Allison is in the 9 ball at the DCC. Predictions?
- Thread starter Terry Ardeno
- Start date
ummmmm.....
Ok so wouldn't that mean that your argument lacks substance then??? If you're stating that a top name touring pro is a has been, loose translation, and a top touring pro is a currently successful player, then waht you are saying is that Allison fisher had a couple of decisive victories over has beens????
So have I..... That doesn't mean I can go out and compete on the men's tour successfully....
av84fun said:
Ok so wouldn't that mean that your argument lacks substance then??? If you're stating that a top name touring pro is a has been, loose translation, and a top touring pro is a currently successful player, then waht you are saying is that Allison fisher had a couple of decisive victories over has beens????
So have I..... That doesn't mean I can go out and compete on the men's tour successfully....
BPG24 said:
Actually, that is one of the great myths of pool matches. But I understand why it is so wide held due to the intuitive nature of the statement.
But if that were true, then Allison could not have won more WPBA tournaments than all other competitors....combined.
On the WPBA...at least in the last several years, the preliminary matches are races to 9 (hardly long races) and the semis and finals are races to 7.
Sure, the lesser player can win a GIVEN race to 7 or 9 but that same player COULD win a race to 20 as well.
But over time, the best player will win a series of races to 3 or 2 or even 1.
Would you care to play a race to 1 against Django for twenty grand? Not me pardner.
Regards,
Jim
BPG24
Banned
av84fun said:
Maybe you have trouble understanding what my previous statement means, so I will explain...
In 9 ball, the player that keeps control of the table wins. You do not have to be the better player to keep control of the table, nor do you have to be the better player to make the 9 ball 7 times before your opponent... Luck also plays a role
I know how much you like to argue, but you are wrong this time
Jaden said:
No JADEN. Not at all. BGP24 introduced the issue of the "top 100" male pros aganst whom he felt Allison wouldn't be competitive.
I offered in evidence that she had just decisively beaten two players on the UPA top 100 money winner list...Williams and Hopkins...and he countered that they were not devoting their full time to playing on tour.
But I don't know what prompted your statement about competing on the men's tour successfully. I never suggested that she could...or would. Are you referring to someone else?
Nor did I suggest that her fantastic showing at the DCC "PROVED" anything as Cuebacca inferred.
My point is that her victories were not at all helpful to the argument that she can be routinely beaten by the lower tier of the male pro players.
What I WILL state...for the record and without equivocation of any kind is that those who feel she is not competitive against that lower tier...say the bottom quarter of the top 100 have either not watched her play very much or have male ego issues...or simply don't understand that when players don't miss (much) they are quite difficult to beat.
Regards,
Jim
Cuebacca said:Well, you don't seem to pay attention to sentences containing underlined clues, so I guess we're even.
Have a good one,
Cuebacca
Well, you guessed wrong then. I DID pay attention and gave proper credit to your underlined statement which I quote below for your convenience.
"then the terms, "top name touring pro" and "top touring pro" are equivalent in the context of the argument that you're trying to make."
The problem is that not much credit can be given to your underlined statement because as I pointed out in a prior post, the two phrases ARE distinctive and are NOT equivalent and there is nothing in the context of my argument that can make that not true.
In any event, this topic has outlived its usefulness and there is nothing more that I can add so I will let my existing views speak for themselves without further belaboring them except to say that JADEN and I agree with respect to his post #128.
Regards,
Jim
The only tour in these parts is GRACELAND.....don't park on the side streets though
The topic of "tour" makes me wonder where Allie would rank playing the current top 100 players in the WORLD.
With the majority (IMO) of world class players living across ponds determining the top 100 and trying to rank her would be fun.
I might undertake the challenge if I still supplemented my energy level...
The topic of "tour" makes me wonder where Allie would rank playing the current top 100 players in the WORLD.
With the majority (IMO) of world class players living across ponds determining the top 100 and trying to rank her would be fun.
I might undertake the challenge if I still supplemented my energy level...
BPG24 said:
BPG24 said:
ONE MORE POST from me.
They DO play on a tour as I noted elsewhere in this thread including citing their respective UPA tour rankings.
And...ummm...they both "toured" to get to Louisville and they both "tour" all over the world to play in numerous events. In fact, several such events are promoted by Dragon Promotions which was founded by Charlie Williams!
And a tour being solely in the U.S. doesn't have anything to do with the discussion in this thread.
Check it out.
http://upatour.com
www.dragonpromotions.com
That's ALL for me in this thread.
Regards,
Jim
BPG24 said:
Just to jump back into this a bit...
You left yourself wide open on this one... which can be countered from 2 very different perspectives.
1. If short races are so much luck factors. Then why do the top players arise so often to the top? And most importantly, why has Allison been able to dominate so handily, considering that as you say it's just luck and the dominant player gets beat alot.
2. She dominated those players in the short races as you mentioned. You seem to be under the impression that if the race were longer, then all of a sudden those top 100 players that she beat would've been able to catch fire, and not only rise to the level of Allison's play. But you also leave the impression that you're saying that those guys she beat, would've been able to dominate her to a degree much higher than she dominated those guys. And thus, they would reverse the 7-1 beat down that they received.
The evidence doesn't support your intimations. If those top 100 males were so much more dominant than Allison, then the odds would've been against her winning, and very likely the odds would've been against her being able to compete even close against that top 100 tier. But, of the top 100 male players she did beat: she dominated some big names (7-1).
Even most critics believe that Allison and a few other top women players may not be able to beat all the top men (let's say top 50%), but they would definitely be able to compete. Even, as suggested a 100-60 loss would be quite competitive when it comes to playing that top 10 level player.
So, if you talk about the top 50-100 players (thus excluding the upper 50), well if she was already dominating players on that level 7-1, then continuing to a race to 14 or 18 could easily produce a result of 14-2 or 18-3 or even 14-8 (7 more for Allison and 7 more for the male) in favor of Allison.
In order for those men to win that race to 14 after the 7-1 start, they would have to win 13 more games while holding Allison down to 6 more at most. That might be doable for the top 1-50 players, but that would be a very difficult task for the other 50-100 ranked male players.
But really... overall... if those players got beat 7-6 or 7-5 or even 7-4, then there might be more validity to your argument of the luck factor and short race. But when the final score is 7-1, that one-sidedness suggests otherwise. And at Allison's level, do you really believe that she's cheesing the 9 (translation for those who need it: slapping at it with crazy combinations knowing that she has low percentage chance of making it) and slopping in lotsa balls or ONLY WINNING VIA LUCK???
(note: stay on topic - top 100 male players she beat, when it was pre-judged that she wouldn't be able to compete against those top 100 players)
I understand that it would be very easy for you to backtrack and change the meaning of your post, so as to downplay the rest of the women field. Because without some level of backtracking you won't be able to justify Allison's dominance against, even in short races.
I'll say the same to you, "I know how much you like to argue, but you are wrong this time ".BPG24 said:
BPG24
Banned
FLICKit said:
It's looks like you have major trouble reading, or understanding what was written.
You quoted something I said that is fact, then you try giving reasons why it is wrong, but you failed miserably. Luck does play a factor in 9 ball, ask any top pro, in fact I will post a link to a video of them discussing it if you like. However that was clearly NOT the point I was making. You should go back and read it, because you obviously missed it BADLY
I also NEVER said Allison couldn't compete, that is something that YOU and JIM have dreamed up on your OWN. Twisting my words is something that has happened 3-4 times already in this thread... Please correct yourself, and apologize.
You two act like I am bashing Allison, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
My original statement in this thread doesn't need qualifying at all, as it had nothing to do with short tournament races. Go back and look at it. Allison beating a 50+ year old man that does not play pool for a living does not mean she can beat the top 100 men in the world at long races, neither does beating another guy who is ranked on your precious list of money winners because he doesn't play pool full time either. If you can't comprehend that than I am sorry for you.
Now that i have proven you wrong, feel free to admit it.
Thanks
BPG24
Banned
av84fun said:
Charlie and Allen are busy doing other things, that is my point, for some reason you have trouble accepting that.
There is NO MENS TOUR in the US that includes all or even most of the worlds top male players... Hopefully that isn't too hard for you to understand. It is ridiculous how often I have to repeat myself to get people to comprehend
Incardona Fisher Tar Challenge
I would like to play Allison a challenge match..
I would like to play Allison a challenge match..
Last edited:
OK, since you're being so juvenile....BPG24 said:
What's so hard for you to understand?
You are saying that luck plays a role...
1. You can stand by what you say... Which means you'd be implying that the only reason that Allison could be successful against those men, is due to luck. Which has already been adeptly countered.
Or 2. You can make the very weak statement, that luck is a factor in everything. Well of course, but that would be so weak, that's it's hardly worth mentioning.
And it would be a very weak stance, because you wouldn't back up your statement and show where luck had a direct impact in Allison's match. Instead you'd be throwing out this nebulous claim...
Either way, your rudeness and lack of understanding precedes you...
And as already stated, "I know how much you like to argue, but you are wrong this time".