Mike Panozzo - Billiards Digest

[thebark]

Excellent points. I have subscribed to BD for 30 years and think it is a great magazine but how is it that they have never mentioned azbilliards.com in their annual internet award articles. Mike Howerton developed a great platform that has contributed to the globalization of pool with posters and networking from all over the world.

For me the recent typhoon in the Phillipines was of greater interest knowing that members of our az community were threatened. Howerton has made the world a little smaller and nicer.

 

[JAM]

You know, in case anyone hasn't said, MIKE HOWERTON deserves the nod to be inducted into the BCA's Hall of Fame. This website is the largest on the Internet for pool and continues to grow bigger and better. It is how many people nework and find out what's happening. This is the neighborhood pool room on the Internet. Surliness and flies, no charge.

How can anyone not see Mike Howerton getting in? He should be next!

 

[bfdlad]

You know, in case anyone hasn't said, MIKE HOWERTON deserves the nod to be inducted into the BCA's Hall of Fame. This website is the largest on the Internet for pool and continues to grow bigger and better. It is how many people nework and find out what's happening. This is the neighborhood pool room on the Internet. Surliness and flies, no charge.

How can anyone not see Mike Howerton getting in? He should be next!

Totally agree, Mr Howerton and Mr Forsyth should go in there too.

 

[sjm]

You know, in case anyone hasn't said, MIKE HOWERTON deserves the nod to be inducted into the BCA's Hall of Fame. This website is the largest on the Internet for pool and continues to grow bigger and better. It is how many people nework and find out what's happening. This is the neighborhood pool room on the Internet. Surliness and flies, no charge.

How can anyone not see Mike Howerton getting in? He should be next!

Strongly agree. Mike's contributions to American pool have been very important and deserve recognition. I'd have to guess that his name comes up already when the BCA HOF committee considers candidates for "meritorious service" inductions.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I think that Barry Hearn deserved the HOF recognition. I am also biased when it comes to BH as I admire the whole ball of matchroom wax. As far as pool goes the have put pool on TV all over the world and put on fantastic events for a long time. Having said that not sure if he has done more than anyone but for sure done a lot.

I also agree with a number of posters here that there are a number of great people in the sport who should also be recognized. Mark Griffin I think should be in the HOF for sure and although Barry Behrman has had his share of problems over the past few years I think he should also be in there if he isn't already.

Mr Hopkins is in as a player not for service to the sport wonder I anyone is in the HOF for both catagories.

There are a lot of people out there who should be in the HOF in my opinion but back to the topic of the BD article, As much as I respect BH maybe Mike's article maybe went too far in some of things he said although its great to recognize BH and what he can do he probably discounted a few people with his wording. Just my opinion.

Totally agree -- not saying he wasn't deserving nor was I saying anything negative about BH (although one might try to spin it that way). I was merely saying that Mike Panozzo's article wasn't accurate in the slightest and there are resident "pool warriors" who deserved entry beforehand. That's all I was saying, no less - no more.

By the way... my deep apologies to Greg Sullivan --- I should have mentioned him in my original post as well.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You know, in case anyone hasn't said, MIKE HOWERTON deserves the nod to be inducted into the BCA's Hall of Fame. This website is the largest on the Internet for pool and continues to grow bigger and better. It is how many people nework and find out what's happening. This is the neighborhood pool room on the Internet. Surliness and flies, no charge.

How can anyone not see Mike Howerton getting in? He should be next!

100% agreed. I think I mentioned him in my original post. Totally agree.

 

[bfdlad]

Strongly agree. Mike's contributions to American pool have been very important and deserve recognition. I'd have to guess that his name comes up already when the BCA HOF committee considers candidates for "meritorious service" inductions.

Just realized something on Mike Howerton. If you know Mike at all this is going to make sense as to why he is not in there already.
Mike is on the board of people who vote on this stuff so first of all, how would it look if he was voted in?? You know there would be someone out there saying he was only in because of his connection to the board.
Secondly, knowing Mike. if it was brought up to put him in I think he would most likely say something like "NO, there are others out there that deserve it more than I do"

So I am not sure he will go in the HOF until h is no longer part of the vote. Or the rest of the voters say "NO Mike we are doing it without you" .

 

[JAM]

100% agreed. I think I mentioned him in my original post. Totally agree.

I still like Barry Hearn, though, for this year's selection.

I don't know how long you have been following the Hall of Fame nominations, but one year, there was a poll on the Main Page. There were three candidates. One of them was Earl. Earl got over 70 percent of the popular vote to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, yet the Hall of Fame committee at that time voted in another on that pool. The BCA put the poll out there, but like the United States President elections, they went with the electoral vote, not the popular vote.

The Hall of Fame committee member names used to be on the BCA website. One year, they cast a vote on the telephone with a call for the ayes. They never asked to count them, either.

Like the way Mosconi Cup changes its selection criteria for Team USA members, the BCA's Hall of Fame Committee selection criteria *and* their voting procedures have changed in the 12 or 13 years I have been following them.

In fact, some of those so-called voting members, IMO, don't have what I would deem as the necessary credentials to cast a vote.

I do like Barry Hearn's nomination. Should others have been put in before him? Like Earl Strickland, their time will come. Look at poor Jose Parica, having Bustie get in before him, and Jose is the LEADER of the Filipino Invasion. He won world championships LONG BEFORE Matchroom Sport took over the world championships when they were hosting them.

What you and I and other forum members think, unfortunately, won't persuade anything when it comes to this Hall of Fame for BCA.

 

[sjm]

I still like Barry Hearn, though, for this year's selection.

I don't know how long you have been following the Hall of Fame nominations, but one year, there was a poll on the Main Page. There were three candidates. One of them was Earl. Earl got over 70 percent of the popular vote to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, yet the Hall of Fame committee at that time voted in another on that pool. The BCA put the poll out there, but like the United States President elections, they went with the electoral vote, not the popular vote.

The Hall of Fame committee member names used to be on the BCA website. One year, they cast a vote on the telephone with a call for the ayes. They never asked to count them, either.

Like the way Mosconi Cup changes its selection criteria for Team USA members, the BCA's Hall of Fame Committee selection criteria *and* their voting procedures have changed in the 12 or 13 years I have been following them.

In fact, some of those so-called voting members, IMO, don't have what I would deem as the necessary credentials to cast a vote.

I do like Barry Hearn's nomination. Should others have been put in before him? Like Earl Strickland, their time will come. Look at poor Jose Parica, having Bustie get in before him, and Jose is the LEADER of the Filipino Invasion. He won world championships LONG BEFORE Matchroom Sport took over the world championships when they were hosting them.

What you and I and other forum members think, unfortunately, won't persuade anything when it comes to this Hall of Fame for BCA.

This is very well said. The HOF criteria can be very difficult to comprehend at times and it leaves all of us scratching our heads from time to time.

 

[JB Cases]

Barry deserves the Hall of Fame spot. No question about that. But to say he has done more for American pool in America than others not in is not true.

Barry did an amazing job bringing American style pool to Asia and Britain though.

 

[nightmare]

Just my two cents...

Not wishing to offend my foreign friends who are in the BCA Hall of Fame, however...

I believe that the Billiard Congress of AMERICA's Hall of Fame should be limited to AMERICANS.

Other countries have their own halls of fame...I could be wrong but I don't believe that they allow non-countrymen to be so honored.

 

[JAM]

Just my two cents...

Not wishing to offend my foreign friends who are in the BCA Hall of Fame, however...

I believe that the Billiard Congress of AMERICA's Hall of Fame should be limited to AMERICANS.

Other countries have their own halls of fame...I could be wrong but I don't believe that they allow non-countrymen to be so honored.

I've always said that the U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship should also be limited to American competitors only. :wink:

 

[sjm]

Just my two cents...

Not wishing to offend my foreign friends who are in the BCA Hall of Fame, however...

I believe that the Billiard Congress of AMERICA's Hall of Fame should be limited to AMERICANS.

Other countries have their own halls of fame...I could be wrong but I don't believe that they allow non-countrymen to be so honored.

Players like Efren Reyes, Francisco Bustamante, and Ralf Souquet may not be American but they spent much of their playing careers competing in America, had great success playing in America, and added a lot to American pool.

Would you exclude non-Americans form the baseball hall of fame? Some of the greatest ever were foreign born and, just to name a few, Roberto Clemente, Juan Marichal and Tony Perez. Japan's Ichiro Suzuki will surely be inducted soon. Guys like these added so much to American baseball.

I can see an argument for restricting player inductions to those who competed significantly in America, but omitting foreigners would be inappropriate.

 

[DRW]

I'm always a little behind on my reading, so I just recently paged through Billiard Digest's website and came across Mike Panozzo's last article, which can be found HERE.

Mike's article, entitled "Barry Extraordinary," is either a paid-placement for Matchroom Sport, highly slanted or total baloney.

After my second time reading Mike's article, it reminded me of the famous Internet forum picture:

In reading Mike's article, he's taking a position that in a pool world that's polluted with bad promoters and cancelled events, Matchroom and Barry chugs on like, "The Little Engine Who Could."

I get that Barry runs a nice, successful made-for-TV event and should be commended as such. However, when Mike makes statements like, "How extraordinary it is that the person who has done most for American pool in the last two decades doesn't even live in America. Then again, Barry Hearn is anything but ordinary."

I had to read this about ten times in order to figure out if Mike was dead-serious or if he was just "trolling" in order to get a rise out of everyone. To say that Barry has done more for American pool than anyone else in the last 20 years is so over-the-top ridiculous, it can only leave one speechless.

I'm just going to list a few people that immediately come to mind:

- Allen Hopkins: Has been running his SBE for 22 years now, creating an event that puts tons of money into the pockets of vendors and players alike. Allen has always delivered and players have always been paid. On top of running one of the biggest and most successful pool events in the U.S., he's always fought hard for the players as a whole and has been a past leader of the pro billiard tour. 25 Years ago, Allen went to ESPN and pretty much got pool on TV, originally. At one time, players were going to boycott ESPN and Allen helped to bring peace to most of that.

I've been a long-time reader of Billiards Digest. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I've NEVER seen the Super Billiard Expo on their cover ever. Why is that??? To me, that's VERY bizarre.

Maybe BD can comment?

- Matt Braun (Billiards International): Has produced the Skins Game, Trick Shots and the International Challenge of Champions. Together, these events have put well over a $1M into players' pockets since their inception. Each time, players have left with their check and have always been paid. In many cases, BI has even paid for players' expenses just to get to their events. Matt's events have pretty much been THE mainstay for "pool on TV" here in the U.S. for the last 20 years, 100%. Braun and Hopkins have worked hard over the years to constantly improve these events and to take care of players to the highest level possible.


- Mark Griffin: Has been running one of the largest and most successful leagues in the history of the United States, pulling more new players into this sport than almost anyone. In addition to his leagues, Mark has produced some of the most successful events and trade shows our industry has seen. Mark has always delivered what he's promised and paid the players. In regards to "pool technology" -- CSI has also raised the bar in regards to tournament management innovations more than any other entity by far. If you count amateur players, Mark has put a fortune into players' pockets.

- Terry Bell / Larry Hubbart: APA Pool League -- Running the largest league and putting mountains of cash into players' pockets and pulling scores and scores of new players into our sport.

- Mike Howerton / Jerry Forsythe: AZBilliards. AZBilliards has re-defined how we read and learn about pool by leveraging the power of the Internet. Although we think of AZB as a medium for information, we seldom look at it in regards to pumping mountains of cash into players' pockets. If you consider how many local and regional events they've helped to promote as well as the volume of cash changing hands in the WANTED/FOR SALE section, it's a monsterous mountain of cash, volume-wise, over the years.

I could probably go on and on ---- there are tons of individuals who have done far more for American pool over the last 20 years and Barry isn't in the top 3 for SURE.

Therefore, is Mike being serious or is he "trolling?"

The article then continues to rave about how Barry is getting inducted into the BCA Hall of Fame. I'm not saying that Barry isn't in that league for Meritorious Service, but shouldn't Mark or Matt get that honor before Barry (since Allen, Terry and Larry are already in)?

Why doesn't Billiards Digest recognize and support the U.S. promoters and movers/shakers that DO grow U.S. pool and put piles of cash into players' pockets? Why the red carpet treatment for Barry?

I hope BD stops playing "favorites" and puts a little thought into what it writes. Write and cover people and events equally. Otherwise, it makes it appear slanted and heavily biased.

Sorry Mike -- Barry hasn't been the "top dog" in American pool for the last 20 or so years --- not even CLOSE.

I like visiting the BD website, but didn't see this article. I'm in agreement with you on others being more important over the years than Barry.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I'm always a little behind on my reading, so I just recently paged through Billiard Digest's website and came across Mike Panozzo's last article, which can be found HERE.

Mike's article, entitled "Barry Extraordinary," is either a paid-placement for Matchroom Sport, highly slanted or total baloney. ...

You might consider writing a letter to the editor. Some restraint will be needed if you want to see it in print.

As for the Hall of Fame selection committee, I believe that it now includes only members of the billiard media, but I might be confused.

 

[MikeP312]

I Still Say Barry is Extraordinary!

Okay, let’s see if I can figure this Forum thing out!
(And bear with me, cuz this is probably gonna take a while!)
I hide from nothing, but I hope you can understand why a magazine publisher would, in general, avoid posting on forums. You guys play for keeps!
That said, I feel like I owe you all a response.
For starters, I really don’t troll. I never write for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of people. Don’t get me wrong, a good editorial should evoke response and encourage thought and discussion. But I don’t purposely say outlandish things just to get people stirred up. I mean what I say, and I say what I mean.
So, yes, I stand by my assertion that Barry Hearn has done more for pool in the past 20 years than any promoter. That’s not to disparage any other promoter, or slight other people in the game who have contributed greatly to the sport…names you all rightly called out.
And I have no problem with people who disagree with me. In a sense, this entire thread is battling editorials. You’re all stating your cases. None of us are absolutely right…or wrong.
But here’s my response…
First, I’m a Barry Hearn fan. Always have been. There is no underlying agenda. He’s not an advertiser. I’ve never received a penny or a favor from Barry.
But I hope you can at least respect that I have been following pool for more than 30 years, and my opinions are not without basis. To me, too much was made of the phrase “American pool.” I know Matchroom isn’t big in the U.S. I’m talking about what he’s done for pool in general, and for American pool players. Let’s face it. Professional pool has been an international game since the demise of the PBT. The impact of players and others will never be about “American pool alone” again. The game has outgrown America.
Facts are facts. Barry Hearn is MUCH more than the Mosconi Cup. Hell, if all he produced was the Mosconi Cup, he’d have never been considered for the Hall of Fame. How about the World Pool Championships, the World Pool Masters and the World Cup of Pool? The name of Matt Braun was brought up. I love Matt, and have known him since before he even put on the first Challenge of Champions. The case was made that he’s put over $1 million in players pockets, always pays, and in many cases pays players’ expenses.
Fair enough. Let’s forget Matchroom’s TV hours, because they’re not in the U.S. Nevertheless, in the same time period, Barry Hearn produced 70 tournaments, paid out over $9 million, and never charged an entry fee. Does Matt Braun belong in the Hall of Fame? Probably. But I wouldn’t vote for him ahead of Barry Hearn. (And Matt’s events are no more “American” than Barry’s.)
That’s all I’ll say about Barry, because I’m already on record with my thoughts.
My main reason for posting is to respond to a few assertions that I think deserve response.
Allen Hopkins. Are there any bigger conspiracy theorists than people in the pool world?
There are few people in pool I respect more than Allen Hopkins. Did politics play a role in his not getting into the HOF sooner? For sure. Politics, favoritism and ignorance. That’s why the billiard media lobbied to get the voting away from the BCA and into the hands of people who knew the players and contributors, and didn’t have axes to grind. Two years later Hopkins was elected. Trust me, if it wasn’t for the USBMA, Allen would still be waiting.
I, personally, nominated Allen for the BBIA (another industry group) Industry Service Award, as much for his contributions as a promoter as for his accomplishments as a player. And I was the one who introduced him at that ceremony. So, please don’t infer that I have it in for Allen. No SBE covers? No Yesteryear mentions? Really? I sell magazines, and expos don’t make good covers…not of the SBE variety, or of the BCA variety.
And statements like “Allen won half the pro tour events,” and didn’t get Player of the Year? You may not like my opinions, but at least I get facts straight before I print them. In 1990 there were nine pro tour events. Allen won two. Kim won two. It was close, but Kim won a few other semi-major events and got the nod. And “Allen got pool on TV, originally.” Where do people get this stuff?
And, while we’re at it, please don’t use my name and the BCA as if we’re one. Hall of Fame voting has nothing to do with the BCA. I have nothing to do with the BCA. Hell, I’m the only person in this business who’s blasted the BCA editorially, and I’ve done it a lot. At the same time, I still believe the BCA serves an important role in this business.
I also believe people like you, who obviously are vested in the game, serve an important role. And what you think does matter, otherwise I, for one, wouldn’t respond.
In the unlikely event any of your are still awake, I appreciate your comments, value your opinions, and will now fade back into the oblivion of magazine publishing. This forum stuff is exhausting!

Mike Panozzo
Billiards Digest

 

[MikeP312]

Okay, let’s see if I can figure this Forum thing out!
(And bear with me, cuz this is probably gonna take a while!)
I hide from nothing, but I hope you can understand why a magazine publisher would, in general, avoid posting on forums. You guys play for keeps!
That said, I feel like I owe you all a response.
For starters, I really don’t troll. I never write for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of people. Don’t get me wrong, a good editorial should evoke response and encourage thought and discussion. But I don’t purposely say outlandish things just to get people stirred up. I mean what I say, and I say what I mean.
So, yes, I stand by my assertion that Barry Hearn has done more for pool in the past 20 years than any promoter. That’s not to disparage any other promoter, or slight other people in the game who have contributed greatly to the sport…names you all rightly called out.
And I have no problem with people who disagree with me. In a sense, this entire thread is battling editorials. You’re all stating your cases. None of us are absolutely right…or wrong.
But here’s my response…
First, I’m a Barry Hearn fan. Always have been. There is no underlying agenda. He’s not an advertiser. I’ve never received a penny or a favor from Barry.
But I hope you can at least respect that I have been following pool for more than 30 years, and my opinions are not without basis. To me, too much was made of the phrase “American pool.” I know Matchroom isn’t big in the U.S. I’m talking about what he’s done for pool in general, and for American pool players. Let’s face it. Professional pool has been an international game since the demise of the PBT. The impact of players and others will never be about “American pool alone” again. The game has outgrown America.
Facts are facts. Barry Hearn is MUCH more than the Mosconi Cup. Hell, if all he produced was the Mosconi Cup, he’d have never been considered for the Hall of Fame. How about the World Pool Championships, the World Pool Masters and the World Cup of Pool? The name of Matt Braun was brought up. I love Matt, and have known him since before he even put on the first Challenge of Champions. The case was made that he’s put over $1 million in players pockets, always pays, and in many cases pays players’ expenses.
Fair enough. Let’s forget Matchroom’s TV hours, because they’re not in the U.S. Nevertheless, in the same time period, Barry Hearn produced 70 tournaments, paid out over $9 million, and never charged an entry fee. Does Matt Braun belong in the Hall of Fame? Probably. But I wouldn’t vote for him ahead of Barry Hearn. (And Matt’s events are no more “American” than Barry’s.)
That’s all I’ll say about Barry, because I’m already on record with my thoughts.
My main reason for posting is to respond to a few assertions that I think deserve response.
Allen Hopkins. Are there any bigger conspiracy theorists than people in the pool world?
There are few people in pool I respect more than Allen Hopkins. Did politics play a role in his not getting into the HOF sooner? For sure. Politics, favoritism and ignorance. That’s why the billiard media lobbied to get the voting away from the BCA and into the hands of people who knew the players and contributors, and didn’t have axes to grind. Two years later Hopkins was elected. Trust me, if it wasn’t for the USBMA, Allen would still be waiting.
I, personally, nominated Allen for the BBIA (another industry group) Industry Service Award, as much for his contributions as a promoter as for his accomplishments as a player. And I was the one who introduced him at that ceremony. So, please don’t infer that I have it in for Allen. No SBE covers? No Yesteryear mentions? Really? I sell magazines, and expos don’t make good covers…not of the SBE variety, or of the BCA variety.
And statements like “Allen won half the pro tour events,” and didn’t get Player of the Year? You may not like my opinions, but at least I get facts straight before I print them. In 1990 there were nine pro tour events. Allen won two. Kim won two. It was close, but Kim won a few other semi-major events and got the nod. And “Allen got pool on TV, originally.” Where do people get this stuff?
And, while we’re at it, please don’t use my name and the BCA as if we’re one. Hall of Fame voting has nothing to do with the BCA. I have nothing to do with the BCA. Hell, I’m the only person in this business who’s blasted the BCA editorially, and I’ve done it a lot. At the same time, I still believe the BCA serves an important role in this business.
I also believe people like you, who obviously are vested in the game, serve an important role. And what you think does matter, otherwise I, for one, wouldn’t respond.
In the unlikely event any of you are still awake, I appreciate your comments, value your opinions, and will now fade back into the oblivion of magazine publishing. This forum stuff is exhausting!

Mike Panozzo
Billiards Digest

 

[sjm]

So, yes, I stand by my assertion that Barry Hearn has done more for pool in the past 20 years than any promoter

First of all, Mike, in typical fashion, has shown why I respect him so much, by clarifying his position and refuting some factual info offered in this thread.

The discrepancy seems to be that Mike is now stating "Barry Hearn has done more for pool in the past 20 years than any promoter," whereas his article says that "Barry Hearn has done more for American pool than any promoter."

These are two very different assertions, and had he merely stated that Barry Hearn had done more for pool in the past 20 years, I might not have even posted in this thread, for that would be a reasonable, if arguable, statement.

That's not, however, what he said, and most of us found it objectionable that Mike made this assertion regarding American pool. It's his right to make that statement, and as he rightly noted in his post, his article resulted in some healthy editorial debate.

If Mike meant what he said in his post, which is not what he said in his BD article, I'm OK with it. No matter what he meant, though, Mike Panozzo is one of American pool's most treasured assets.

 

[Scaramouche]

For two decades Barry Hearn and Matchroom have exposed some top American pool players (who can't find an audience in their own country) to the World TV audience.
Unfortunately, these players have done virtually nothing to build on that exposure.
The World, having watched the recent antics of some foul-mouth jerks, is completely indifferent to American pool - a novelty act.

 

[MikeP312]

You, Stu, are a brave man!