Corrected poll: who has a moral objection to John and Danny matching up?

Do you have a moral objection to John and Danny matching up.

  • I HAVE a moral objection to John and Danny matching up due to their feelings for one another

    Votes: 4 6.3%

  • I DO NOT have a moral objection to John and Danny matching up

    Votes: 26 40.6%

  • Two grown men should be able to play pool even if they don't see eye to eye.

    Votes: 51 79.7%
  • Total voters
    64
dorabelle

dorabelle

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
My apologies, my first poll has a mistake in it rendering it inaccurate and useless. So here is take two. The Danny John match up keeps coming up so I think this poll is relevant.

Title says it all. Should these two not match up because they don't see eye to eye.

You can chose multiple answers.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that even Str8 Shots has a moral objection to this match. They only feel it would cast a negative light on one their signed players in a way that would compromise their strategic direction. None of us seem to really get that, but I've not read a post yet in which anybody took moral exception to the idea of this matchup.

In view of this, I doubt choice one will get even one vote.
 
Last edited:
It sucks because everyone wants this rematch to happen. It's my opinion that TAR, John and Danny have wanted this under the right circumstances and it's a shame for it to not go off because of a contract with a sponsor noone has heard of. Disappointing to the many people who wanted to watch it.
 
sjm said:
I don't believe that even Str8 Shots has a moral objection to this match. They only feel it would cast a negative light on one their signed players in a way that would compromise their strategic direction. None of us seem to really get that, but I've not read a post yet in which anybody took moral exception to the idea of this matchup.

In view of this, I doubt choice one will get even one vote.
Click to expand...

You're right, SJM, few people understand the necessity of good PR. Str8shots apparently has a business objection to this match and if that's in line with their business strategy then so be it.
Whether John S. is bounded by a contract or not, the fact that he represents Str8shots is a great reason to heed the advice of NOT playing.

God forbid the day that more and more players get contracted and have to follow rules.
It seems to me that all the fuss about this match NOT taking place is on account of selfishness.
Pool players are (as usual) simply thinking about themselves. "Wahhhh! I want to see this match! It's not fair! Str8shots is the devil!"

It's a shame.

Many of you out there want pool to grow and yet when a reasonable "business" move with forethought takes place within the industry many of you complain about it. JUST LET OUR FELLOW INDUSTRY MEMBERS DO WHAT THEY DO WITHOUT JUDGING THEM. If a pool player signs or associates w/an organization that org has a right to request certain things. It's called a business relationship.

Let's get over ourselves, please.
 
Last edited:
boogeyman said:
You're right, sjm, few people understand the necessity of good PR. Str8shots apparently has a business objection to this match. Whether John S. is bounded by a contract or not, the fact that he represents Str8shots is a great reason to heed the advice of NOT playing.

God forbid the day that more and more players get contracted and have to follow rules.
It seems to me that all the fuss about this match NOT taking place is on account of selfishness. Pool players simply thinking about themselves. It's a shame.

Many of you out there want pool to grow and yet when a reasonable "business" move takes place within the industry many of you complain about it. JUST LET OUR FELLOW INDUSTRY MEMBERS DO WHAT THEY DO WITHOUT JUDGING THEM. If a pool player sign or associates with an organization that org has a right to request certain things. It's called customer/client responsibilities.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to, in your opinion, what it is about this match that would make it a negative for a business sponsor.
 
Looking at the viewer turnout for players of comparable ability, it's my opinion that the feud between these two and only the feud is what draws such a big crowd for this matchup.
 
dorabelle said:
Looking at the viewer turnout for players of comparable ability, it's my opinion that the feud between these two and only the feud is what draws such a big crowd for this matchup.
Click to expand...

Probably a very big part, however I wouldn't say only. These are two very closely matched players that have played two very competitive matches already. Add to that that they play an all-around, and people want to see a deciding match, IMO.
 
I have a moral objection to anyone who has a moral objection to my not having a moral objection to this match.

I hope I've made myself clear.
 
It's obvious sjm skewed the poll, the minute he said there would not be a vote for option one. Many contrarians will now feel compelled to vote that way.:cool:
 
It's obvious people want this to go down. St8hots your only denying pool fans and John and Danny fans a product they have been waiting for. I don't see how that translates to a good move on your part. I really feel like this is about control.
 
We're talking about two adults playing pool, right?

Fully clothed? No hanky-panky?

Good thing Str8 didn't manage Muhammad Ali's career.
 
This poll misses the point. You think the match was stopped because viewers felt it was morally
wrong for them to match up? It's got nothing to do with morals. It's about professionalism.

Straight shots apparently thinks this match might lead to their player (and by extension,
their organization) looking unprofessional. So they put the kibosh on it.

They obviously feel pretty strongly about that because they put that decision in front
of an opportunity to showcase one of their players (who I think is the favorite) and
they even lost some money by compensating them.

A poll that might make more sense is: "What do you think are the chances
a Harriman-Schmidt matchup might lead to unprofessional behavior"?
I'm guessing it needs to be pretty close to zero for them to give their blessing.
This match doesn't qualify. That's ok, plenty of others out there.
 
CreeDo said:
This poll misses the point. You think the match was stopped because viewers felt it was morally
wrong for them to match up? It's got nothing to do with morals. It's about professionalism.

Straight shots apparently thinks this match might lead to their player (and by extension,
their organization) looking unprofessional. So they put the kibosh on it.

They obviously feel pretty strongly about that because they put that decision in front
of an opportunity to showcase one of their players (who I think is the favorite) and
they even lost some money by compensating them.

A poll that might make more sense is: "What do you think are the chances
a Harriman-Schmidt matchup might lead to unprofessional behavior"?
I'm guessing it needs to be pretty close to zero for them to give their blessing.
This match doesn't qualify. That's ok, plenty of others out there.
Click to expand...

No I do not think the viewers put an end to this match up because they had moral objections to it. I think st8shot made a business decision based on her moral objections to it. This poll is to see how many people agree with her. She stands pretty lonely in this whole thing.
 
CreeDo said:
This poll misses the point. You think the match was stopped because viewers felt it was morally
wrong for them to match up? It's got nothing to do with morals. It's about professionalism.

Straight shots apparently thinks this match might lead to their player (and by extension,
their organization) looking unprofessional. So they put the kibosh on it.

They obviously feel pretty strongly about that because they put that decision in front
of an opportunity to showcase one of their players (who I think is the favorite) and
they even lost some money by compensating them.

A poll that might make more sense is: "What do you think are the chances
a Harriman-Schmidt matchup might lead to unprofessional behavior"?
I'm guessing it needs to be pretty close to zero for them to give their blessing.
This match doesn't qualify. That's ok, plenty of others out there.
Click to expand...

they obviously know their player
 
I know Justin has made peace with this John has been bought. Danny really has nothing to do with it because he cant influence it either way. I hope st8shots can learn from this poll and see where the pool community stands on this issue. I'm not sure how you will fix your image Kimberly. At the end of the day we are your guys revenue. You can't hold out on us like this and expect to thrive. Maybe you will figure out how to turn this around.
 
If it's based on Kimberly's moral objection to it, then it doesn't matter what
anyone posts in a poll. You can't work by someone else's moral guidelines.
You can only go by your own.

Two hundred people can tell me they have no problem with me punching a street bum,
and even offer a financial incentive, but I'm not doing it.

You can rephrase that financial argument 200 ways.
"people want this! your business needs our revenue! the customer is always right!
If you don't listen to us, you will fail! You're doing the opposite of what a promoter is supposed to do!"

But it all boils down to the same thing.
• Yes, doing this would be more profitable than not doing it.
• No, they're not going to do it anyway.
 
It is very amusing reading the posts and seeing how so many can riled up over something that they have no control over. They will play..probably not until 2014 though. I do love seeing all of the interest in a great match..it's this passion for pool that keeps pool alive (if only by a thread ..no pun intended)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top