Way too obvious..... The break is probably the toughest shot to dog, especially in the finals of a big tourney. Even in a dump. You're amped up and more tense.
Challenge of Champions dump
- Thread starter hang-the-9
- Start date
Way too obvious..... The break is probably the toughest shot to dog, especially in the finals of a big tourney. Even in a dump. You're amped up and more tense.
And you think Lebron would have ran out from there ?
He had ball in hand on the 1 ball and missed the 2 after Hall scratched .
He actually broke to make the run-out easier.
And he missed the high balls.
What a coincidence.
Last edited:
Yeah... he wins from there with ball in hand easily unless something unusual happens.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Lebron is capable of choking but Buddy never would? If someone were to take out the fact that some here are talking about him selling his integrity and stuff then most people here are really giving him a huge compliment, the compliment being that Buddy is not capable of playing bad unless it was on purpose.
Here go bet on Snooker. http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/snooker/wuxi-classic-qualifiers
Despite several proven cases of match tampering snooker betting is ongoing and strong.
But in America - according to SOME PEOPLE - one unproven case led to the total ban on betting on pool.
All casinos everywhere decided unilaterally to not book action on pool tournaments. It's in the big book of no-nos that all casino managers refer to as their bible.
Despite several proven cases of match tampering snooker betting is ongoing and strong.
But in America - according to SOME PEOPLE - one unproven case led to the total ban on betting on pool.
All casinos everywhere decided unilaterally to not book action on pool tournaments. It's in the big book of no-nos that all casino managers refer to as their bible.
Probably going over old facts, but why the hell would Bud let it go hill hill if he was dumping it. I know the vid looks bad, but why would you risk it getting that close. Just doesn't make sense.
I also enjoyed the famous snooker reference. Surely the only reason Davis could miss a shot like that was he was dumping .... right. No pressure......
Consider those last two shots LeBron made ... he seemed to just stroke them in, no problem at all. Not like a man who has any number of other men's bets riding on him. Looks like he knew Hall had cracked, and he was going to win.
But then, even the celebrations and commiserations look weird.
Everything looks like something different, just depending on your point of view.
Someone call Mythbusters ......
I also enjoyed the famous snooker reference. Surely the only reason Davis could miss a shot like that was he was dumping .... right. No pressure......
Consider those last two shots LeBron made ... he seemed to just stroke them in, no problem at all. Not like a man who has any number of other men's bets riding on him. Looks like he knew Hall had cracked, and he was going to win.
But then, even the celebrations and commiserations look weird.
Everything looks like something different, just depending on your point of view.
Someone call Mythbusters ......
Here go bet on Snooker. http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/snooker/wuxi-classic-qualifiers
Despite several proven cases of match tampering snooker betting is ongoing and strong.
But in America - according to SOME PEOPLE - one unproven case led to the total ban on betting on pool.
All casinos everywhere decided unilaterally to not book action on pool tournaments. It's in the big book of no-nos that all casino managers refer to as their bible.
Name all the casinos that book bets on pool in the U.S.
Come on try to stay on the same page, Lebron missed forcing Buddy to made it hill-hill
and instead of looking happy Buddy looks upset, when Lebron missed.
None that I know of. But is it BECAUSE of the UNPROVEN COC allegations OR because pool is small time and booking action on pool matches isn't worth the time for a sports book?
That is something you don't know, and probably no one in pool knows.
Would you be willing to take a 20:1 bet that if we polled the managers of say 50 sports books that the majority of them probably haven't even heard of the Challenge of Champions or the 1991 allegations?
I mean after ALL this hoopla and alleged premeditation (see Strickland's allegations of a conspiracy long before the event was produced) there were ONLY 11 bets made on Lebron at 20:1. You would think that for such a sure thing that seven players would have been able to lay more than $2200 on the guaranteed winner. You would think that backers and family would have arranged to have 100 people make $200 bets.
But only 11 bets? Just 11 for seven players? If I was a sports book manager I might never mess with pool again just for the administrative headache associated with such a small pool of bettors.
If longshots NEVER came in then no one would ever bet on them.
11 bets? I'm just wondering how you can be certain enough to believe that amount or any amount was made. The casinos don't give that info.
Last edited:
there is NO WAY Buddy could have played his best under these conditions
This is why I presumed he wasn't trying to lose......any champion player would know enough to "dog the break," and instead, Buddy hit them better than most people could ever hit a break. This was no accident, {it certainly appeared} he was trying to break and run out that rack imho.
There were several other key shots that he could have "sloughed" and didn't.....it appeared that he was really nervous, and of course, he knew the 20/1 situation.....no matter what, that would put an enormous amount of pressure on him amplified with the ESPN heat (it's sometimes over 90 Degrees under those lights)......Buddy's a big man and that heat combined with the magnitude of pressure would cause some unpredictable thing to happen......and, of course they did, surprise, surprise.....I know one thing, there is NO WAY Buddy could have played his best under these conditions ......this doesn't prove anything, but it does cast considerable doubt.
This is why I presumed he wasn't trying to lose......any champion player would know enough to "dog the break," and instead, Buddy hit them better than most people could ever hit a break. This was no accident, {it certainly appeared} he was trying to break and run out that rack imho.
There were several other key shots that he could have "sloughed" and didn't.....it appeared that he was really nervous, and of course, he knew the 20/1 situation.....no matter what, that would put an enormous amount of pressure on him amplified with the ESPN heat (it's sometimes over 90 Degrees under those lights)......Buddy's a big man and that heat combined with the magnitude of pressure would cause some unpredictable thing to happen......and, of course they did, surprise, surprise.....I know one thing, there is NO WAY Buddy could have played his best under these conditions ......this doesn't prove anything, but it does cast considerable doubt.
I went to see Legends of 9-Ball at the Commerce Casino in LA for two years.
No betting.
Went to see PBT World 8-Ball at the Riviera in Vegas for two years in 95 and 96.
No betting.
I tried to bet on WWE too, no line on Hulk Hogan against Macho Man.
Johnny Archer told me in London that Buddy's the most intimidating player ever!!!
Buddy usually looked upset when he played.....I've never seen him smile when in a match, Buddy's the ultimate example of intensity. I played him in the finals of two tournaments in one week in Texas back in the mid 80s and he never, never showed any emotion, running 5 straight racks in one final, and 6 in the other.
Johnny Archer told me in London that Buddy's the most intimidating player he's ever played, and I'll 2nd the motion......he played his "emotional cards" very close to his chest, although I'm sure he still felt as much pressure as the next man, he just concealed it better.
Buddy usually looked upset when he played.....I've never seen him smile when in a match, Buddy's the ultimate example of intensity. I played him in the finals of two tournaments in one week in Texas back in the mid 80s and he never, never showed any emotion, running 5 straight racks in one final, and 6 in the other.
Johnny Archer told me in London that Buddy's the most intimidating player he's ever played, and I'll 2nd the motion......he played his "emotional cards" very close to his chest, although I'm sure he still felt as much pressure as the next man, he just concealed it better.
That's what Jay said. He said he talked to the manager of the sports book. So that's the only information we have about how many bets were made. Jay claims the casino lost $40,000 (would really be 44,000) and that this amount was called "small potatoes". I agree that it's probably small potatoes for sure, too small to be worth booking in the future.
why would one be 20/1 when he only has to win 3 short races to win?
In a tournament that was a race to 7 with 8 players (single elimination) why on earth would someone be 20/1 - just the name 'Challenge of Champions' let's anyone know that all the players are champions....why would one be 20/1 when he only has to win 3 short races to win? It's not like they could possible think Mike Lebron "US OPEN CHAMPION" would be any better or worse than David Howard "US OPEN CHAMPION".....it doesn't make any sense at all.....and why would they leave the odds alone, and put it up weeks before the matches start? This also is an anomaly.
In a tournament that was a race to 7 with 8 players (single elimination) why on earth would someone be 20/1 - just the name 'Challenge of Champions' let's anyone know that all the players are champions....why would one be 20/1 when he only has to win 3 short races to win? It's not like they could possible think Mike Lebron "US OPEN CHAMPION" would be any better or worse than David Howard "US OPEN CHAMPION".....it doesn't make any sense at all.....and why would they leave the odds alone, and put it up weeks before the matches start? This also is an anomaly.
I see. Maybe Jay as the tournament director was able to get that info.
11 total bets huh? It don't make sense.
Last edited:
Maybe the casino paid $44,000 but made back $4000 on the people that bet on the rest of the field.
Give me 20/1 on the money and I'll bet I can beat the top players in the world
Give me 20/1 on the money and I'll bet I can beat the top players in the world 3 races to 7......I'll do that all day every day until they say "uncle".
Give me 20/1 on the money and I'll bet I can beat the top players in the world 3 races to 7......I'll do that all day every day until they say "uncle".
British and therefore a higher class shot maker
Exactly.
Considering Mike was just a slight dog in any single match in the tournament. When you calculate the parlayed odds 20:1 was a deal.
There would be at least 11 legit bets I would think. Put it this way, if I'm walking up to the betting window before the tournament and they have Buddy at 8/5 and Mike at 20:1, my money is going on Mike to win it all. I'm not sure what the others went off at.
Last edited:
I just watched the last two games.
In the game at 7:8 with Lebron on the hill. Lebron breaks dry, Buddy tries to play safe attempting to draw the cue ball behind the seven and accidentally banks the ball in the side. The speed he played was the right speed to send the one ball below the balls at the other end of the table which would have probably been safe or left a long shot with the cue on the top rail. Instead he banked the one in the side and gets a shot on the two.
Then he has to play the two with finesse to reverse the cue ball off the bottom cushion to get into the right lane for the three.
From there he runs to the seven and gets funny on the 8 - this is where people CLAIM that Buddy was trying to scratch. Then he misses the 8 barely and leaves Mike jacked up over the nine. The 8 hit the tits of the corner pocket. Not exactly the type of miss that guarantees where the 8 will go.
Mike goes for it and dogs it and Buddy gets the easy layout.
Now, my question is, why does Buddy bother to run to the seven BEFORE trying to scratch? Why would he choose that angle to attempt to scratch when he could have EASILY dogged position for the three and then missed the three on purpose giving Mike the table and not waiting until there are only a few balls left to purposely miss on?
Why bother with trying to get perfect shape on the three, and why bother trying to play a perfect safe on the one if you're trying to dump?
Instead of dogging off the HARD shots he dumps on the easy ones with just three balls left?
That makes sense.
And..... regarding the comment that Buddy was not happy that Mike missed the eight in that game - why would he show happiness? Let's say there is no dump in the conversation, then would anyone remark on Buddy's expression? No they would not because he was probably pissed off at himself for missing position on the eight and ending up with a funny leave and then missing the eight. Then he was probably just relieved to get another chance. In any event the camera DID NOT SHOW BUDDY'S face after Mike missed the 8.
So not one person on this forum can say what Buddy's expression or emotion was when Mike missed the 8 because you can't even see it. And furthermore Buddy jumped out of his chair and was at the table before the 8 stopped rolling.
In 1991 $50,000 was a huge prize. Take the dump off the table and there was pressure enough.
--------------------------------------------
Now let's move to the hill game. Buddy breaks and gets on the one but has a tricky path back to the two. He scratches in the side. Now, if you think scratching in the side is so easy from there that Buddy picks that shot to do it go ahead and make your own video showing us that you can easily do it. He could have made the one and taken tougher position and then missed the two and no one is the wiser. Yet he tried for better position and the cue ball got away from him just as it did on the seven in the previous game from a similar angle.
Buddy could have chosen to go the other way with inside spin and purposefully hooked himself if he wanted to so why didn't he?
Now Mike makes the spotted one and misses the two ball. (Mike was obviously the only one who bet on Buddy....)
The camera catches Buddy as he approaching the table. Is he supposed to be showing joy at this moment because Mike missed? No he is focused and probably relieved to have another shot. He certainly was not showing anger towards Mike in my opinion.
Ok so again Buddy has opportunities to dog position enough to leave himself tough enough where a miss is not surprising. yet he runs out to the combo anyway. Where he lands the combo is NOT easy because he has to actually has to cut the nine slightly to the left. I would like to see you all set this shot up exactly and then try it for 50k and see what your percentages are. In any event what a fool for playing down to that point when he could have missed on purpose well before the combo.
Then Mike Lebron jumps up and comes with two great shots to win it. Kicks the eight in and holds the cue ball for decent shape on a long nine.
My opinion, no dump, all pressure. But IF a dump then the super champion Buddy Hall is the world's worst at it because he certainly didn't know enough to dump on the really hard shots. Guess he never learned that in the 30 years of pool experience he had going into this match.
Now, you all can read into it whatever you want. This is my take on knowing all the information presented. I find that calling a dump based on the videos on YouTube is really stretching. To me it's Jay's word against theirs and Strickland's word against theirs and the ONLY other person mentioned who is claimed to have been directly involved is Allen Hopkins.
IF Allen ever confirms that he was asked to participate then I will believe it happened. But until then it's all hearsay and the video isn't proof enough for me.
NOW I AM REALLY DONE. Keep flaming. I am unsubscribed.