Like "There was a crooked man" ?
There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together in a little crooked house.
14.1 -- Placement of the Players and Prize Fund
- Thread starter FranCrimi
- Start date
Like "There was a crooked man" ?
There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together in a little crooked house.
Good question I guess but I can't help but feel that they only come up at certain times, and usually based on how someone "or some people" feel about that person. I guess when you don't know it easy to just go about your business but it usually takes something to happen for people to now go "Shame, Shame, Shame".
Without a specific incident it's really just "oh well" to some and "cool, glad we still have XYZ going on cause there would be nothing" to others, so the Open get's heat and 14.1 gets heat and CSI goes from "wow, thanks to CSI" to "they are crooks, fixing the format to suit their horse".
America is flawed and will remain so, so until something about the other events in other countries come out in the open they will be the "why can't it all be like this events"
Again, great question just wish they were raised during time of peace.
Without a specific incident it's really just "oh well" to some and "cool, glad we still have XYZ going on cause there would be nothing" to others, so the Open get's heat and 14.1 gets heat and CSI goes from "wow, thanks to CSI" to "they are crooks, fixing the format to suit their horse".
America is flawed and will remain so, so until something about the other events in other countries come out in the open they will be the "why can't it all be like this events"
Again, great question just wish they were raised during time of peace.
Well, we're not at war so I imagine you mean that these questions tend to come up when there are suspicions around particular events. By 'America,' I'm assuming you mean the United States and not Canada, Mexico, South America and Central America, which are also a part of America.
Having served on the Board of the WPA, I can assure you that there are problems in other countries as well. People in forums such as this may not know or care about them, but you can take it to the bank that they exist.
What drew my attention to this issue was the discussion here of Mike Dechaine's ranking change from 3rd to 15th. I wondered how that can be under any circumstance.
That's why I'm asking the question. So far there hasn't been an answer explaining what the formulas are for the event.
It's a simple question. If it were a WPBA event, the answer would have been immediate because they use formulas for their events, and they stick to them. They are a United States organization and for many years, the best women's organization in the world. Their demise had to do with a suffering economy and sponsors no longer able to afford their support. But it wasn't due to corruption or improper practices of the organization. So, clearly the problem you're referring to isn't "AMERICA." It's who's calling the shots for a group or an event.
Last edited:
Unfortunately practically anyone can start a tourney and call it just about anything they want. Its the beauty and curse of the free enterprise system. And also unfortunately, scruples, tact, integrity and ethics are not legislated by law.
What can be done? The WPA could and should have Charlie Williams and his event investigated for fraud and/or raqueteering. They could also apply pressure to the sponsors, patrons, players and venue by informing them of everything that is wrong with the legitimacy of the event and the resulting lack of meaning behind the title.
The players and fans are somewhat loyal to a fault, and it's hard to blame them for not rocking the boat with so few events to chose from, however, I'm sure they would/could all change their minds if someone else simply produced a better event. But as it stands right now, they won't look a gifthorse in the mouth, and with good reason. They are the last of the Mohicans, the keepers of the holy grail, so who really wants to take away the one thing they have left.
I really don't want to. I have lots of friends in the pool world, many of which, including myself, who are fans of the game, so it pains me to even say these things knowing that they will look at me as a traitor or backstabbing muckraker. But as much as I love them and this game, I can't just look away once again and shrug, because it makes me sick.
Maybe my expectations are too high. Maybe I'm just a goody-two-shoes who doesn't want to face the reality of modern society. Maybe I just have it all wrong and Charlie is a saint who is simply misunderstood. I'm certainly not the President, the Pope, or God, so I have no right to judge or convict anyone, but I am a lover of the game and the spirit of competition with integrity = meaning: may the best man win, but, when there's a lingering dark cloud of doubt cast over the event such as it is now, nobody should be proud of complacency. It goes against everything I, and you, stand for.
Stop the train, I want off.
Wow.
When I read this my first thought was that Charlie Williams can do whatever he wants. It's his tournament and if people agree to pay and play, they agree to his terms.
But what you said here reminded me that the FBI has just indicted FIFA leaders. If Charlie Williams is manipulating seeds to make money, it may be illegal, for all I know.
BTW, I liked your discussion of seeding on ABR - I personally think the general concept of seeding makes sense. I think about the college basketball brackets. You don't want all the best teams knocking each other out early and then having an easy ride to the finals. You want the best to meet late in the bracket. But of course it has to be done fairly and transparently. Fargo ratings?
Hey gang, just a heads up. While we are chatting away on here, this tournament is being decided ON THE TABLE by some of the best players in the world! As it should be.
Say what you want about Charlie, but he (and his STAFF!) deliver some pretty decent events in terms of production qualities, venue and caliber of field. If I were in New York (or even close) I damn sure would be there watching right now. :thumbup:
Say what you want about Charlie, but he (and his STAFF!) deliver some pretty decent events in terms of production qualities, venue and caliber of field. If I were in New York (or even close) I damn sure would be there watching right now. :thumbup:
What does that have to do with legitimacy?
Wow.
Yep. For sure. Wow.
Many promoters have been staking players for years and most of the time the promoter is doing the seedings and brackets. These promoters have been doing the same thing for years and most of the time the top players are involved. It's been going on for many years. Johnnyt
Last edited:
Yes. True...absolutely true.
Charlie Williams has a "piece" of about half the field in this "World 14.1 Tournament".
Have I seen or heard him make these deals with the players? No.
But I know this to be true. It's common knowledge when it involves Charlie and his tournaments. Just like I know the light inside my fridge goes out when the door is closed. I've never actually seen the light go out, but I know it does.
The initial seeding of the tournament was done by Charlie.
After the round-robin round and the double elimination round, the seeding for the single elimination round was determined as follows: the player with the best record was seeded #1 (Shane) and he played the player with the worst record, #16 seed (Harriman). Then #2 played #15, #3 played #14, etc. This method of seeding is an old method that is easily understood and generally accepted.
What is not easily understood and accepted was the initial seeding, done by Charlie.
That's why the brouhaha developed when Charlie re-calculated the seeding once Mike Dechaine decided that he would enter the tournament sans Mr. Williams' financial involvement.
It is clear that Charlie will win without even having to pocket a ball.
To call this a "World" Tournament is a disgrace.
However, I must admit that I enjoy watching straight pool played at this level.
So does that mean I'm a hypocrite?
Last edited: