Coz the belt just holds up your pants and you can't get blood from a stone.Why wouldn't you give the video away and market your image?
Whom do you envision sending the cash to John for use of his accomplishment?
pool in the low zone:
Coz the belt just holds up your pants and you can't get blood from a stone.Why wouldn't you give the video away and market your image?
Re: collusion...I think there is more than 0% likelihood of it.It sounds like the UPA had some looser definition of "securing the funds", and after this mess, changed it to mean "hold the funds", and added "starting now".
As for "collusion", I think there would have to be actual point-to-it evidence, not just allegations. Particularly where it sounds like some of the major players in this mess never could agree on a statement of facts.
I would need to see an unedited video provided to me to view in my home before i could believe anything like that ever happened.Sure, and the non-payment in Norfolk and subsequent failures by the UPA are pretty well documented.
I like it!I would need to see an unedited video provided to me to view in my home before i could believe anything like that ever happened.
Since the video doesnt exist it obviously didnt happen.
He wasn't wearing a 'Danny Harriman Signature Tin-foil Hat'.Can we get a summary of all the accusations made and aspersions cast in this and other threads?
Off the top of my head:
- He cheated
- He must have fouled at some point
- The balls were too shiny
- The cloth was too slick
- The cue ball was cleaned between racks
- The balls weren't the same as what Willie used
- The rack they used is not OK
- The racker cheated
- He didn't do it in front of an audience
- He didn't do it in a game against another player
- The pockets were too big
- The table was not standard
- The table was rounded near the pockets to accept balls more easily
- The slate had other secret alterations to make it easier to make balls
- They broke down the table to hide the evidence
- We don't know the exact dimensions of the table
- The table wasn't a Diamond / other standard tournament table
- If he really did it the video would be free
- If he really did it the video would be on sale
- Bob Jewett and the BCA and Predator are part of a conspiracy to lie about the run
- They fast forwarded some of the run in public showings
- The public showings weren't public enough
- You had to buy a ticket to the public showing
- He made too many attempts
- He shouldn't have been making attempts in the first place, it should have just happened naturally like with Willie
What else?
Some of the points made may have some validity in any case is there any reason why this video hasn’t been for public consumption at this point? Just wondering,,,,Can we get a summary of all the accusations made and aspersions cast in this and other threads?
Off the top of my head:
- He cheated
- He must have fouled at some point
- The balls were too shiny
- The cloth was too slick
- The cue ball was cleaned between racks
- The balls weren't the same as what Willie used
- The rack they used is not OK
- The racker cheated
- He didn't do it in front of an audience
- He didn't do it in a game against another player
- The pockets were too big
- The table was not standard
- The table was rounded near the pockets to accept balls more easily
- The slate had other secret alterations to make it easier to make balls
- They broke down the table to hide the evidence
- We don't know the exact dimensions of the table
- The table wasn't a Diamond / other standard tournament table
- If he really did it the video would be free
- If he really did it the video would be on sale
- Bob Jewett and the BCA and Predator are part of a conspiracy to lie about the run
- They fast forwarded some of the run in public showings
- The public showings weren't public enough
- You had to buy a ticket to the public showing
- He made too many attempts
- He shouldn't have been making attempts in the first place, it should have just happened naturally like with Willie
- The video was manipulated after the fact
What else?
Cause JS owns it and can do with it what he wants.Some of the points made may have some validity in any case is there any reason why this video hasn’t been for public consumption at this point? Just wondering,,,,
Obviously he can do want he wants with it, but wouldn’t it behoove him to just release it. I thinks he’s monetized it as much as he’s going to at this point. He might do himself to get it out there, he can’t sit on it forever!Cause JS owns it and can do with it what he wants.
Sure he can. Seriously doubt other's approval is super high on his list. I have no doubt that he did it. For me it was put to bed month's ago.Obviously he can do want he wants with it, but wouldn’t it behoove him to just release it. I thinks he’s monetized it as much as he’s going to at this point. He might do himself to get it out there, he can’t sit on it forever!
Let's go all the way back, even before the record breaking run:The table was heated
I suspect that his credibility IS (or should be) very high on his list as he wants well deserved recognithin for this incredible thing he accomplished. And it for this reason that he should release this video unless he does have something to hide, Wouldn’t that be the logical thing to do?Sure he can. Seriously doubt other's approval is super high on his list. I have no doubt that he did it. For me it was put to bed month's ago.
It is available for public consumption. When John does a show he presents the video and talks about the run.Some of the points made may have some validity in any case is there any reason why this video hasn’t been for public consumption at this point? Just wondering,,,,
Why would people say he monetized it as much as he can? I fully disagree with that and would bet that I could book a show a week at 1000-1500 plus expenses for John.Obviously he can do want he wants with it, but wouldn’t it behoove him to just release it. I thinks he’s monetized it as much as he’s going to at this point. He might do himself to get it out there, he can’t sit on it forever!
Was that the same event where the referee kicked Earl out for talking?I don't expect Danny will rehash a major moment in his pool life, but I believe his issue with Charlie Williams is pretty damn justified.
Charlie, as head of the UPA, made promises to players about the benefits derived from membership in the organization; specifically, guaranteed tourney payment.
Danny finished in the money at a UPA sanctioned even and didn't get paid. The UPA neither secured the payout from the promoter pre event, nor did it pay him (2k?) the prize he earned, nor did it successfully lobby to get him paid in the longer run.
In fact, the UPA's position was that Danny needed to make his membership payment again to be considered worthy of further inclusion in the association.
Danny might be bullheaded, but the fact is that he was betrayed directly by the association he belonged to, which failed him (and the sport) miserably.
No idea, sorry.Was that the same event where the referee kicked Earl out for talking?