Earl Strickland Video showing him trying to hit his opponent with his cue.

The Positive

It seems negative things get so much press. I was just at hard times in Bellflower for a tournament on sunday.... I can't tell you how impressed I was with the behavior of the players, but especially the good ones. I hate to pick one player over another, but players like Oscar Dominguez and Louis Ulrich (for example) handle themselves SO well, and it's really great to see. I think this is what pool needs (and has!), guys who are true gentlemen just trying their hardest to play great pool.

Earl has been both good and bad for our sport in my opinion, but i think the negative parts of his personality are necessary for him to play so great. In other words, maybe his extreme personality is what made him play so extrememly good over the years. If this is the case, which I think it is (and I bet he has experimented and he knows it is as well), can you blame him for acting like this??? Or, put another way, would you offend people if you could play like him after you did it?? I would.
 
Anyone? Ferris? Class?

Stones said:
Quick!

Someone posts some vids of Earl being compassionate, sportsmanlike and acting like a gentleman toward his opponent especially after he loses a big match for the same length as these videos. Just to show what a great guy and great rep for the sport.

Anyone?

Uh, anyone?

Hello? Anyone?

Look, there have been video cameras around for about 20 years, so come on! Someone must have a stockpile of Earl being the true gentleman of the pool world. Anyone?

Aw, I give up!
Click to expand...

I didn't even have to search - this link was on the same YouTube page with one of X-Breaker's 4 links.

Ken
[Edit - Damn... I see someone else already posted this...]
 
Last edited:
Something tells me...

teebee said:
Other sports seem to see the humor in the quirky sides of their heroes. Maybe we should try that.
Click to expand...

... if the entire audience burst out in laughter after a typical "Earl Moment", things would get a lot worse.

Ken
 
although ive seen earl let his temper get the best of him too many times, im gonna defend him here. he did not "cheat" against charlie williams. he accidentally brushed another ball while shooting.he didnt do it on purpose, so that,imo, is not "cheating". it was the referees place to call a foul and he didnt see it.remember, that game was for 20 grand. now, if you were playing for that kind of cash, would you call a foul on yourself?
 
there is one more earl factor that is worth mentioning.he is, imo, the most talented player that the united states has ever produced.
 
rbgarmon said:
although ive seen earl let his temper get the best of him too many times, im gonna defend him here. he did not "cheat" against charlie williams. he accidentally brushed another ball while shooting.he didnt do it on purpose, so that,imo, is not "cheating". it was the referees place to call a foul and he didnt see it.remember, that game was for 20 grand. now, if you were playing for that kind of cash, would you call a foul on yourself?
Click to expand...
Yes I would,anyone with any kind of integrity would.;)
 
That particular foul seems worth debating. I know rules are rules, but in a lot of places it's not even a foul. Maybe not on national TV tournaments, but in local tournaments and in every league I've ever played, slightly brushing a ball (that isn't the cue ball) is not a foul - not in the BCA, APA, or VNEA. In matches nobody around here would call such a thing even if it were an option. It's of course a different story if the movement arguably changed the layout in someone's favor, but the rule is usually that the opponent can put it back wherever he thinks it was, or there's a ref who makes the judgment call.

Maybe my standards are too low by being willing to overlook something like that, but it seems unfair -

The guy who makes an everyday, inconsequential brush, something that really has nothing to do with who's a better player and who deserves to win that match... is The Bad Guy and has no integrity if he doesn't give up ball in hand.

The incoming player is The Good Guy and has integrity if he takes advantage of the other player's honesty by using the ball in hand to steal thousands of dollars, even though he doesn't really deserve to be at the table in the first place and is only winning that match by the slimmest of technicalities. That 'winner' would forever have an asterisk next to his name -

So-and-so beat Earl Strickland for $20,000!
*on paper, because of a sissy foul that nobody saw. Otherwise Strickland had him beat.
 
rbgarmon said:
although ive seen earl let his temper get the best of him too many times, im gonna defend him here. he did not "cheat" against charlie williams. he accidentally brushed another ball while shooting.he didnt do it on purpose, so that,imo, is not "cheating". it was the referees place to call a foul and he didnt see it.remember, that game was for 20 grand. now, if you were playing for that kind of cash, would you call a foul on yourself?
Click to expand...
Yep! In a quarter second!

Rather look like a stooge than be a thief!

Stones
 
Last edited:
CreeDo said:
That particular foul seems worth debating. I know rules are rules, but in a lot of places it's not even a foul. Maybe not on national TV tournaments, but in local tournaments and in every league I've ever played, slightly brushing a ball (that isn't the cue ball) is not a foul - not in the BCA, APA, or VNEA. In matches nobody around here would call such a thing even if it were an option. It's of course a different story if the movement arguably changed the layout in someone's favor, but the rule is usually that the opponent can put it back wherever he thinks it was, or there's a ref who makes the judgment call.

Maybe my standards are too low by being willing to overlook something like that, but it seems unfair -

The guy who makes an everyday, inconsequential brush, something that really has nothing to do with who's a better player and who deserves to win that match... is The Bad Guy and has no integrity if he doesn't give up ball in hand.

The incoming player is The Good Guy and has integrity if he takes advantage of the other player's honesty by using the ball in hand to steal thousands of dollars, even though he doesn't really deserve to be at the table in the first place and is only winning that match by the slimmest of technicalities. That 'winner' would forever have an asterisk next to his name -

So-and-so beat Earl Strickland for $20,000!
*on paper, because of a sissy foul that nobody saw. Otherwise Strickland had him beat.
Click to expand...
In professional pool its a FOUL.
 
jimmy-leggs said:
In professional pool its a FOUL.
Click to expand...

heh that's a pretty straightforward response. I guess what I was fishing for was... do you really feel it should be?

I'd like to see the incoming player be the one to have to call it, tho I'm sure for thousands of dollars they always will rather than do the nice guy routine and say "put it back and keep shooting".
 
i guess jimmy leggs is just a better guy than i am.i know integrity is a good thing but 20 grand isnt too shabby. by the way, the shot mentioned had no effect on the game. charlie still won.
 
rbgarmon said:
although ive seen earl let his temper get the best of him too many times, im gonna defend him here. he did not "cheat" against charlie williams. he accidentally brushed another ball while shooting.he didnt do it on purpose, so that,imo, is not "cheating". it was the referees place to call a foul and he didnt see it.remember, that game was for 20 grand. now, if you were playing for that kind of cash, would you call a foul on yourself?
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one. Earl clearly didn't cheat nor did he lie about it. he just simply didn't tell and not telling doesn't necessarily mean he lied about it, unless of course if the ref asked him about it and said something else. what Earl simply said that the ref didn't saw what just happened. It's like when you saw a 100 dollar bill on the street, would you tell everyone that you saw it or just simply pick it up?
 
CreeDo said:
That particular foul seems worth debating. I know rules are rules, but in a lot of places it's not even a foul. Maybe not on national TV tournaments, but in local tournaments and in every league I've ever played, slightly brushing a ball (that isn't the cue ball) is not a foul...
Click to expand...

I was there at the Skins Billiards Championship when the so-called "foul" occurred between Earl and Charlie.

Before the Skins Billiards Championship commenced, there was an hour-long players meeting, which I also sat in on. It was stated that the players are not allowed to look at the racks, as Scott the TD was racking them all, and Scott as the TD was the authority at all times on questionable shots, fouls, et cetera. Earl did exactly what he was told to do in the players meeting and abided by Scott's ruling. It is unfortunate that Scott did not see the actual shot by Earl.

I spoke to Earl after this match, and I don't think at that time Earl realized what had actually happened with the ball movement because his eyes were focused on the object ball when he made the shot.

Slight brushing a ball is not a foul, as you correctly state, but if the ball moves in the path of the cue ball, it is a foul even if it is a slight brushing.

In the Skins Billiards Champsionship, Earl responded exactly the way he did because of the instructions given to all competitors at the players meeting.

JAM
 
watchez said:
Mr. X-Breaker: Is it because you are in direct competition with Gulyassey Break Cues that you decided to post this now? Your posts have ALWAYS had hidden meanings. How many times have you paid someone to start a thread about break cue comparisions to have you be the first voice to jump in? Nice marketing job. If you care to air dirty laundry, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Click to expand...
You really are as clueless as you look....
 
Hail Mary Shot said:
I'm with you on this one. Earl clearly didn't cheat nor did he lie about it. he just simply didn't tell and not telling doesn't necessarily mean he lied about it, unless of course if the ref asked him about it and said something else. what Earl simply said that the ref didn't saw what just happened. It's like when you saw a 100 dollar bill on the street, would you tell everyone that you saw it or just simply pick it up?
Click to expand...
Me picking up a 100 dollar bill I found (I wish I was that lucky) is not being broadcasted by ESPN for nations to watch, nor is me picking up a 100 dollar bill being watched by hundred in attendance at the event.

Everyone knew he did wrong, Earl should have been the bigger man there, instead he looked like the bigger ass. The better man won that match anyway.
 
Even if the TD or ref didn't see the foul, Charlie did and was not too happy about it.

IIRC, the rules were all ball fouls.

It wouldn't have mattered if it was his shirt that touched when he was leaning over to shoot and he didn't even know it had touched a ball.
 
Mr. Wilson said:
Even if the TD or ref didn't see the foul, Charlie did and was not too happy about it.

IIRC, the rules were all ball fouls.

It wouldn't have mattered if it was his shirt that touched when he was leaning over to shoot and he didn't even know it had touched a ball.
Click to expand...
Earl's response was what made him look like an ass in that match, not so much the foul and not calling it. If Earl would have said something like, "I didnt see it move, I don't think I touched it" and then asked Scott and Scott says he didn't see him touch it then it would have not looked like "Cheating".

However Earl's response that saying that Scott didnt see it just makes it more inciminating because he knows he did it.
 
Mr. Wilson said:
I wonder if they will ever adapt a video review for Billiards, like football. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You know Wilson, as much as it may be needed sometimes, I think it would be a bad thing to have in general.
 
Icon of Sin said:
Earl's response was what made him look like an ass in that match, not so much the foul and not calling it. If Earl would have said something like, "I didnt see it move, I don't think I touched it" and then asked Scott and Scott says he didn't see him touch it then it would have not looked like "Cheating".

However Earl's response that saying that Scott didnt see it just makes it more inciminating because he knows he did it.
Click to expand...

One night at the local 9-ball tournament in the then-Champions in Laurel, Maryland, this discussion came up, the Skins match between Earl Strickland and Charlie Williams.

There were about 20 to 25 people playing in the $20-entry-fee tournament, and there were also quite a few "regular" railbirds in attendance. They liked sweating the Wednesday night 9-ball tourney and the prospective action that sometimes would occur. :D

This little local tourney did, and still does most likely, attract some of the best shooters in the Metro D.C. area, which would consist of players like Keith McCready -- :D -- both Brandons, Jerry Slivka, Ryan "Genie Man" McCreesh, Tommy Kay, Danny Green, Spanish Rob, "White Max" and "Black Henry" from Baltimore -- [I don't make up these nicknames] -- Filipino Jimmy, Seth from USA Billiards, Shawn T. from Baltimore, and a cadre of others whose names escape me at the time of this writing.

When somebody asked the question, what would you have done if you were Earl in that situation, interestingly it was the pool players unanimously that sided with Earl's actions, and the railbirds thought just the opposite, that Earl should have called the foul on himself. I just thought that was an interesting little divide, a mini poll, if you will. :p

JAM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top