Do you STILL want Earl in the HOF???
- Thread starter Williebetmore
- Start date
What does the HOF stand for?
The arguments about whether Strickland belongs in the HOF remind me of baseball's Pete Rose...What does the HOF stand for? Accomplishments in the sport, I always thought...So if a person is left out of the HOF, it's like his accomplishments aren't recognized...like he never played in the sport? Ridiculous. It shouldn't be a popularity contest, character judgement, etc. that affects the decision, should it? Just using baseball's HOF as an example, how many of the existing inductees lived the life of a SAINT?
Rude Dog said:
The arguments about whether Strickland belongs in the HOF remind me of baseball's Pete Rose...What does the HOF stand for? Accomplishments in the sport, I always thought...So if a person is left out of the HOF, it's like his accomplishments aren't recognized...like he never played in the sport? Ridiculous. It shouldn't be a popularity contest, character judgement, etc. that affects the decision, should it? Just using baseball's HOF as an example, how many of the existing inductees lived the life of a SAINT?
JustPlay said:
JustPlay,
Absolutely YES. Dang it, but I don't have that tape (I'm afraid a complete set would lead to a nasty divorce); but if Souquet was aware of it he should have called it on himself. The idea that cheating is acceptable as long as you don't get caught is abhorrent to me (and I suspect to most of our parents - I doubt Ralf's parents were very proud if they witnessed an episode like you described). Players that cheat knowingly are assigned by me to the scrap heap of degenerate pool players (a rather large heap in this day and age). There are honorable players with integrity - but how is the fan to know who they are when this kind of behavior is tolerated (and rewarded)?? I personally don't root for cheaters, no matter how colorful or skillful. JMO.
Williebetmore said:
I'm with you on this one, Willie. Honesty is vital for an industry, sport, or person to thrive. Here's an example of billiard honesty that will now stand forever:
In the Dec. issue of BD, the article by Bob Byrne about the death of Sang Chun Lee, 3-cushion legend, includes this paragraph on page 16:
"Lee's integrity was seen during a tournament at the World Class Billiards in Peabody, Mass., in March 2001. During the preliminaries, he called a foul on himself and left the table because he thought his vest had touched one of the balls. He failed to make the finals as a result of losing that one inning."
Now, that's class.
Right after I read this article, I was playing league 8-ball. I fouled but my opponent didn't see it. I considered for a moment not to tell him, but I thought of Sang Lee's behavior and how I'd better emulate it for my own sake, and so I told my opponent about the foul. He gave me a surprised smile and promptly missed his ball-in-hand shot. I laughed to myself about my good behavior "bringing" me good karma (which I don't really believe in, btw), and promptly missed my next shot.
But the point is, Sang's behavior spread to Bob Byrne and then to me, and now is spreading to the AZ board. Earl's behavior, though probably not the best, has allowed Sang's to be displayed more brightly than before. So, even bad things can bring about good, if integrated properly.
Rest in peace, Sang,
Jeff Livingston
Did John Mcenroe deserve to get in the Tennis Hall of Fame?? Of course He did. If you judge Hall of Fame members by playing ability alone Earl has to be in the HOF. No Question about it.
Now, For the other part. I feel that a player should always call a foul on themself and I always do even if I'm gambling. BUT, One could argue that at a professional level with a Referee there to call all of the fouls that it isn't the player's responsibility. There was an incident lately at Wimbeldon where the Chair umpire called out the wrong score at a critical time during the match and when the player getting an extra point said nothing. Another Pro announcing the match said that he didn't blame her for not correcting the Chair Umpire that it wasn't her job.......her job was to play tennis.
I feel that Pool should be like golf and the player should always call fouls on themself and maybe it could become the "Gentleman's game" we all want it to be.
Now, For the other part. I feel that a player should always call a foul on themself and I always do even if I'm gambling. BUT, One could argue that at a professional level with a Referee there to call all of the fouls that it isn't the player's responsibility. There was an incident lately at Wimbeldon where the Chair umpire called out the wrong score at a critical time during the match and when the player getting an extra point said nothing. Another Pro announcing the match said that he didn't blame her for not correcting the Chair Umpire that it wasn't her job.......her job was to play tennis.
I feel that Pool should be like golf and the player should always call fouls on themself and maybe it could become the "Gentleman's game" we all want it to be.
drivermaker
Banned
Williebetmore said:
Willee...when you were whacking the ball around in your golfing days, did you ALWAYS WITHOUT FAIL THROUGHOUT YOUR ENTIRE LIFE call a penalty on yourself when you moved a stone or twig and had the ball move just a tad when no one was nearby? How about when you took a practice swing and leaves or branches got knocked off from a tree that would have been in your way on the actual stroke? Or how about when you nudged a bush or plant out of the way and held it back with your ass while you hit? Or how about when you took your backswing in a sand trap and noticed that you just grazed a couple of grains of sand that didn't do anything to alter the lie or the shot?
And now, what would you do if you misdiagnosed something that resulted in a potential major malpractice suit...would you tell the insurance company and the plaintiff right up front that you f*#ked up and deserved everything that you had coming to you?
Should Earl be in the HOF?....Hell yes, along with Pete Rose. Their careers were both phenomenol and the records that they set deserve to be recognized. They just weren't choir boys throughout their lives.
Golf is the only "gentleman's" sport, and cheating still goes on at every level. Every other one like basketball, football, hockey, boxing, tennis, etc., not only have referees that make the calls, but the players dispute the calls and blatantly lie, get into arguments with them and at times have pushed or struck a ref. Never stopped them from getting into their respective Hall of Fame.
Last edited:
well i don't think that this instance would actually be dubbed cheating. earl didn't do it on purpose, the rules state that it is a foul. but the rules state that its the referee who calls the fouls. i think he should have admitted it, since charlie did try to call the foul. but earl never said "i didn't do it" he just said "he didn't see it". and by the rules, earl technically didn't do anything wrong. therefore i wouldn't call this cheating. imo
Simple solution
On a previous post I had asked whether they could have simply gone to the tape and decided if there was a foul. People keep giving opinions but no one has answered that question. If it had been me and I saw the foul and no one else did and it meant thousands of dollars I would have asked to check the tape. Haven't most of us seen it done in golf when even a fan calls in and says he saw a foul. They looked at tapes after the round no less and then assessed appropriate penalties. If golf can do it so can pool. In Reno when Pat Fleming is taping for people they have gone to the tape numerous times to clear up a question. I have done it in tournaments when I happen to have a tape running on a table or two and the infraction happened on that table. I have looked and made a decision based on what I saw. Because ESPN was taping is no excuse for not looking, they can just edit delays in a match that takes too long. If they had done that we would not be having this discussion.
On a previous post I had asked whether they could have simply gone to the tape and decided if there was a foul. People keep giving opinions but no one has answered that question. If it had been me and I saw the foul and no one else did and it meant thousands of dollars I would have asked to check the tape. Haven't most of us seen it done in golf when even a fan calls in and says he saw a foul. They looked at tapes after the round no less and then assessed appropriate penalties. If golf can do it so can pool. In Reno when Pat Fleming is taping for people they have gone to the tape numerous times to clear up a question. I have done it in tournaments when I happen to have a tape running on a table or two and the infraction happened on that table. I have looked and made a decision based on what I saw. Because ESPN was taping is no excuse for not looking, they can just edit delays in a match that takes too long. If they had done that we would not be having this discussion.
nfty9er said:
Nifty9er, logically, one would think that would be the way to resolve any table disputes. I saw the look of that room before and after the arrival of ESPN.
The first day of the Skins tourney was not televised; thus, no ESPN presence. The second day, when ESPN arrived -- the ESPN director/producer, technicians, assistants, camera guys, equipment, cables, lights -- the director definitely instructed the course of events, cameras movements, player positions. IMHO when they're recording, the participants of the exhibition -- Scott Smith the TD, Hopkins and Laurence, pro players in the pit, audience members, pool media railbirds, Hilton personnel -- complied with the ESPN's directions in order to facilitate a smooth-running broadcast.
Football only a few years ago got that "instant replay" going. It may be a good suggestion to bring up for future televised events, but due to the size of the ESPN crew at a pool tournament compared to the size of the media presence at NFL-type events, I don't think it would be economically feasible to do it.
When ESPN is in the room, everybody has to play by their rules, in a way. The way Keith twists and turns when he plays pool, his shirt kept coming out of his pants. I was totally embarassed when the ESPN director politely asked him tuck his shirt in. Keith is oblivious to little things like that when he's in heat. That's just an example of the formal atmosphere.
I saw Ryan McCreesh last night (Hi, Ryan
) and a few other players. Every single one of them said they WOULD NOT HAVE CALLED THE FOUL on themselves. However, the non-pool-playing railbirds had quite the opposite opinion and stated the Earl SHOULD HAVE CALLED THE FOUL on himself. Interesting to see the opinions from two opposite sides of the spectrum, viewers vs. players. 
In the Skins Billiards Tournament format, the referee makes the call. There was to be no debate or additional colloquy by the participants. Earl and Charlie both followed the rules (IMO).
JAM
drivermaker said:
Good points DM.Someone once said,"He that is without sin,cast the first stone."
It's been said that if Rose would just admit his mistake ,he'd be forgiven and eventually get in.
He's the greatest hitter (most hits) in baseball of ALL-TIME.He's in MY baseball hall of fame for sure.Like Earl Strickland, Pete Rose's accomplishments surley can't be ignored. RJ
Zagiflyer said:
This is not an attack on the author of this quote, but I am appalled.
The player's on the PGA tour play for million's each week,(over 260 million in 2004). Golf is a game of integrity and I guarantee you that if ANY golfer on the PGA tour commits a penalty (or even thinks he commited a penalty) he will call it. Life is about the choices we make.
Does that mean we have to play golf to have integrity? NO, integrity is a way of life that you choose to live, it does not come from playing a sport.
As the same author said in this same quote "I'm not sure what Earl should have done but he missed a golden opportunity to redeem himself in the eyes of the public and his peers for past transgressions"
He could not only have redeemed himself, but he could have made alot of people believe that pool was changing for the better. He maybe even could have made Joe Public think that all pool players were men and women of INTEGRITY.
The rules permit the referee to use any information available to make a call. (Of course, the organizer may interfere with that.)nfty9er said:
There are lots of great players who have called fouls on themselves. Allen Hopkins, Babe Cranfield and Sang Lee come to mind. Hey, wait.... two of those guys are dead. Maybe it's not such a good idea. Is Allen feeling poorly?
As for HOF entry, I don't think a little lapse of morality like this should disqualify Earl.
As for the rule, in my book both players are required to see that all rules are enforced whether the referee is doing the right thing or not.
Bob Jewett said:
If this is true that the referee can use any info to make a call, then it seems it is the ref's fault for letting Earl get away with the foul. This is because Earl as much as admitted the foul, by referring to "it" when he said "[the ref] didn't see it." There had to be an "it" to not see. So, it's the ref's fault if he believed what Earl said. And why woudn't he believe it---after all, who would call a false foul on himself?
Jeff Livingston
Gremlin said:nfty,
There are no WPA Official Rules on replay so it's the Ref's call any other conclusion would be unofficial there for not acceptable. Making up the rules as you go along is one of pools worst problems. There is no excuse for questions if there is no rule. Fact not opinion!
Cheers,
"Gremlin"
i don't recall the WPA being the governing body over the skins. and i do believe that the rules state that the official uses any means possible to make a call. replay would be any means possible. i could be wrong. again the problem comes up that there is no real governing body. even if something were to happen and a player cheats or something to that effect the only thing that could happen to him is that he may be barred from that tournament or any tournaments done by that director. you can't fine anyone, you can't suspend anyone, you really can't take any action without a real tour and real governing body. with that being said, i'll be honest, like jam said about players she asked........if no one had seen the foul.....i wouldn't have called it on myself in that situation i don't think. but charlie saw the foul and called it, i would myself have been inclined to admit it. oh well, this will end up being a never ending argument anyway.
thanks
Rich Reheard
Registered
I'm not holier than thou for, 16 grand i'd thumb a ball in and giggle watching the espn reruns, Listening to mitch lawrence asking the viking ? Was that a good shot. 
Rich Reheard said:I'm not holier than thou for, 16 grand i'd thumb a ball in and giggle watching the espn reruns, Listening to mitch lawrence asking the viking ? Was that a good shot.
and hearing ewa say something like "i don't know mitch, that shot looked quetionable" with mitch saying some dumb closing statement like "and thats the way the ball rolls folks"
for 16 grand i like you would probably be tempted......LOL
Will it be nice if all people voted to Hall Of Fame have a clean act? Or have cleaned their act? I just don't mean Earl, but anybody who have the chance to be a hall of famer. Kids will look up to them. To me Hall Of Fame is an icon of sportsmanship. To get away with murder is something else. Maybe we should vote for our own Hall Of Shame. Post the players bad antics and at the end of the year, we vote.