Also I would like to say to Kelly that in no way did I single you out. I was speaking of all the top women in general. Your friend John brought you up. I didn't want any hard feelings. I was just stating my opinion and it seems that some people agree with me.
Once and for all!
- Thread starter B_White
- Start date
mbvl said:
I can't see the difference? But if you want to bet on that statement as you quoted it then I will be more than happy to get one either Allison, Karen, or Kelly matched up with a "top man" for a week's worth of nine ball and see if she wins one set.
Can we double the bet and triple the bet when it goes to two weeks and three weeks.
And yes, I read and comprehend just fine thank you and thanks again for reminding me why it's better that I stick to selling cases. Educating the unwilling to learn is not my strong suit.
You said "No woman pool player today can ever win against any of the top 1000 men playing 7 or 8 ahead 7 days in a row"
You got a bet there Mark - Post a list of who you think the top 1000 men players in the world and we will publish that list for review. When all have more or less agreed on the list then I will stake Kelly Fisher to play the #1000 person on the list with the following conditions. They play 7 ahead sets for seven days - 12 hours a day and if Kelly wins one set then we win. If she loses all the sets then you win. As soon as a set is over then another must begin with slotted breaks for food.
I bet $20,000 that Kelly Fisher wins at least one set against whoever is your #1000th name - that we all agree on. I wouldn't want you to rank Orcullo at 1000 for the purpose of trapping me.
So IF you truly believe your statement above then are you willing to BET on it? Brian are you willing to bet on your number of 500?
IS ANYONE WILLING TO BET ON THE STATEMENT THAT A TOP WOMAN WILL NEVER WIN A 7 or 8 ahead SET against a the top 500 or 1000 players in the world?
By the way, would Jeff Abernathy be considered among the top 1000 players in the world? I hope not because then you have already lost the bet before you had a chance to make it. Jeff also wins against some of the players who have already been mentioned so I hope he doesn't feel slighted if you leave him off the list.
B_White said:
So the truth comes out, you never "went" to Kelly's home room to play her. You barked on the internet to play and If I remember correctly it was inside another of these type of "put the women" down type threads.
You and I never talked at Smoking Cue about this. Never.
But if we had you sure didn't try and negotiate anything did you? The game you are referring to was something you challenged on the internet.
And if I remember correctly it was the SAME situation, you barking about how you are better than ALL the women but refusing to give up weight.
Same story different year.
And I use Kelly as an example because I know her and her game. You can interchange Allison or Karen in any of the statements I have about relative ability and your assertions and they still apply.
And Brian, none of the people who "agree" with you will actually BET on your statement that a woman will NEVER win a 7/8 ahead set against a top male in 7 days of play. No one here will BET anything of any real value on that ridiculous assertion.
Or will they? Any takers? Jay, Billy, Fatboy? Corvette, Crickets Chirping.................. come on I know SOMEBODY believes in Brian's statement enough to bet some some serious Cheddar against the woman winning one single set in a week?
Last edited:
mbvl said:
Just for clarity I decided to go back and get the exact quote from Brian's first post.
"Don't go by a tournament, play a 7 or 8 ahead 7 days in a row and see what happens. IT WOULD BE 500-0. Yes i'm saying it, pick your best woman and if she played the top men 7 or 8 ahead 7 days in a row she would NEVER win."
Now the red colored statements indicate to me that Brian is saying she would never win a single set. Surely even he does not believe that the woman wouldn't win a single game. So perhaps you can tell me what the statement means?
Of course IF he had left out the 500-0 comment then the statement could certainly be interpreted to mean that she might win a set but that she would lose overall.
Please break it down for me, I welcome any logical description of what the statement says.
LOL. You are just unreasonable. I said they would never win. I.E. win 4 of the 7 sets. And trust me, I have not been barking. (you'll know if I start) Oh, and whether you remember it or not it WAS you that I spoke with in Smoking Cue.JB Cases said:
Last edited:
JB Cases said:
I think you guys are talking past one another. I think when he said, "pick your best woman and if she played the top men 7 or 8 ahead 7 days in a row she would NEVER win" he meant that the man would always end up ahead after 7 days in a row of playing 7 or 8 ahead sets, not that the woman would never win a set. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
B_White said:
Ok so let me get this right. You are saying that there are 500 men in the world who can play the top women and IF they played 7 days with one 7/8 ahead set each day - that the woman would never win the majority of sets against any of those 500 men?
If that is what you are saying then you might be right BUT it's still assuming that the women don't get better. Although I happen to think that you are still wrong if that is what is what you mean - for a variety of reasons.
What makes you think that the top women won't get better if they do that?
Isn't that what we always say? That playing better players makes you better?
So how can you assume that the top women wouldn't learn and get better?
Which again is back to my first question to you that you didn't answer.
I mean since we are theorizing here - what makes you think that if the top women started with the top ten players and went from there that they wouldn't pick up the skills to handle the other 490 "top males"?
B_White said:
No I was discussing your points. You are the one "stirring up trouble" by starting threads like these.
Here is what I think in response to your "prediction"
First of all out of your hypothetical and mythical list of 500 males there are bound to be some of them who WILL get beat. One of the reasons is because the woman will break them down, she will play better and she WILL get better.
Period. That is a fact of life among competitive organisms, get better or die.
What are you going to do Brian if Kelly puts a four pack on you and the a three pack and then plays safe and then a 2 pack and does this over and over again throughout the week?
She can't do it right? Why not? Because she is a woman or because she doesn't have the talent?
But I will make it a goal to see if I can get Kelly matched up with you with no spot in the 20 ahead set you want. Because like I said, I think she can win it and the payoff will be astronomical with all the people willing to give up odds against her.
Why would a women even agree to such redicules?? 7 or 8 ahead over 7 days. You take one of the top players in the US and make them play like that against some local talent. or like names mentioned Alison/karen and you would probably see a 50/50. PPL always trying to bash women. You take top women players and get them to play the so called Pro's and i would bet my money they would hang in there. And would beat many of those ppl listed in this thread. Many of those names on the lists are outdated. Haven't seen some of em beat anybody in a long while. Some of those guys can't even beat local talent. Also just curious why is it said that women couldn't hang with the best in world
??
Last i checked i don't see many men even play top men from other countries outside of tournament play?????
There's lot of top male players in US who couldn't stand chance gambling with men from other countries. Nor have the nuts to try! So why state that about women???I can only count a handfull. There are top women players who can hang with the men. And if you put those same women with ppl who currently are in the gambling circle/gamble only when stealing. Think those top women would come out on top maybe 50% time but against some players 100%. But until a man does that redicules thing bout playing best male players in world or in us over 7days and playing ahead. such idiocy Shouldn't be brought up.
Just hate seeing women trying to be downgraded by men. It's disgusting. Because lot of it is contradiction and stupid.
Also seems like those top women don't gamble because they don't have to. And they don't have anything to prove to anyone.
Seems like bit of jelousy being said here??????????????
??
Last i checked i don't see many men even play top men from other countries outside of tournament play?????
There's lot of top male players in US who couldn't stand chance gambling with men from other countries. Nor have the nuts to try! So why state that about women???I can only count a handfull. There are top women players who can hang with the men. And if you put those same women with ppl who currently are in the gambling circle/gamble only when stealing. Think those top women would come out on top maybe 50% time but against some players 100%. But until a man does that redicules thing bout playing best male players in world or in us over 7days and playing ahead. such idiocy Shouldn't be brought up.
Just hate seeing women trying to be downgraded by men. It's disgusting. Because lot of it is contradiction and stupid.
Also seems like those top women don't gamble because they don't have to. And they don't have anything to prove to anyone.
Seems like bit of jelousy being said here??????????????
B_White said:
I see. Well then does that mean you would not bet the second week of play then?
So you were making a statement about the status quo only?
LOL - this is so funny.
Well it's a debate that will never be solved because the one thing that you do have right is that in the ranks of true WORLD BEATERS the men vastly outnumber the women and it's likely to remain so. Therefore the odds of ever being dominant against the men are pretty high for any single woman.
jayburger said:
No offense taken, but he told me this while we were gambling at my limit, and he knew that. So I don't think he wast trying to match up with me. I have seen both him and Allison play plenty of times, and I would have to bet on Allison. Don't ask me to gamble on that until a match is set in stone though.......this is all a waste of an argument IMO.
JB Cases said:
Ray$ said:
lol, that is all.
