30 or something like that. A loose rack is more prone to 9 on the break, but a loose rack can also be a slug and a dry break.

I looked around a little more. Here is a slightly later post from someone who was there. This is from Carl Pearson (who posted a lot like Smorgass Bored, but with multiple personalities, if you can imagine that) who seems to have been ringside. He also wrote for American Cueist magazine.

Some details: The run occurred on Thursday, April 11th, 1996. It was first reported on RSB by Andy Hughes of Las Vegas at about 3:30 Friday morning. There was soon an additional posting by Richard Story of American Cueist.

Here is Carl Pearson's message in response to a question about how many nine balls were made on the break:

From: carl_pearson@---.com (Carl M. Pearson)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:59:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Luck in 14.1 (was Re: Strickland Does It in Dallas)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard

> Anyone know how many combinations and 9-balls-on-the-break
> Strickland made in his match?

5. Five. Cinco. Funf. IveFay. 1-2-3-4-5. Lincoln. 1+1+1+1+1.

Five on the break. Shot from rail. The 9 and 2 other balls would
charge the corner where they would talk it over, cuddle, nuzzle,
elect a victim, and then push the victim into the hole. 5 times
they elected to sacrifice the Niner to gravity.

At least one combo. A 1-9 long combo, the 10th game. Had no other
shot. 9 6-10 inches out from the right foot pocket. 1 about between
sides, about 2/3rds to right. Cue near head string, also to the right.

A 1 slight cut to right, and the 1 into the 9, and the 9 a cut
to the right. Both shallow cuts, but progressively to the right.
He looked it over for a while but really had nothing else to shoot.

Do-or-die, personified.

By the way, he turned out to be a complete jack-ass about it all.
Pouted like a 2-year old when C.J. Wiley was beating him in the
finals. Poor Earl, only 2nd in a Pro event (his group of break-away
pros, too) and accompanying prize money, plus a check for $50k (the first
of 20) and press coverage. And he acts like a cry-baby jerk.

Takes the $50k check. You'd expect a grinning happy camper. Nope,
snatches the check, and walks off, pissed about losing to CJ.

Go Figure.

Carl
​

 

[Luxury]

I looked around a little more. Here is a slightly later post from someone who was there. This is from Carl Pearson (who posted a lot like Smorgass Bored, but with multiple personalities, if you can imagine that) who seems to have been ringside. He also wrote for American Cueist magazine.

Some details: The run occurred on Thursday, April 11th, 1996. It was first reported on RSB by Andy Hughes of Las Vegas at about 3:30 Friday morning. There was soon an additional posting by Richard Story of American Cueist.

Here is Carl Pearson's message in response to a question about how many nine balls were made on the break:

From: carl_pearson@---.com (Carl M. Pearson)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:59:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Luck in 14.1 (was Re: Strickland Does It in Dallas)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard

> Anyone know how many combinations and 9-balls-on-the-break
> Strickland made in his match?

5. Five. Cinco. Funf. IveFay. 1-2-3-4-5. Lincoln. 1+1+1+1+1.

Five on the break. Shot from rail. The 9 and 2 other balls would
charge the corner where they would talk it over, cuddle, nuzzle,
elect a victim, and then push the victim into the hole. 5 times
they elected to sacrifice the Niner to gravity.

At least one combo. A 1-9 long combo, the 10th game. Had no other
shot. 9 6-10 inches out from the right foot pocket. 1 about between
sides, about 2/3rds to right. Cue near head string, also to the right.

A 1 slight cut to right, and the 1 into the 9, and the 9 a cut
to the right. Both shallow cuts, but progressively to the right.
He looked it over for a while but really had nothing else to shoot.

Do-or-die, personified.

By the way, he turned out to be a complete jack-ass about it all.
Pouted like a 2-year old when C.J. Wiley was beating him in the
finals. Poor Earl, only 2nd in a Pro event (his group of break-away
pros, too) and accompanying prize money, plus a check for $50k (the first
of 20) and press coverage. And he acts like a cry-baby jerk.

Takes the $50k check. You'd expect a grinning happy camper. Nope,
snatches the check, and walks off, pissed about losing to CJ.

Go Figure.

Carl
​

Sounds like the type of mentality it takes to win 5 US Opens etc. Cool story tho.

 

[cuesmith]

I may be wrong, but I was always of the opinion that the actuary folks at Texas State had no way to figure this accurately. They had to base their calculations on history. Meaning that they could not really factor in the "million dollar carrot" dangling for someone who could run 10 racks in tournament play, based on history, that did not include that incentive. Since no one had ever had that "million dollar carrot" dangling for them before in tournament play. Normally, I'm sure, Earl would have played a safety or two instead of shooting difficult shots, in order to secure the win, had there not been the big bonus. Just my opinion, and I think I'm on the right track.

Sherm

 

[Bob Jewett]

I may be wrong, but I was always of the opinion that the actuary folks at Texas State had no way to figure this accurately. They had to base their calculations on history. Meaning that they could not really factor in the "million dollar carrot" dangling for someone who could run 10 racks in tournament play, based on history, that did not include that incentive. Since no one had ever had that "million dollar carrot" dangling for them before in tournament play. Normally, I'm sure, Earl would have played a safety or two instead of shooting difficult shots, in order to secure the win, had there not been the big bonus. Just my opinion, and I think I'm on the right track.

Sherm

Yeah, they had no comparable situation to run the numbers on. And they almost certainly had no idea that Earl would, as now seems clear, make five nines on the break and one additional nine with a very tough 1-9 combo.

 

[punter]

A statistics professor was used and the odds were actually 7.8 Million to 1 of anyone EVER doing it....that means for someone to do it the first day the odds were probably like winning a 20 Million Dollar lottery buying 1 ticket or something rediculous like that...I know it's the most incredible thing ever done in pool and after interviewing Earl at Tunica I realize something even more destrurbing.....HE KNEW HE WAS GOING TO DO IT.

On the car ride with his ex wife he looked at her and said "I'm going to do this thing....I'm going to run 10 racks and win the Million".

There's some things he told me in that interview that really made me think. I know one thing, Earl is the only pool player on this planet that could have run those racks under that kind of pressure....I have no doubt about that.

The statistics are interesting, but Earl's confidence that he could do this, then proceeding to do it, is the most amazing thing to me. It accentuates how important the mental part of the game is. It's amazing sometimes the things you can do with the right mental attitude and focus. I've seen it with my own game (never run 11 though). I used to play way under what I was capable of when I played with guys that were a level or two above me, because I felt intimidated.

The point is the mental game is the number one thing in how you play (may seem obvious). Earl had this ability in spades, and IMO, it is what he has been lacking for some of the past few years, for whatever reason. Lately he seems to be playing better and better, so maybe he has some big wins left in him. There's no doubt he has to be regarded as one of the best of all time, IMO.

 

[CJ Wiley]

he has only run 10+ racks twice in his life

...compute these odds for me.
In one of the older accu-stats videos, one of the commentators (don't remember who) were talking about how they were present at this one tournament where Earl ran 6 racks...ran another 5 racks...and then another 6 racks on three different opponents...all in the SAME tournament!

I don't think the law of averages should apply to Earl.

You're right of course, but Earl plays a LOT of 9 ball and he has only run 10+ racks twice in his life.....and in the last 16 years since he did it I haven't heard of anyone doing it again either....in practice OR in a tournament...I can see in a tournament, but you would think someone would have done it gambling or practicing.....I think Johnny Archer did it against Bustemante, but I don't think he's done it sense either.....just sayin :wink:

 

[SakuJack]

Yeah, they had no comparable situation to run the numbers on. And they almost certainly had no idea that Earl would, as now seems clear, make five nines on the break and one additional nine with a very tough 1-9 combo.

Eh, all we have on the number of nines made on the break are conflicting reports. Some say nine, some say two or three; I'd hardly say it's clear how many were made.

 

[jay helfert]

Hi Jay,

In the original post by John McChesney, he states:

By the way .. Earl was playing Nick Mannino in the match and the final score was 15-1.​

Was John mistaken?

Were there only two early nines? I sure remember 5 from the reports at the time.

Sorry Bob, that may have been due to my sometimes faulty memory. I do remember discussing this with CJ and my thoughts that Races to 15 (in a DE event) were way too long. At that time Races to 11 were standard in major tournaments. I argued for Races to 13 but CJ insisted on the longer races. I think he believed it gave him an advantage as one of the better players at the time. And maybe it did, especially on tight equipment, which is what he had at CJ's Billiard Palace where the tournament was held. After all, CJ did end up winning the tournament and I believe the 20 grand first prize. I though it was a very classy gesture by CJ to present Earl with the first $50,000 check right there, especially since it was coming out of his own pocket!

All that said, I had directed Earl in many tournaments in the 80's and 90's when he was unquestionably the most dominant tournament player, along with Mike Sigel. Earl's greatest strength was his ability to run racks! NO ONE ran racks in tournament play like Earl. He regularly (like in every match) put fives, sixes and sevens on people! Yes you heard me right, he did it all the time. I can remember countless matches where Earl would leave his opponent in the chair for long periods of time. He might trail a Nick Varner by something like 7-2 and the next time Nick comes to the table he's behind 9-7. This kind of thing happened a lot with Earl and it was very disheartening to his opponents. Rarely did Earl play a match back then and not have one run of five racks or more!

So this made him the most qualified to run ten racks. But even with all that amazing ability, I never thought anyone would come close on the tight ass tables at CJ's. I don't think anyone ran three racks that day prior to Earls record run. Now let me share a little more with you. Earl was a pool genius, a savant for this game. He figured out little nuances that gave him an advantage all the time. He practiced the break shot (that being the key to long runs) on that particular table prior to the start of the match. He somehow figured out a way to make the nine go toward the corner pocket every time. Remember he was racking (think Donny Mills) every time! When I got to the table after the first five racks, several people told me Earl had made the nine on the break either two or three times already. Turns out he did make it twice and one time it hung up close to the corner and he combo'd it in. Basically he had the rack wired. And that is probably why he wouldn't let me rack the balls for game six, literally pushing me out of the way. I watched him break and sure enough the nine headed toward the corner pocket again. I was determined not to let that happen when I racked the balls. And it didn't. He never made the nine ball on racks seven through eleven! I locked that rack down tighter than jailhouse handcuffs. Earl was not happy with me or my racks and let me know it. I was no longer putting up the perfect rack for him.

Somehow he still managed to run those last four racks and make the nine on a superlative combo to win game ten. Like CJ said it was a good thing he ran the eleventh rack as well. Turns out he needed it to collect the money. I racked that one as well. After that Earl and Nick took over and racked for the rest of the match. A petition was passed around and all the people who witnessed the entire run signed it. Remember this was Earl and he always drew large crowds to his matches, so there were dozens of witnesses.