Did this guy ruin pool?
- Thread starter Splinterhands
- Start date
I think it's time to delete this whole thread.
I didn't kill this thread right off the bat because I thought it was a valid question. Someone might not agree with the theory set forth in the question, but it was still a valid one.
Mike
Mike
Splinterhands
Banned
Nostroke said:
Let's don't throw gasoline, NoStroke. There is nothing wrong with the question that I asked. One player deserting the PBT and taking top players with him caused a breakdown in professional billiards. They should've given the tour more time to develop.
Agreed....
Yes, extremely well said...
Do the tours in the states carry a dress code?
I know Dragon Promotions does here in Korea with any event... just wondering about state side...
Donald A. Purdy said:I was told by a girlfriends mother once that you can put a $50 man in a $500 suit and you still have a $50 man. She also stated that you could put a $500 man in a $50 suit and you would still have a $500 man. I think the game is full of $50 men. Don't get me wrong, we have some very nice, clean cut, professional players out there but many more $50 men. Guys that grew up on the streets, used drugs at some time, drink a lot, and love to gamble. They don't care how they look in public. This turns off a lot of hard working folks who want to get the most entertainment out of their hard earned dollars. Yeah, there are those of us that still love the game anyway. You want to change the image of pool, upgrade the players. Do a makeover. If that isn't enough, maybe this will help. When you look good, you feel good. When you feel good, you do good. That's my take on it. Good or bad!!!
Purdman
Yes, extremely well said...
Do the tours in the states carry a dress code?
I know Dragon Promotions does here in Korea with any event... just wondering about state side...
JoeyInCali said:
joey,,,i think you're getting carried away with self importance. this is just the kind of response, that made ccb a cliqueish nauseating irresponsible place to visit. you may not agree with some people who post,,,and it's quite obvious that splinter is beginning to engender negative knee-jerk reactions,,,,but you reply is just the kind of thing that gets people in a cliquish vigilante mood, and i have to say i'm more inclined to delete your post than anything splinter has said.
Well, I hate to be the first to suggest that there is at least one iota of truth in what Splinterhands has posted, but here I go.
I'd say that Splinterhands has, although most undiplomatically and confrontatonally, asked us to consider a moment at the hinge of times in our sport. Like everyone else, I don't like the way the post was written, and I always have and always will believe that CJ worked tirelessly to do what he believed was best for his sport. I will also always believe that those who went with the PCA believed it was good for their sport and had very high hopes that the other premier players would eventually follow their lead.
Still, the perfectly reasonable, well-meant, and passionate formation of a rival tour did, in my opinion, make the men's pro pool family just a bit more dysfunctional. Many involved back then were too young to remember how the emergence of the rival tour called the PPPA in 1976 had worked out, but many were old enough to remember that the result of that seven year experiment (that ultimately didn't work) was a goodly bit of hostility among the players, who had not worked as one during that period.
CJ Wiley deserves to be remembered as a guy who gambled with his time and money to make our sport a better one, and that's what I'll always think of when I think of CJ.
Still, the teensy weensy bit of truth in the post by Splinterhands is that pool could have done without some of the dissension that came with the emergence of the PCA. It would be difficult to conclude that no damage was done by the split in the pro ranks back then, a split that was followed by some of the leanest years our sport has ever known.
As other have, quite correctly, argued, the bigger problem was the PBT.
I'd say that Splinterhands has, although most undiplomatically and confrontatonally, asked us to consider a moment at the hinge of times in our sport. Like everyone else, I don't like the way the post was written, and I always have and always will believe that CJ worked tirelessly to do what he believed was best for his sport. I will also always believe that those who went with the PCA believed it was good for their sport and had very high hopes that the other premier players would eventually follow their lead.
Still, the perfectly reasonable, well-meant, and passionate formation of a rival tour did, in my opinion, make the men's pro pool family just a bit more dysfunctional. Many involved back then were too young to remember how the emergence of the rival tour called the PPPA in 1976 had worked out, but many were old enough to remember that the result of that seven year experiment (that ultimately didn't work) was a goodly bit of hostility among the players, who had not worked as one during that period.
CJ Wiley deserves to be remembered as a guy who gambled with his time and money to make our sport a better one, and that's what I'll always think of when I think of CJ.
Still, the teensy weensy bit of truth in the post by Splinterhands is that pool could have done without some of the dissension that came with the emergence of the PCA. It would be difficult to conclude that no damage was done by the split in the pro ranks back then, a split that was followed by some of the leanest years our sport has ever known.
As other have, quite correctly, argued, the bigger problem was the PBT.
T
Timberly
Guest
Everyone has bad days.... I met CJ back in the early 90's and used to shoot in his pool room quite often. I never noticed him to be like that so I'm going to go with the bad day theory. CJ certainly isn't a saint, but who amongst us is?lacey6783 said:
O
onepocketchump
Guest
Splinterhands said:
Possibly the "wrong" thing about the question is that it seems loaded. It seems as though you want ot give your opinion in the form of a question. This technique is a form of trolling to start arguments. If you get people to agree then you can lengthen your rant and if they disagree then they are made a target. Not saying that you did this on purpose. Many people "debate" this way although it is the wrong way to start a discussion and often a good way to start a fight.
Despite that I would have to say that Don Mackey dealt Pro Pool a pretty hard blow when he told ESPN to screw themselves because they wanted the women to be a part of televised pro pool. Having dealt personally with Don Mackey I can tell you that he was very hard to deal with.
Pro pool was also dealt a serious blow when Camel pulled out. CJ didn't do anything different than what Charlie did with the UPA. Both of these players created an organization to run pro pool from the player's perspective.
It is my opinion that pro pool needs a USTA style non-profit organization to negotiate sponsorships, establish tournament guidelines and tour qualifications, and codes of conduct. This organization should be responsible for the grassroots tournaments that develop amateurs into pros.
Go to a local tennis tournament and you will see tennis played under the same rules and format that the pros play under. Same with golf from what I understand.
I also don't think that Pro Pool is much "worse" off than it was under the PBT(Mackey). There seems to be plenty of events that pay nearly as much or even much more than the PBT events paid out. Granted, there is no real "tour" but there are plenty of individual events.
So, I don't think the professional pool is dead. Just not well organized.
John
Did Burger King damage the burger business when they set up a rival hamburger business to McDonalds?
Competition brings out the best in companies and organizations. The fact that both organizations failed means than neither had the necessary business model or skills to make it work.
Competition brings out the best in companies and organizations. The fact that both organizations failed means than neither had the necessary business model or skills to make it work.
I think you need to get your facts a little straighter.Splinterhands said:
Many of the top players had major, major problems with what was being done within the PBT(A). When some of them couldn't take it any more, they formed their own tour, headed by CJ Wiley. I saw their first (or so) event which was held in Santa Rosa, CA, and included both a men's and women's division. There was a playoff at the end between the winners of each division. It was taped and shown on ESPN. It looked like an organization that could succeed.
Unfortunately for Wiley's group, it was at exactly that time that the PBT got the contract with Camel which came with a lot of money. If Camel had known then what they know now, I suspect they would have gone with Wiley or run as quickly as they could away from US men's pro pool.
Colin Colenso said:
Colin, you've long been one of my favorites on AZB, but I don't think this comparison is fair. Yours is an argument of pure economic theory, and seems air-tight on the surface.
Still, I think you'd agree that opening a dry cleaner next door to one that already exists and intentionally operating at a loss in the short-term may not advance the interests of anybody. The result is that the established dry cleaner goes out of business and the new one must then greatly increase its prices to avoid extinction. Once it does, it, too, goes out of business. Nobody wins, and the more cost-efficient provider of service has been eliminated. This story isn't one of good clean pure competition, but one of destructive business practice. Throat cutting just for the sake of it, with the result being an unnecessary and undesirable reduction in supply of something desired in the economy.
Pool has a few too many stories in its history that make me think of the dry cleaner story rather than the Burger King story.
PS Dry cleaning as a business was chosen at random, and the hypothetical story says nothing about my feelings on a sector of the economy which I know nothing about.