Fair enough. I know Lou might think I read all his posts but I don't.
CSI-Mark Griffin First Response
- Thread starter Mark Griffin
- Start date
- Status
Hardly Lou. I was responding to another person.
You had the chance to flip it and you did not. You were asked to play again right then and you left. So don't start down roads you don't want to travel and don't even think about talking about honor after you failed to honor what we discussed.
You are truly nuts.
You did not ask to go again or I would have said yes. All my side heard about, on tape, is that your wife wouldn't let you bet any more and that you'd just made a big investment in your company.
Saying you asked to play again falls into the same category of you saying Dennis Spears wasn't coaching you. If you want to talk about honor you can start with that. Honoring anything else is figment of your imagination.
Lou Figueroa
You were asked to play again. Do you deny that? You might deny it but you were asked. Anyway, regardless, I will ask you to play officially on here when I am ready to post up $20,000 of my own money. You can then decide to say yes or no in front of everyone and no need to argue about what cannot be proven either way.
And with that you can have the last word Lou....I responded to someone else's comments about how they would play you and in my opinion it is 100% true that NO ONE will back you for serious money against a player. If you have a backer who will put you in the box for 10k or more against anyone better than me (which is a lot of people) then by all means make those game and earn that money. But we both know the truth of it. I know the truth is uncomfortable but that's how it is. Hell no one wanted me in the calcutta last night and I didn't even want to buy half of the $10 minimum bid I had on myself.
Lastly, about Dennis, if he was coaching me then he must be the worst one pocket player on earth because I made the wrong move dozens of times after he sat down in my corner. To include even shooting at the wrong hole giving you the win in one game. So if I were you I would INSIST that Dennis coach me if you ever find the backing to go again.
Now, I promise that you can say whatever you want to say to and about me and I won't respond. Let it all out. In deference to your situation with Gail, whatever that is, I am done with you. Not that you ever cared what any of my personal family trials have been, none of which ever stopped you from ragging on me. But unlike you I do have some decency and honor and decorum Lou. I hope that Gail makes a full recovery and that both of you can enjoy a long life together.
Again, thank you for the action. It was an experience that I will treasure forever. I learned a lot about myself, about one pocket and about high stakes action.
Last edited:
No they don't. Everyone is pretty free to be as much of an asshole as they want to be and some folks exercise that freedom as often as they can get away with.
What I enjoy most is seeing how those assholes shrivel up into tiny little balls of polite civility when they are confronted in person. The transformation is amazing. I expect to see a 7 foot hulk mass of steroids with Rambo ammo belts and two 50 cals in hand and what I get are polite civil people who seem to be quite normal and friendly.
Funny how the world works like that. Only Freddy the Beard was meaner in person than he was online....
RIP Freddy, you were and will always be a one of a kind and someone who was true to your values on and off line.
lol, No one ever said letting the facts get in the way was a fact-or.
It appears that I am one of the people that you were directing this post to. If this is not correct then my apologies and please disregard the following.
There have been 1,761 threads regarding this fiasco. Within those threads were bunches of people (many of whom being the same old Mark/CSI haters with an agenda) insinuating or accusing you of being a fraud, acting in bad faith and with bad intent, trying to screw one particular player, trying to play favorites with another particular player, having total disregard for the integrity of the event and the sport, etc, etc, etc. I think you and others have lumped me in with that group in your minds, probably because you were so worked up and hyper sensitive (and somewhat understandably so) by the time I entered late in the conversation that you were no longer taking the time to carefully read and comprehend the things being posted. You certainly didn't with my posts anyway. Fact is I have been a part of none of those types of things.
Here are the facts:
-I am not opposed to you, the BCAPL, or CSI in any way, shape, or form. In fact I am supportive of you and the BCAPL/CSI in general and can point to any number of posts saying so. I have even very recently defended you vehemently and repeatedly in a number of threads where many if not most of the posters were against you and attacking you. Threads on the Rodney Morris situation and threads on your choice of challenge match formats for this very same event are a couple of recent thread examples among others.
-I was not involved in any of the other 1,760 threads on this fiasco. This is the first and only thread I commented in.
-Nowhere have I ever disagreed with your choice to move the 2nd place finisher up to take Ralf's place. In fact I explicitly said there is logic in your decision. I am not one of the people that is upset with your decisions/choices in this matter and have never criticized them.
I have essentially said one thing, and one thing only. That it appears that whoever issued the check was at that moment for whatever reason under the impression that Ralf was getting credit for finishing in the third place position and his place was being taken by a bye. I even said that I can understand how it could easily occur under the sudden circumstances that transpired. And I only even brought it up to begin with for the sake of accuracy/transparency in response to someone that said the check was given to Ralf in error, as if the error were a typo or the like. So what exactly do you find to be the big deal about this? I have not disparaged you in any way, and I haven't disagreed with any of the decisions you made.
For the world of me I can't understand why you don't just say "at the time Ralf withdrew we didn't yet have a plan for this exact type of thing in place and the person cutting the check had to make an initial snap decision and they went with treating it as if Ralf got 3rd and Ko was getting a bye, but then after we got a chance to actually think it out we decided for the integrity of the event that only paying Ralf 5th-8th and moving the 2nd place group finisher up to replace him was actually the best course of action." Or you could just say "prior to the check being cut some of us had quickly discussed it and we had already made the executive decision that if the winner of a group stage withdraws before the start of their semi-final match that person should only get 5th-8th and the next best finisher from his group is to be moved up to play the semi-final match, but the person issuing the check wasn't yet aware this plan was in place (for whatever the reason the word never made it to them) and instead of checking with someone to verify what to do for sure in a circumstance like this the person issuing the check just made an assumption on how they figured we would handle it and went with it. When I found out what they did I set them straight on the decision that had already been made but that we had failed to communicate to them, and then we immediately started taking action to correct it." Whichever the case, neither is that big of a deal under the circumstances. There is no reason not to just say so.
I will just ask you directly. If you really are still insistent that it didn't happen in one of the ways mentioned above, it would clear up the understandable confusion in many people's minds if you would explain who it was that issued the check, how it was that they forgot to tell Ralf that he was only going to be paid 5th-8th place instead of 3rd place, and then how they then proceeded to also issue a check in the wrong amount that by total coincidence just so happened to be the exact same amount that Ralf would have gotten if he was being given credit for having taken third place and his place was being taken by a bye. Thanks.
As I said above, I never disagreed with your decision, and actually quite the contrary. You lumped me in with the wrong group because you failed to read carefully.
Last edited:
There was nothing out of context about what I quoted. The point I was discussing was that the person that cut the check was for whatever reason operating under the impression of a different format than what they ultimately went with for the event. I quoted this line from you, which said the exact same thing I was trying to say but I thought you worded it well:
"The CSI "error" that he was paid 3/4th makes it seem that there was at least one person at CSI that thought Ralf was the man that had progressed from his bracket."
And here is your full post:
"That is something I am very interested in watching to see.
The CSI "error" that he was paid 3/4th makes it seem that there was at least one person at CSI that thought Ralf was the man that had progressed from his bracket.
I agree with CSI completely on the fact that Ralf caught them completely out of left field on this one and massively screwed them and put them in a bad spot.
The "withdrawl" thing "seems" a little like reverse engineering the whole thing. If that was in place right from the getgo then the instant Ralf said "I gotta go, I quit" they would have been in a position to respond "OK, fine, you get 5th/8th place money Ralf and SVB gets your spot".
It was a crap situation, and I am still with SJM in disagreeing on the way CSI went on this but I am also of the mind that CSI DOES have the ultimate right to make the call as they see fit because they are running the show.
The final conclusion I have in all of this? Ralf owes CSI $1000. I am very interested to see if he pays them.""
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=4830169#post4830169
Nothing about the rest of your post changes the part I quoted. You believed that the person that cut the check was acting under the impression of the wrong format and they thought Ralf was the man who had advanced from his group.
You can back pedal with Mark all you want, or say you changed your mind and no longer feel that way if you want, but don't try to put it on me that I took you out of context. I quoted exactly what you said, and in the context in which you said it.
Mark's mistake was trying to explain, what need no explanation. It was like Mark tying to justify the action of laying off an employee, where there was no union contract to guide him, and point to after the face.
There was nothing wrong with Dennis' coaching -- you just couldn't execute. Nothing to do with the quality of his instruction, whispered to you while he was slouched down behind a pillar, covering his mouth with his hands.
You did not ask me to play again for $20 much less $20k.
It is interesting to note that it took you four months to have the guts to fabricate and try and float this little lie. If I had actually done so after the match you would have been *all over it* from the get go: Lou refused to flip it. Lou refused to let me go again. Lou wouldn't give me a shot at my dough. And so on and so forth.
Moments before we started you wouldn't take a lousy $100 side bet that was shouted out to you ringside. You wouldn't honor the $500 a game side bet we had. You didn't "stack it" to a $30K cap. You canceled all side bets on the flimsiest of excuses. And now, magically, months later, you had another $20K to bet and I refused to take the bet after having just beat you 9-6 for $10K?!
You're a joke.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
Whew, good thing he's done with you and won't respond.:rotflmao1:
Yep. Not here.
Scenario 1). You're afraid to call him.
Scenario 2). You're afraid to call him.
Scenario 3). All of the above.
Preserved.
- Status