JAM said:
I used to wonder about how one player could be voted into the BCA Hall of Fame over another player. If you look at the poll on AzBilliards Home Page, Earl Strickland, as an example, received the overwhelming majority of popular vote from the pool-playing public, about two-thirds I think.
In the scheme of things, though, one must look at this organization known as the BCA and understand its mission. They are not looking to vote in the most popular player in the pool public's eyes. They are more interested in their membership which consists of industry folk. Robin Dodson and Mike Massy, both very qualified inductees (IMO), fit the bill for the BCA's industry members and will do more good for the BCA than a popular player like Earl Strickland.
Congratulations to Robin Dodson. She's definitely going to serve the BCA well. As far as Mike Massey goes, there is no question that he fits the bill for the BCA's Hall of Fame. He's so very popular and has traveled the road the hard way, and yet he managed to reach the top through hard work and dedication to the sport. Both inductees will represent the BCA's membership well.
JAM
When I was first starting to play pool competetively, Earl was a huge hero of mine. Whenever a pool discussion would come up, I always touted Earl as the greatest offensive pool player ever.
Then after I was around him some at tournaments, both as a spectator and a fellow competitor, my opinion changed. I saw the true pool player. His seemingly arrogant attitude with opponents and the crowd of spectators (most of who paid money to watch HIM play) gave me a different opinion of him. And it wasn't just occasionally. Every tournament had him going off on a tyrade about something. And it caused me to despise him every time that I watched him play. Being from SC and Earl from NC, I attended many regional events where he has played over the years (as a player), as well as many of the professional events he has played (as a spectator), so now I feel that I have the basis to make a qualified assessment of the complete "Earl".
I have met Earl and talked with him on occasion at many of these tournaments over the years, and now I think I know more of who Earl the person and the player are. Away from the tournament, Earl is completely different than when in competition. Even when he is practicing, he has always seemed cordial when spectators approached him and has offered autographs, free advice, photo opportunities, and most anything else that was requested. I'm not saying that I agree with his antics on the table during tournaments, but that's not all of who Earl is, and this (finally) brings up my point.
I think many people are at different points in their opinions of Earl (as I was), either seeing him as a pool hero, an asshole, or a nice guy who has given them an autographed photo during a tournament. Some see him solely as one of the greatest 9 ball players ever. Others see him solely as the crybaby that they have seen or heard stories about during tournaments. Others see him only as the nice guy off the table that they have talked to during a regional or professional event. The thing is, all of these characteristics make up who Earl is.
I think that the industry does need to choose players that they don't have to worry about embarrasing them, and with some public opinion of Earl being negative, that's why Earl has not been elected (if in fact his name was still on the ballot at voting). But I don't see how anyone can say that with his numerous US Open Championships, along with his many other championships, how he cannot be a unanimous selection to the Hall of Fame.
Now I see Earl for all that he is, not letting one attribute to form an opinion. I feel that many people have one basis for their appreciation (or disdain) for Earl. Hopefully, if fans and pool industry executives can look at every side of the person and the player, they will be able to form more complete opinions and give us effective choices on who should and should not be elected to the Hall of Fame.
Mike
