John and Lou, the plain truth

Lou,
Well done on a bunch of points:
  1. During months leading up to match you kept out of it for the most part (I'm not sure I would have been able)
  2. Well done in stepping up for what you believed in
  3. Well done in executing under the pressure of a high dollar match
  4. Well done in winning in an almost can't win scenario

The ironic part is that in the end you out shot the "system" which for me was the ultimate win. This "I'm making balls from everywhere and can't miss" statements went down in flames. For those of us who have hit our million balls and understand that you need to adjust for a about six factors AND you still need rock solid fundamentals that can be repeated on demand and under fire get it. The ones that yell they found magic and your just a "hater" never will. Good for you and good for the rest of us "quiet majority".

We congratulate and thank you. Fundamentals 1 System 0.

Nick B
 
Last edited:
shinobi said:
Clearly, TATE won't have access to either your or John's family financial records or awareness of other issues that may (or may not have) developed as a result of your match with John. Therefore, it will be impossible for him to answer the challenge with the evidence you are asking for.

But, I have a solution!

I propose that you two settle this like men on the pool table. How about One Pocket, race to 9, for $10,000 a man? I hear Sandcastle Billiards has the facilities for such a match, and you could even stream it.

This will become the de facto way of resolving all disputes on AZBilliards :D
Click to expand...


LOL!

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
[...]
I challenge TATE or any one of those people who gave him green in approval or agreement to come forward with any evidence to support either of us having jeopardized our family's welfare in any way with this bet.
[...]
Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

I'm going to have a new vanity license plate made:

WUZN ME

-Sean <-- always thought you two were responsible adults that had (or still have) successful careers and obviously know a thing or two about finances
 
Nick B said:
Lou,
Well done on a bunch of points:
  1. During months leading up to match you kept out of it for the most part (I'm not sure I would have been able)
  2. Well done in stepping up for what you believed it
  3. Well done in executing under the pressure of a high dollar match
  4. Well done in winning in an almost can't win scenario

The ironic part is that in the end you out shot the "system" which for me was the ultimate win. This "I'm making balls from everywhere and can't miss" statements went down in flames. For those of us who have hit our million balls and understand that you need to adjust for a about six factors AND you still need rock solid fundamentals that can be repeated on demand and under fire get it. The ones that yell they found magic and your just a "hater" never will. Good for you and good for the rest of us "quiet majority".

We congratulate and thank you. Fundamentals 1 System 0.

Nick B
Click to expand...

Thanks, Nick. You have expressed many valid points I probably would avoid saying in the interest of "keeping the peace."

Lou Figueroa
not that I don't
fully agree :-)
 
sfleinen said:
I'm going to have a new vanity license plate made:

WUZN ME

-Sean <-- always thought you two were responsible adults that had (or still have) successful careers and obviously know a thing or two about finances
Click to expand...


Sean made a funny.

Lou Figueroa
 
Nick B said:
Lou,
Well done on a bunch of points:
  1. During months leading up to match you kept out of it for the most part (I'm not sure I would have been able)
  2. Well done in stepping up for what you believed it
  3. Well done in executing under the pressure of a high dollar match
  4. Well done in winning in an almost can't win scenario

The ironic part is that in the end you out shot the "system" which for me was the ultimate win. This "I'm making balls from everywhere and can't miss" statements went down in flames. For those of us who have hit our million balls and understand that you need to adjust for a about six factors AND you still need rock solid fundamentals that can be repeated on demand and under fire get it. The ones that yell they found magic and your just a "hater" never will. Good for you and good for the rest of us "quiet majority".

We congratulate and thank you. Fundamentals 1 System 0.

Nick B
Click to expand...

John made two mistakes

1. Not spending enough time on his fundamentals leading up to the match.
2. Agreeing to play one pocket.

Now I'm a Pro One user, and a firm believer that the system works exactly as advertised It's no magic bullet, and while it has a lot to offer anyone that takes on the challenge of learning it, at it's core it's a ball pocketing system.

One pocket was not the best game for John, because one pocket is not a run out game. Even the best Pro One user with the best fundamentals might not come out ahead against someone that moves really well. Although I wasn't all that impressed with Lou's moving game, it was very obvious that he had the edge over John in that department.
 
Great responses by Lou and JB in this thread.

The plain truth is that there is nothing pitiful about stepping out from behind the screen, putting your dough in the middle, and putting yourself out there for people to see.

The only thing pitiful that I see is that this thread was started by someone who has no insight into the finances of either guy and hasn't even met them.
 
BeiberLvr said:
John made two mistakes

1. Not spending enough time on his fundamentals leading up to the match.
2. Agreeing to play one pocket.

Now I'm a Pro One user, and a firm believer that the system works exactly as advertised It's no magic bullet, and while it has a lot to offer anyone that takes on the challenge of learning it, at it's core it's a ball pocketing system.

One pocket was not the best game for John, because one pocket is not a run out game. Even the best Pro One user with the best fundamentals might not come out ahead against someone that moves really well. Although I wasn't all that impressed with Lou's moving game, it was very obvious that he had the edge over John in that department.
Click to expand...

1. Game wouldn't matter. Skill set won. Nothing more.
2. See number 1.

One Pocket is not a "Run Out Game" I suggest you check your facts. I would argue of all the major pool games 8/9/10 Ball, 14.1 and 1PK. 1-Hole is the least of the straight offense games. Nobody ever ran 100 in 14.1 on defense. Now 1PK today is more HP than just Chicago style squeeze and bump. Styles and tactics evolve in all games.

Nick B
 
Nick B said:
Lou,
Well done on a bunch of points:
  1. During months leading up to match you kept out of it for the most part (I'm not sure I would have been able)
  2. Well done in stepping up for what you believed it
  3. Well done in executing under the pressure of a high dollar match
  4. Well done in winning in an almost can't win scenario

The ironic part is that in the end you out shot the "system" which for me was the ultimate win. This "I'm making balls from everywhere and can't miss" statements went down in flames. For those of us who have hit our million balls and understand that you need to adjust for a about six factors AND you still need rock solid fundamentals that can be repeated on demand and under fire get it. The ones that yell they found magic and your just a "hater" never will. Good for you and good for the rest of us "quiet majority".

We congratulate and thank you. Fundamentals 1 System 0.

Nick B
Click to expand...

You are so wrong. System users have never discounted fundamentals. Only guys like you have put words in our mouths.

I am the worst example of a system user because I am too lazy and too busy to work endlessly on my stroke.

Pat Fleming complimented me on the banks and I said to him I only hit the ball where the system puts me.

An aiming system like a cue is only a tool. It does not take the shot. Only the player does that.

I want to add that a rising tide lifts all boats. I firmly believe that most good players could be even better if they could aim better. Many players have better form than me but they dont come with the shots.

I understand that you and Lou have a burned in permanent belief that systems don't work but they do.

If you don't think so Nick then you can pick any game on a regulation pool table and play Stan Shuffett and I don't think you will like it.

And I honestly don't think Lou would find any backers willing to bet this high against Stan. Which is only said because when you put up a player with rock solid fundamentals who also has the advantage of a better way to aim then then that player simply has a much larger arsenal of shots he can confidently take and make.

Lastly I have never ever said anyone must use a system to play. I have said that you can certainly get there through brute force practice, most do.
 
Last edited:
Lou,

I assumed that when you had to check with your "backers" you weren't willing to put up your own. Odd, since you had the nuts, so I figured you couldn't afford to gamble 10K

Anyway, you both acted childishly throughout the posts and banter - trying to get under each others skins. Yes, pitiful for a mature man. Plus you baited John and egged him on.

I hope that you found this moment rewarding. You got your revenge on John Barton. That makes you big.


Chris
 
Last edited:
You can put the best gun with the best of scopes in anyone's hands
But at the end of the day it's the shooter that makes the shot a good one


1
 
I have to salute John and Lou both. I've known them both through the 'Net for many years. I'm glad this happened, I think it was good for both of them and for many of the rest of us as well. And, I don't wish to discuss it!
Again, kudos to both of you!
Damn, I can't rep either one of you!
 
lfigueroa said:
I challenge TATE or any one of those people who gave him green in approval or agreement to come forward with any evidence to support either of us having jeopardized our family's welfare in any way with this bet.

Let's see what you've got. Or are you the pitiful ones?
Click to expand...

I gave Tate a greenie, but I never came out and said either of you jeopardized your family or even yourselves. Am I pitiful? If so, why?

I have many reasons why I think this was an absurd amount of cabbage to toss around like you are both seasoned professional gamblers. Part of it is growing up with a gambler dad and bookie uncles. Denial runs deep in gamblers. My dad never accepted that he lost my college education over the course of many years of gambling, and he wasn't even a high roller like you two want to be.

$10K lost is $10K that could have been put to better use somewhere else. That's not a value judgment, it's just a fact. But I never once said you don't have the right to risk that much of your own money.

I actually liked watching the match a lot, and saw just about every shot made the first night, but I would have found it much more appealing if you had agreed to a figure 1/10th as large as the one you decided upon. That would have at least felt like a reasonable and realistic wager.
 
I could lose $10K without any effect on me BUT psychologically i just cant do anywhere near that. At $500 i'd be shaking but for these 2 guys it was a once in a lifetime thing (maybe twice) anyway so no biggie.
 
Last edited:
Sloppy Pockets said:
I gave Tate a greenie, but I never came out and said either of you jeopardized your family or even yourselves. Am I pitiful? If so, why?

I have many reasons why I think this was an absurd amount of cabbage to toss around like you are both seasoned professional gamblers. Part of it is growing up with a gambler dad and bookie uncles. Denial runs deep in gamblers. My dad never accepted that he lost my college education over the course of many years of gambling, and he wasn't even a high roller like you two want to be.

$10K lost is $10K that could have been put to better use somewhere else. That's not a value judgment, it's just a fact. But I never once said you don't have the right to risk that much of your own money.

I actually liked watching the match a lot, and saw just about every shot made the first night, but I would have found it much more appealing if you had agreed to a figure 1/10th as large as the one you decided upon. That would have at least felt like a reasonable and realistic wager.
Click to expand...

Like the OP, you're not smart enough to see the difference between gambling money and everyday money.
 
BeiberLvr said:
John made two mistakes

1. Not spending enough time on his fundamentals leading up to the match.
2. Agreeing to play one pocket.

Now I'm a Pro One user, and a firm believer that the system works exactly as advertised It's no magic bullet, and while it has a lot to offer anyone that takes on the challenge of learning it, at it's core it's a ball pocketing system.

One pocket was not the best game for John, because one pocket is not a run out game. Even the best Pro One user with the best fundamentals might not come out ahead against someone that moves really well. Although I wasn't all that impressed with Lou's moving game, it was very obvious that he had the edge over John in that department.
Click to expand...

This might make sense except that you said:

"One pocket was not the best game for John, because one pocket is not a run out game."

and if you look at the match stats by AtLarge:


• Lou had 8 runs of more than 3 balls, and he won all 7 games in which those runs occurred. John had just 1 run of more than 3 balls (a run of 5), and he won that game.

.......... Lou had runs of 7 balls (2 times), 6 balls (1), 5 balls (3), 4 balls (2), 3 balls (6), 2 balls (6), and 1 ball (45, including 9 by John)

.......... John had runs of 5 balls (1), 3 balls (7), 2 balls (11), and 1 ball (38, including 10 by Lou)

John's inability to run balls greatly hampered his effort.

Lou didn't by any stretch out move John he out shot him.

John also sold out way to many times, as the games when he didn't
that lasted longer than 36 mins. according to the stats John won
5 out of 6 of them.

"John won 5 of the 6 games that lasted longer than 36 minutes; Lou won 8 of the 9 games that lasted less than 36 minutes."

Also according to the stats above, when he sold out, he lost 8 out of the 9 games and they were fast games because he
sold out and the fact that when he sold out Lou could run balls.
 
Last edited:
itsfroze said:
This might make sense except that you said:

"One pocket was not the best game for John, because one pocket is not a run out game."

and if you look at the match stats by AtLarge:


• Lou had 8 runs of more than 3 balls, and he won all 7 games in which those runs occurred. John had just 1 run of more than 3 balls (a run of 5), and he won that game.

.......... Lou had runs of 7 balls (2 times), 6 balls (1), 5 balls (3), 4 balls (2), 3 balls (6), 2 balls (6), and 1 ball (45, including 9 by John)

.......... John had runs of 5 balls (1), 3 balls (7), 2 balls (11), and 1 ball (38, including 10 by Lou)

John's inability to run balls greatly hampered his effort.

Lou didn't by any stretch out move John in out shot him.
Click to expand...

Running out in one pocket comes way of two opportunities, and sometimes they are one in the same.

Either you outmove your opponent, and create that opportunity to run balls. Or your opponent sells out and gives you the opportunity to run balls.

I agree with Nick B that the game is much more offensive minded today, but until guys are winning more than half their games with 8 and outs, then it's not a run out game and moving well will still be considered the most important factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top