Celine Dion?? What, did she sing the national anthem at the U.S. Open or something?
Hall of Fame for Parica
- Thread starter DrawtheRock
- Start date
Celine Dion?? What, did she sing the national anthem at the U.S. Open or something?
LOL!!! You're definitely mistaken. Consider that some of them have a video for sale from http://theactionreport.com (TAR). No, every WPBA member definitely does not claim that she's never gambled. Too many of us have reported, video'd and bet.
I don't know how long it's been like this, but similar to other sports, there is an official "sports writers" group for pool that votes on the HoF. Additionally, there is a small group of "at large" voters. I believe it's no more than 40 total voters.
Fred
I definitely agree Stu, Jose's gambling should neither hurt nor help his HOF chances. We all know how feared a player Jose is/was but it's tournament titles that make a HOF player. In that regard Parica is borderline, regardless if he was spotting World Champions in after hours action.
Best
We have debated this before and his gambling should play in his favor. You mentioned two players in Archer and Souquet that have had great careers in 9 ball yet neither would have wanted to play him a 15 a head set of 9 ball for money...why is that? Because he was a better than they were...period The Hall of fame is for the best players and they can say all they want about looking down on Gambling but that is what has made this sport. Look at when pool has really jumped up in this country and both times it was after movies about gambling in pool (The Hustler, The Color of Money). Having Parica not in the Hall of Fame is a black eye for pool. He was one of the greatest pool players of all time and showed it by playing heads up pool (for long sessions where luck wasnt going to play out)against the top players and had to spot many of them (while still beating them). His matches are pretty well known..especially by top players in pool. Ask Alan Hopkins how bad he beat Sigel for the cash when Sigel was in his prime. Hopkins said it was so bad that he thought Sigel was dumping the match, only to later find out how great of a player Jose was.
WE NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND MAKE HIM A HALL FAMER
We have debated this before and his gambling should play in his favor. You mentioned two players in Archer and Souquet that have had great careers in 9 ball yet neither would have wanted to play him a 15 a head set of 9 ball for money...why is that? Because he was a better than they were...period The Hall of fame is for the best players and they can say all they want about looking down on Gambling but that is what has made this sport. Look at when pool has really jumped up in this country and both times it was after movies about gambling in pool (The Hustler, The Color of Money). Having Parica not in the Hall of Fame is a black eye for pool. He was one of the greatest pool players of all time and showed it by playing heads up pool (for long sessions where luck wasnt going to play out)against the top players and had to spot many of them (while still beating them). His matches are pretty well known..especially by top players in pool. Ask Alan Hopkins how bad he beat Sigel for the cash when Sigel was in his prime. Hopkins said it was so bad that he thought Sigel was dumping the match, only to later find out how great of a player Jose was.
WE NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND MAKE HIM A HALL FAMER
Dan Marino
Is the Hall of Fame only about winning pool tournaments? If so, then maybe he shouldnt be in. If that is the criteria then pool has a long way to go. Pro football player Dan Marino never won a title but was easily voted in the Pro Football Hall of fame...why? Because the Hall of Fame is for the very best football players that played the game.
Is the Hall of Fame only about winning pool tournaments? If so, then maybe he shouldnt be in. If that is the criteria then pool has a long way to go. Pro football player Dan Marino never won a title but was easily voted in the Pro Football Hall of fame...why? Because the Hall of Fame is for the very best football players that played the game.
I am with you on Jose being in the Hall of Fame. The only problem with him being a great gambler is that there is no documentation to prove these matches. Only hear say.
The reason he wouldn't do so well in the tourneys is because he was dumping for a later date with the winner and take his cash.....
Jose Parica deserves to be in the Hall of Fame....:thumbup:
Plenty of Witnesses
There are plenty of witnesses who have seen him beat hall of famers for money. It isnt hearsay, there were many people watching many of his matches.
There are plenty of witnesses who have seen him beat hall of famers for money. It isnt hearsay, there were many people watching many of his matches.
if you look on the front page of azb. do you see a list for players who win the most tourny's? or do you see one that shows who has made the most money. isn't the definition of pro "making a living off of something". so why should tournaments be the only criteria. how many world titles does bustamante have. do you think he will have trouble getting in?
Period? How about question mark? I've read it over and over --- the more money at stake, the better Jose played. But in the 2003 US Open, $30,000 was available to the winner of the final, but Jose lost the final. In the 2005 US Open, $40,000 was available to the winner, but again, Jose lost the final. At the 2001 BCA Open, $20,000 was available to the winner, but Jose lost the final. As far as money available in competition, as far as I know, these were the biggest money finals Jose ever reached, and he wasn't up to capturing the biggest prizes. By comparison, no player of the modern era of nine ball has excelled more in competition with big money on the line than Souquet, who has won the final of almost every big purse event our sport has to offer.
When you gamble, you have room for error. You can dog it for an hour, even two, and as long as you find your highest speed at some point, you'll eventually get the cash. In tournaments, there is no room for error, it's perform now or go home real soon. Winning tournaments means beating champion after champion after champion, and never having a lapse in excellence, and that's why so few in our sports history have won the toughest titles with any regularity.
There is no evidence of any kind available to suggest that Parica was a better nine ball player than Souquet, and if you have any, you've hidden it extremely well. A comment like "Souquet didn't want a piece of Jose in a fifteen ahead race" is ridiculous, as Ralf didn't gamble at all.
Remember, no player of the modern era has worn out Efren Reyes more than Ralf, and Ralf has generally outperformed Jose in their head-to-head battles in competition. Maybe you want to rethink your position about Jose over Ralf, or offer a little substantiation for your claim. Of course, it's a matter of opinion, and the debate with you is always fun.
... Jose and Ralf, two indisputably great champions.
In any other singles sport (golf, tennis) you have to have titles to get in the HOF period. If a player is so great that he can spot champions in gambling matches then why aren't they winning lots of titles? The titles say it all, there's no room for speculation, it's documented. If a player could get in on gambling prowess alone then there are a lot of past legends that would be in the HOF but they aren't. Don Willis would have been in the hall in a heartbeat because NO ONE would play him for the cash, but he chose to gamble and stay undercover so he's not in the hall of fame.
just in this decade parica has been in the finals of quite a few highly regarded tournys. not a substantial amount like souquet or archer. but then again he is in his 50's!!!!!! ask any pro what they think about paricas game. plain and simple he deserves to be honored with the other legends of the game.
Parica's skill is not in question, we all know how good he is but for some reason he hasn't accomplished what he should have in major events. Pool greatness isn't just about skill,it's about nerves, heart and the ability to just make it happen when it counts is what make a legendary player. Souquet has that in spades, so does Archer and so did Sigel...Sigel may have been the hardest player ever to beat in a final. I couldn't care less if Parica could spot Sigel the 7 ball while gambling, again the question: where are the titles? I have no idea why he hasn't won more in the 30 years he's been playing tournament pool.
Again, two different conversations.
Parica the tournament player, vs. was Parica the dominant cash player IN THE WORLD for a period of over a decade.
IF, IF you want to define HOF membership solely on titles one, set a bar, make it objective, like "major" wins in golf, or record in finals etc.
If you want to include past characters (Fats), colorful "Road Legends", and cash monsters, things become much more anecdotal.
That being said, with the advent of the internet, and forums like this, it is much easier to come to a consensus on who's a monster and who beat whom.
....and just one guy's opinion, but saying a guy doesn't gamble doesn't automatically mean he'd rob someone just because he beat them one short set in a tournament.
That doesn't hold weight at the $5 local level any more than it does at the World Championships. ANYBODY with that kind of name could get staked and have ZERO of his own cheese on the light if he wanted to prove a point.
Or play a TAR type match with both players getting paid so it was a 2-man tourney instead of a gambling set.
Parica the tournament player, vs. was Parica the dominant cash player IN THE WORLD for a period of over a decade.
IF, IF you want to define HOF membership solely on titles one, set a bar, make it objective, like "major" wins in golf, or record in finals etc.
If you want to include past characters (Fats), colorful "Road Legends", and cash monsters, things become much more anecdotal.
That being said, with the advent of the internet, and forums like this, it is much easier to come to a consensus on who's a monster and who beat whom.
....and just one guy's opinion, but saying a guy doesn't gamble doesn't automatically mean he'd rob someone just because he beat them one short set in a tournament.
That doesn't hold weight at the $5 local level any more than it does at the World Championships. ANYBODY with that kind of name could get staked and have ZERO of his own cheese on the light if he wanted to prove a point.
Or play a TAR type match with both players getting paid so it was a 2-man tourney instead of a gambling set.
That's what i'm saying...No documentation....Though i think he done far beyond good enough in the tournament area to be in the H.O.F...
I was just thinking that this is why those involved with who goes to the H.O.F. is speculating his achievements....
I am all for Jose Parica being in the H.O.F.
If he doesn't get there then i wonder if he will regret dumping those tourney matches just to get a game later....:thumbup:
Enough with the useless speculation on gambling and the effect of HoF voting! Goodness. Jose' is already on the ballot. Gambling didn't affect that one way or another.
It's up to the voters. There is no "he can't be voted in due to too much gambling and not tourney wins" clause. LOL!!! If you guys think that the voters of the HoF don't know Jose' Parica, I think you all must think too little of others who love this sport.
Boston Shorty is in. So is Wanderone.
Fred <~~~ voting is in two weeks. Patience.
It's up to the voters. There is no "he can't be voted in due to too much gambling and not tourney wins" clause. LOL!!! If you guys think that the voters of the HoF don't know Jose' Parica, I think you all must think too little of others who love this sport.
Boston Shorty is in. So is Wanderone.
Fred <~~~ voting is in two weeks. Patience.
Skill and Nerves
The game is about skill and nerves and that is why gambling is a better way to showcase that. Parica was not losing tournaments because of skill or nerves, but the lack of pressure tournaments puts on the players takes nervers out of things. In tournaments, the players have already put up their money and know that is all that they can lose..so the nerves issues dont come up. There is much more pressure in high dollar, gambling sessions, than in the tournaments. So you dont give a damn whether Parica could give Sigel the 7 ball in gambling sessions...which is fine. So if Jose Parica could have given Sigel weight and beat him consistently in long sessions gambling..who would you think was the better player between the two?
The game is about skill and nerves and that is why gambling is a better way to showcase that. Parica was not losing tournaments because of skill or nerves, but the lack of pressure tournaments puts on the players takes nervers out of things. In tournaments, the players have already put up their money and know that is all that they can lose..so the nerves issues dont come up. There is much more pressure in high dollar, gambling sessions, than in the tournaments. So you dont give a damn whether Parica could give Sigel the 7 ball in gambling sessions...which is fine. So if Jose Parica could have given Sigel weight and beat him consistently in long sessions gambling..who would you think was the better player between the two?
Older
So first of all, I definitely respect your opinions and your posts..I think we have some good debates..even though I have a different opinion. You are also talking about a player that is way past his prime in the finals of these tournaments (he is actually now sixty years old). Also, for those biggest prizes in the tournaments..who is to say the money was at stake? I dont know any details at all, so it is just conjecture on my part, but splitting pots and giving savers to other players is something that has been fairly common on the pro pool tour..so I am not sure he didnt get a good share of the money that was at "stake" in any of those finals matches. I do wonder though..why the great champions that were gambling at the time...did not want to gamble with Parica and some even needed spots to get them to play. Why do you think that is? I know why..because he had better skills and execution than they did. He made some long races to take luck out of things (15 ahead sets) and you could make some good coin if you beat him (more than you could in winning a big tournament).. So why would these top players (who definitely were gambling with others) not want a piece of him? He played better than they did, thats why. and like I said..if the Hall of Fame is for the best tournament players then I agree maybe he shouldnt be in. If it is for the best players then he should easily be in. Just my opinion
So first of all, I definitely respect your opinions and your posts..I think we have some good debates..even though I have a different opinion. You are also talking about a player that is way past his prime in the finals of these tournaments (he is actually now sixty years old). Also, for those biggest prizes in the tournaments..who is to say the money was at stake? I dont know any details at all, so it is just conjecture on my part, but splitting pots and giving savers to other players is something that has been fairly common on the pro pool tour..so I am not sure he didnt get a good share of the money that was at "stake" in any of those finals matches. I do wonder though..why the great champions that were gambling at the time...did not want to gamble with Parica and some even needed spots to get them to play. Why do you think that is? I know why..because he had better skills and execution than they did. He made some long races to take luck out of things (15 ahead sets) and you could make some good coin if you beat him (more than you could in winning a big tournament).. So why would these top players (who definitely were gambling with others) not want a piece of him? He played better than they did, thats why. and like I said..if the Hall of Fame is for the best tournament players then I agree maybe he shouldnt be in. If it is for the best players then he should easily be in. Just my opinion
It's not about who the better player is, otherwise George Rood, Don Willis, etc would all be in the HOF a long time ago. It's about winning major titles. Again the question: Why hasn't Parica won more titles? Since he was so much better than everyone else it should have been a cake walk but he didn't. I've seen parica play in many tournaments over the years and he played phenomenally throughout most of the tournaments until the end and then he'd start messing up. Why? I don't know. But it was always Sigel, Reyes, Varner, Archer, Souquet, Strickland that would end up winning.