Chicago 14.1 Qualifier??

[biggame]

I once saw Tom K. run a 170 on a real tight table. I think his high run is like 206 in NY at amsterdam billiards. just some input

 

[sjm]

I once saw Tom K. run a 170 on a real tight table. I think his high run is like 206 in NY at amsterdam billiards. just some input

Yes, I recall Tom's run, 205 to my recollection, at Amsterdam Billiard Club East. It occurred when he was warming up for the qualifier for the 2000 BCA Open 14.1 event. That qualifier was ultimately won by Danny Barouty.

 

[Nostroke]

I was wondering the same thing.
Ginky is an excellent straight pool player. Why would he pass up a straight pool tournament in his own back yard?

He won the one of the national straight pool events at Amsterdam 8 years ago or so. Right now he seems to be in dead stroke, making it more mysterious.

 

[Rich R.]

He won the one of the national straight pool events at Amsterdam 8 years ago or so. Right now he seems to be in dead stroke, making it more mysterious.

Do you know if he has any personal issues with those running this tournament? That is always a possibility.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

The only purpose that allowing already qualified individuals into a qualifier is, to potentially knock out players who might otherwise have won the qualifying spot had they not been beaten by already qualified persons.
It also breeds collusion, so that the qualifier cannot always be considered legitimate.

Is it me, or is this a total Déjà Vu to the last time we discussed this?

 

[Steve Lipsky]

Hi Superstar. I'm sorry if this has been hashed out on the board before; hopefully, if we continue to have a real debate about it, we can help end this truly indefendible practice.

There are a lot of topics which get recycled on these boards... this is one that, imo, deserves it.

- Steve

 

[Eric.]

The only purpose that allowing already qualified individuals into a qualifier is to potentially knock out players who might otherwise have won the qualifying spot had they not been beaten by already qualified persons.
It also breeds collusion, so that the qualifier cannot always be considered legitimate.

Is it me, or is this a total Déjà Vu to the last time we discussed this?

Not to mention that if the qualified player met his buddy for the hotseat, his buddy could manage to get the win...


Eric >feeling pissy today

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Hi Superstar. I'm sorry if this has been hashed out on the board before; hopefully, if we continue to have a real debate about it, we can help end this truly indefendible practice.

There are a lot of topics which get recycled on these boards... this is one that, imo, deserves it.

- Steve

No need for apologies.
Actually, i love topics that deal with questionable ethical issues and obscure issues that deal with "right and wrongs"
and THIS topic is something i will debate till the end of time, and i think that we ALREADY DID, on the CCB a while ago.

If i'm not mistaken, we were discussing Jenn's choice to NOT play in qualifiers once she got her pro status and other issues like Corr and Kelly playing on NEWT, and the whole debate as to what happens when they are allowed, and what changes should/could be made. Plus i asked you if Gina like pro's playing in qualifier events. Remember the thread now?

Something like that, but the core of the debate is still the same.

Who did Mataya beat that might have won a qualifier spot if Mataya had not participated.
We already know that he lost to his buddy for the hot seat, so then the question about possible additional funds that might have been added to help out with expenses, comes into play.

It is just wrong in my opinion.
The fact that Mataya got 3rd and lost to his buddy emphasizes that point.