Emily Duddy Photoshoot Multiple Images

[JohnPT]

She has the most intense gameface I've ever seen in pool. A bit too much in my opinion. You want your opponent and future opponents to know you mean business but you don't need to scare them into thinking you might eat their children! Not to mention she has more gameface than actual game. Smile a little.

 

[hang-the-9]

That's the problem with ratings like these...all in the eyes of the beholder and the location/region where they're assessed. The A players in the Great Southern Billiard tour, for example, all play VERY sporty...they only get something like two games on the wire in a race to 11 with a AA player. It's a pretty fine line. Open class players, Shortstops, high B and A level players are pretty hard to distinguish. I've seen players everywhere from high C to AA referred to as "Shortstop"...I never agreed with a C player being called a "Shortstop", but I'd never call a AA player one. That's straight up pro in my book. And relating APA or BCAPL ratings to this is nuts; that's all over the map!

The ratings should be irrelevant as to the location.

It's a bit tough to spot the difference between an A A+ Open and a Pro unless you watch for a while. Mainly the difference is in exactness of position, safeties, kicking and racks strung.

C player, with ball in hand in 9 ball will very very rarely get out, 3-4 ball average run and will end the turn with a miss or bad shape (hooking themselves or leaving a bank), or a failed safe. You can see them struggling with ball in hand placement and getting the right angles.

B player with ball in hand would run out maybe 1/8 of the racks, average 5-6 or so balls run, will end up with a miss or an intentional safe, sometimes due to poor position causing the miss.

A player with ball in hand should run out about 1/2, maybe more, of the time with all 9 balls on the table, and would end the turn usually with a safe rather than a flat out miss.

A+, Open, Pro would go up in run out ability to about 90%.

Those types of rankings are irrelevant to the other players.

 

[cleary]

See there's 3 things at work here.

1) Playing on a Professional Tour. Does this qualify you as a Professional player? You say yes, i say no. My example is that I can go and pay my money and play in the Predator 10-ball, a Pro event, and therefore I can call myself a "professional pool player" , using the logic you provided.

2) Do you earn enough money that playing pool is your profession/job? This, we are in agreement. If this was the criteria then not many people would be able to call themselves professional pool players.

3) Do you play "pro" speed? This is why Rodney, Johnny, Efren, etc. are considered pros. Any event, anyway, they are in the running to win it. They play at the highest level of the sport.

I think that when you call yourself a profressional pool player people expect more of 3 than they do 1 or 2.

I think Rick's analogy of an actor was good, but not really done correctly. There are many actors that arn't Kevin Spacy. A lot of everyday actors that have small roles in all types of productions, but you will never seem them on IMDB or on stage winning an award and thanking the academy. But they are still actors and can call themselves that.

Regardless of how Emily plays, she not only plays on the women's professional tour and is currently ranked #20. Does that mean anything? Well, it means whatever she wants it to mean and she can call herself whatever she wants. If I play her in a tournament and win, I would say "I beat a pro*."

I don't know sh!t about tennish but I'm sure the women's pro tennis players (http://www.wtatennis.com/singles-rankings) that are 20th-100th have little chance to beat to top girls and would be laughed at by the 100th ranked man, but I'm sure they call themselves pros.

The bar for women's professional is low, I understand that. Much different than the mens. Same could be said for the NBA and WNBA. But not only is someone who sits on the bench in the NBA (that would be the best player ever in the WNBA) is a pro, someone who sits on the bench in the WNBA (would might lose to me in a game of horse) is a pro.

I dont even care just giving you perspective.

 

[mia]

If I play her in a tournament and win, I would say "I beat a pro*."

The fact that you use an asterisk with the word "pro" kinda speaks volumes. No?

 

[cleary]

The fact that you use an asterisk with the word "pro" kinda speaks volumes. No?

I would say the same thing if I beat Helena Thornfeldt if that makes you feel better.

 

[TCo]

+5

Some men love tattoos on women. Many of those men are dirtbags.
Some men hate tattoos on women. Many of those are professionals.

Many more men hate tattoos on women than love them.
Many simply don't care either way or don't say either way.

Yes, she's attractive til I see the tats.

...than you Mr. Gallup

 

[RShellhouse]

I think Rick's analogy of an actor was good, but not really done correctly. There are many actors that arn't Kevin Spacy. A lot of everyday actors that have small roles in all types of productions, but you will never seem them on IMDB or on stage winning an award and thanking the academy. But they are still actors and can call themselves that.

Regardless of how Emily plays, she not only plays on the women's professional tour and is currently ranked #20. Does that mean anything? Well, it means whatever she wants it to mean and she can call herself whatever she wants. If I play her in a tournament and win, I would say "I beat a pro*."

I don't know sh!t about tennish but I'm sure the women's pro tennis players (http://www.wtatennis.com/singles-rankings) that are 20th-100th have little chance to beat to top girls and would be laughed at by the 100th ranked man, but I'm sure they call themselves pros.

The bar for women's professional is low, I understand that. Much different than the mens. Same could be said for the NBA and WNBA. But not only is someone who sits on the bench in the NBA (that would be the best player ever in the WNBA) is a pro, someone who sits on the bench in the WNBA (would might lose to me in a game of horse) is a pro.

I dont even care just giving you perspective.

Thanks Cleary...much better stated than my attempt..

R

 

[ShootingArts]

cost of the trip

Thanks Cleary...much better stated than my attempt..

R

Just to put the cost of the trip to do something she isn't fantastic at in perspective, take a look at this. Over a half-million a night to do something he is horrible at! Hope he at least got "pillow service".

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bidens-one-night-paris-hotel-tab-58500050_708799.html

 

[RunoutJJ]

I agree with everything you said except the shortstop part, and the A part. I don't think an A has much of a chance playing a pro. That's why they're pros and we're not. I always thought a shortstop was more like an Open - could hang with pros but you wouldn't bet on them winning.

And I'd also like to know where this room is, where a borderline A is middle of the pack, including bangers. Does that also include date-poolers?

Why would you say that?? I think "A" players are A's for a reason. If you are playing at Top speed its anybody's game A player or pro.

 

[hang-the-9]

I think Rick's analogy of an actor was good, but not really done correctly. There are many actors that arn't Kevin Spacy. A lot of everyday actors that have small roles in all types of productions, but you will never seem them on IMDB or on stage winning an award and thanking the academy. But they are still actors and can call themselves that.

I think this is also not quite right.

Let's form some groups, starting with your Actor.

Actors (anyone that is in front of a camera or audience playing a part)
Good Actors (anyone that is in front of a decently reviewed or wide-audience like a national ad or several ads, decent TV show, etc..)
Great Actors (movie studios call you and offer you millions)

Pool Players (anyone that plays pool, a guy that plays a few times a year can be this)
Good Pool Players (most of us here on the boards, you could enter tournaments but probably can't win against the top players)
Pro Pool Players (most or all of your living depends on playing and winning at pool)

You can still be a Pool player just like you can be called an Actor, but there are different levels, you can be an Actor and still serve up coffee at Starbucks, but a PRO Actor would just be Acting. Just like a PRO pool player would just be playing pool for a living, or at least try to. We all know that even some good PRO players would need at least a few extra 10Gs to live at middle class.

Does that sound more in line with things? You grouped Actors into one thing, while having various rankings of Pool Players. You can't just say all Actors are "PRO" actors just like you can't say all Pool Players are PRO Pool Players.

 

[Icon of Sin]

Why would you say that?? I think "A" players are A's for a reason. If you are playing at Top speed its anybody's game A player or pro.

I agree with Taco... Big difference between A player and Pro IMO.

 

[Taco]

Just to put the cost of the trip to do something she isn't fantastic at in perspective, take a look at this. Over a half-million a night to do something he is horrible at! Hope he at least got "pillow service".

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bidens-one-night-paris-hotel-tab-58500050_708799.html

What is he horrible at? Traveling to Paris as the VP on official US business?

The hotel he stayed in isn’t even one of the 40 most expensive hotels in Paris, so it wasn’t a boondoggle. He could have stayed at the Crillon, The Ritz or the George V, but didn’t.

But I’m sure when they swiped his AmEx card it included the bill for his large secret service retinue, which, especially in this day and age, is huge, and rightly so. They probably rented the entire floor, which is totally justifiable. And yeah, I’m sure they had dinner, but even a VP has to eat.

Now, to stay on topic, I doubt Emily spent that much on her hotel in China, but she’s also not the Vice President. At least not yet. There’s always hope.

 

[hang-the-9]

I agree with Taco... Big difference between A player and Pro IMO.

I agree, but it's more subtle and harder to notice for an outsider than the difference between an A and a B for example.

 

[bdorman]

Sorry, but I quickly dismiss any player who publishes "glamour" photos as a hack.

I understand - and sympathize with - the fact that women need to add "looks" to the mix in order to get noticed, but they're not doing it to build their billiards career; it's to spring-board to something else like acting or modeling. Dania Patrick is the first one to come to mind, but there are tons of others.

Brandon Shuff in a Speedo anyone?

 

[hang-the-9]

Sorry, but I quickly dismiss any player who publishes "glamour" photos as a hack.

I understand - and sympathize with - the fact that women need to add "looks" to the mix in order to get noticed, but they're not doing it to build their billiards career; it's to spring-board to something else like acting or modeling. Dania Patrick is the first one to come to mind, but there are tons of others.

Brandon Shuff in a Speedo anyone?

It will help them overall though, it won't make them play better or win more, but they will have more chances to, and could make money doing other things, like promoting products. I think it's less of a "need" to do for women, but more of an additional benefit some can and do take advantage of.

 

[Taco]

Sorry, but I quickly dismiss any player who publishes "glamour" photos as a hack.

I understand - and sympathize with - the fact that women need to add "looks" to the mix in order to get noticed, but they're not doing it to build their billiards career; it's to spring-board to something else like acting or modeling. Dania Patrick is the first one to come to mind, but there are tons of others.

Brandon Shuff in a Speedo anyone?

But then you'd have to dismiss Jeanette, who was the #1 woman in the world for a long time and still plays pretty sporty. Unfortunately, I think she started a trend where women players trade on their looks, and the bar has gotten pretty low - talent-wise not looks-wise. And from what I've seen I'm not sure they're doing it as a springboard. The ones I've seen play, like many of the RackStarz, are as dedicated as any guy is to make it to the top in pool. Very few of them will but they work their asses off trying to get there. And this is pure conjecture but I imagine most of them would rather be top 5 in pool than a third-tier actress or model. They love the game as much as we do.

 

[mia]

Sorry, but I quickly dismiss any player who publishes "glamour" photos as a hack.

I understand - and sympathize with - the fact that women need to add "looks" to the mix in order to get noticed, but they're not doing it to build their billiards career; it's to spring-board to something else like acting or modeling. Dania Patrick is the first one to come to mind, but there are tons of others.

Brandon Shuff in a Speedo anyone?

I don't really see this as a springboard for a career like acting or modeling. I think some of these women just market their looks because it will help get them sponsors. It makes them more marketable. As a result, they get invites to play in events because they're pretty to look at and, oh yeah. They play ok too.

The problem is, because some people/companies WILL sponsor them based on looks, they'll play up the looks angle. They'll sell themselves any way they can regardless of their ability. In some of these cases, it almost seems like the idea behind a lot of it is "I'll call myself a pro anywhere and everywhere I can. If I say it enough, maybe people will believe I can actually play like Kelly/Allison/Karen/etc. They'll think I'm amazing!" I just think its dumb because it makes them look WORSE than they may actually be. You can't help but watch and think "I guess the bar for 'pros' isn't that high." Case in point... we're on page 12 about a thread that started as "look at the pretty girl" and turned into "Really?!? She's a PRO?" And this isn't the first thread of its type.

 

[thewhiffer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UH_6chqy5s&list=PLfgxsAPfaR0tBKlAT1gjmlA5Yc6yzsC6p&index=3

I would say she played about a C speed. In other words, it was an embarrassment.

-roger

An embarassment? You were embarrassed by the way she played? It was all about you?

I give her credit for going there and trying. I give her credit for holding it together, showing grace under pressure, when her best game had deserted her and her nerves were clearly showing. Her gracious smile as she shook her opponents hand while struggling to contain her disappointment at the end was commendable. While I am sure that she might regret the outcome I hope that she quickly put it behind her.

However, she need not regret embarrassing you as it was never about you.

Jerry

 

[blah blah]

Let's not make this personal, and we'll just ask whether a person who markets themselves as a pro can adhere to products liability standards.

CET
Some jurisdictions will use a "Consumer Expectations Test," asking what the average expectations of the average consumer would hold for a pro pool player, and then comparing the product being marketed against those expectations. If it falls short, there is a defect in the product. Most people here (meaning people who are self-admitted pool addicts) have been using this test so far, claiming that a pro pool player ought to actually play pool at a certain extremely high level. On the other hand, if the average consumer doesn't play very well, and doesn't understand pool very well, then the expectations should actually be a lot lower. This test doesn't work very well when there are no universal expectations, so we can move on to the second test.

R/U Balancing
Other jurisdictions will compare the Risk of a certain product as-is against the Utility of that product, as-is. If the risk is greater than the utility, the product is not acceptable or needed. If, however, the usefulness of the product is greater than any risk, then any defects in the product can be dismissed. There are 8 factors to this test, but we can ignore them all and just be blunt: does the risk having a beautiful woman who pushes herself into difficult pool situations (team, gambling, tournaments), and who may not play at the best and highest standards of the game itself, outweigh the utility of having this same woman promote the sport through her self as a product? On the one hand, it may encourage other up-and-coming female players, who might say, "I could do that!" but on the other hand, does it tell the everyday population: "pool isn't that hard or great, but it sure is sexy?" If the latter, is this even bad?

Finally, you COULD argue that she is not marketing herself as a product (although that may be a little hard) but rather that she is selling a service. To go further, you'd have to have a real governing body (or pro tour) to describe that service and it's qualifications and conditions. In that respect, as a WPBA player with an achieved rank and no known sanctions against her, she hasn't done anything wrong at all.

There. I wasted a little Friday time and played with some of the stuff coming up on exams in a mildly enjoyable way. If anyone knows the tests I used and can point out other ways they could be applied, or things I missed, please please do so.

 

[Taco]

I agree, but it's more subtle and harder to notice for an outsider than the difference between an A and a B for example.

An A playing a pro is moving up four ranks. A to A+, to Open, to Open +, to Pro.

That would be identical to a C playing an A.

IMO, an A needs serious weight against a pro.