Ortmann-Hall of Fame

[Bob Jewett]

What if the US Open 9 ball and 14-1 were just that? Like German and Euro championships, open to US residents ONLY? Obviously, there would be quite a few more wins for US players to put on their resumes.

Nope. Opens are open (perhaps from open qualifiers) to anyone. There are open tournaments in Europe the US players could play in.

A better way to achieve your purpose would be to have State and National championships in the US and then have some kind of continental championship.

 

[worriedbeef]

What if the US Open 9 ball and 14-1 were just that? Like German and Euro championships, open to US residents ONLY? Obviously, there would be quite a few more wins for US players to put on their resumes.

Noooo. for starters it would hurt pool more initially anyway. the us open is one of the VERY few pool tournaments you could classify as a so called 'major' event, and it wouldn't be a good idea to significantly change it in the way you suggest. what would be a good idea though, is say a US championship event, with only US based players. ideally it would become very respected and a major in a short amount of time.

 

[hemicudas]

Nope. Opens are open (perhaps from open qualifiers) to anyone. There are open tournaments in Europe the US players could play in.

A better way to achieve your purpose would be to have State and National championships in the US and then have some kind of continental championship.

I would totally agree with you here, Bob. State and US championships would be a great idea. The more the merrier. But, that doesn't change the point I was making. If there were these tournaments the resume's of US players would be enhanced, just as if they had been here all the time, like other countries.

I have nothing against, Oliver or any other European players and I love Efren. I would though rather see, IMHO, more deserving US players elected to the HOF, while they are still with us, than any player with 20 or so years left in their careers.

 

[NYC cue dude]

I have a few points to make. Mind you, just so some feathers dont get ruffled, these are my opinions and the way i see things.

Firstly, jose parica. Undoubtedtly a great player. His resumes of wins over the years has been impressive. Certainly, though, what he lacks is the presence of a win to be considered to be a Major. Jam included a list of accomplishments, and although many were impressive, no where to be found was a BCA open, Us open championship (2nd place), WPC 9 ball or World 8 ball title. Now, with that being said, will he get into the HOF, probably, but not for his victories, but for having the courage to come here, as the first Philipine to competitively perform on the US pool scene.

The next point i want to offer for consideration is that todays Major events are much more difficult to win than 20 years ago. Since the sport of pool became international 15 years ago, or so, there have been fewer and fewer repeat titlests because the competition is GREATER TODAY. I'm not taking anything away from the US players of yesterday, but i hardly think they would have been as dominant had the field been open to the whole world.

Certainly, in time, Hopkins will be in the HOF, along with Grady. Hopkins has contributed to pool equally, on and off the table, to the overall advancement of this sport. He has been a great champion, in all disciplines, still competes today, promotes the sport through his own events, and has been the source of pool info (through commentary) to millions of tv spectators.

Grady will get in for many of the same reasons, only to a slightly lesser degree than Allan.

There you have it. The "pro only USA crowd" aint gonna like it, but the world is a big place, and there are world beaters everywhere!

rg.

BTW, in addition to Ortmanns German championships, there is an anual European Championships in 4 divisions, 8ball, 9ball, 14.1 and wheelchair, for bothe mean and women. It would be equivalent to holding a USA championships. Some of the greatest players in the world, compete for nearly 2 weeks, pay their own travel, food and hotel expenses for the prestige of the title and the love of the game. Their is NO PRIZE MONEY AWARDED the champions!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I have a few points to make. Mind you, just so some feathers dont get ruffled, these are my opinions and the way i see things.

Firstly, jose parica. Undoubtedtly a great player. His resumes of wins over the years has been impressive. Certainly, though, what he lacks is the presence of a win to be considered to be a Major. Jam included a list of accomplishments, and although many were impressive, no where to be found was a BCA open, Us open championship (2nd place), WPC 9 ball or World 8 ball title. Now, with that being said, will he get into the HOF, probably, but not for his victories, but for having the courage to come here, as the first Philipine to competitively perform on the US pool scene.

The next point i want to offer for consideration is that todays Major events are much more difficult to win than 20 years ago. Since the sport of pool became international 15 years ago, or so, there have been fewer and fewer repeat titlests because the competition is GREATER TODAY. I'm not taking anything away from the US players of yesterday, but i hardly think they would have been as dominant had the field been open to the whole world.

Certainly, in time, Hopkins will be in the HOF, along with Grady. Hopkins has contributed to pool equally, on and off the table, to the overall advancement of this sport. He has been a great champion, in all disciplines, still competes today, promotes the sport through his own events, and has been the source of pool info (through commentary) to millions of tv spectators.

Grady will get in for many of the same reasons, only to a slightly lesser degree than Allan.

There you have it. The "pro only USA crowd" aint gonna like it, but the world is a big place, and there are world beaters everywhere!

rg.

BTW, in addition to Ortmanns German championships, there is an anual European Championships in 4 divisions, 8ball, 9ball, 14.1 and wheelchair, for bothe mean and women. It would be equivalent to holding a USA championships. Some of the greatest players in the world, compete for nearly 2 weeks, pay their own travel, food and hotel expenses for the prestige of the title and the love of the game. Their is NO PRIZE MONEY AWARDED the champions!

Well said, I think. The world is full of world beaters and you can't limit access to "open" events. You can't limit the US Open to U.S. players when it's been open to international players its entire history. It's ok to have a "National Championship" limited to residents, but what would that be worth? I'd hate to be the winner of it, because people would say the best players weren't there.

No one likes the fact the best players aren't from the U.S. No one likes the fact that the Red Skins can't win a Super Bowl anymore either. You can either restrict the good teams from playing to help the Skins win, or the Skins can help themselves get better to compete at a higher level. Same goes for pool.

I went to China not long ago and there were about 50 or more pool rooms in Beijing. I visited 3 of them, each packed wall-to-wall with run-out EXPERTS (all running out like GOD on 4x9 tables with snooker-cut pockets), snooker games, and gambling.

I visited a few rooms recently in Phoenix, each packed wall-to-wall with beer drinkers, cut-throat games and hot women (with an OCCASIONAL Roger Griffis-like player).

Let's face it... they (as a people) want it more than our country in general. We can either cry about it and make special tournaments for our special-ed abilities or we can take the handicap sign off our pool case, mobilize, and make a concerted effort to compete at an international level.

 

[Blackjack]

Well said, I think. The world is full of world beaters and you can't limit access to "open" events. You can't limit the US Open to U.S. players when it's been open to international players its entire history. It's ok to have a "National Championship" limited to residents, but what would that be worth? I'd hate to be the winner of it, because people would say the best players weren't there.

No one likes the fact the best players aren't from the U.S. No one likes the fact that the Red Skins can't win a Super Bowl anymore either. You can either restrict the good teams from playing to help the Skins win, or the Skins can help themselves get better to compete at a higher level. Same goes for pool.

I went to China not long ago and there were about 50 or more pool rooms in Beijing. I visited 3 of them, each packed wall-to-wall with run-out EXPERTS (all running out like GOD on 4x9 tables with snooker-cut pockets), snooker games, and gambling.

I visited a few rooms recently in Phoenix, each packed wall-to-wall with beer drinkers, cut-throat games and hot women (with an OCCASIONAL Roger Griffis-like player).

Let's face it... they (as a people) want it more than our country in general. We can either cry about it and make special tournaments for our special-ed abilities or we can take the handicap sign off our pool case, mobilize, and make a concerted effort to compete at an international level.

Spot on!


......

 

[jimmy-leggs]

Well said, I think. The world is full of world beaters and you can't limit access to "open" events. You can't limit the US Open to U.S. players when it's been open to international players its entire history. It's ok to have a "National Championship" limited to residents, but what would that be worth? I'd hate to be the winner of it, because people would say the best players weren't there.

No one likes the fact the best players aren't from the U.S. No one likes the fact that the Red Skins can't win a Super Bowl anymore either. You can either restrict the good teams from playing to help the Skins win, or the Skins can help themselves get better to compete at a higher level. Same goes for pool.

I went to China not long ago and there were about 50 or more pool rooms in Beijing. I visited 3 of them, each packed wall-to-wall with run-out EXPERTS (all running out like GOD on 4x9 tables with snooker-cut pockets), snooker games, and gambling.

I visited a few rooms recently in Phoenix, each packed wall-to-wall with beer drinkers, cut-throat games and hot women (with an OCCASIONAL Roger Griffis-like player).

Let's face it... they (as a people) want it more than our country in general. We can either cry about it and make special tournaments for our special-ed abilities or we can take the handicap sign off our pool case, mobilize, and make a concerted effort to compete at an international level.

very well said.your dead on.

 

[sjm]

.....i want to offer for consideration is that todays Major events are much more difficult to win than 20 years ago. Since the sport of pool became international 15 years ago, or so, there have been fewer and fewer repeat titlests because the competition is GREATER TODAY. I'm not taking anything away from the US players of yesterday, but i hardly think they would have been as dominant had the field been open to the whole world.......

Undeniably so. It's a point so often overlooked when playing achievements are compared across the generations. The depth of the fields in today's most internationally diverse championships is without precedent.

 

[bud green]

I thought Johnny had more US Opens than just one. I guess I'll just have to settle for a BCA 9-Ball win and "Player of the Decade" honors in place of that. 5 US Opens and a World Championship still hold up by themselves against all of Oliver's wins. Add in all the other events Johnny has won and I think he's way ahead of Oliver.

Johnny has run well over 200 balls at straight pool (including a 150 and out I thought in a 14.1 tourney a few months after Varner worked with him)and didn't grow up playing the game so I don't think O.O has anything over Johnny in the natural talent category. I think Johnny could give Oliver all he wanted if he grew up on 14.1 .

I'll take old Sands events where guys like Johnny, Earl, Rempe,etc.. were shooting well over .900 accu-stats against strong fields (Efren, Sigel, Hall, Davenport, Parica, Varner, etc...) over any Euro Championships except in the very last few years.

11 Worlds and US Opens for Earl is ridiculous...I forgot just how much this guy has won. Who else is even close in nine ball in the last couple of decades?

 

[Terry Ardeno]

I thought Johnny had more US Opens than just one. I guess I'll just have to settle for a BCA 9-Ball win and "Player of the Decade" honors in place of that. 5 US Opens and a World Championship still hold up by themselves against all of Oliver's wins. Add in all the other events Johnny has won and I think he's way ahead of Oliver.

Johnny has run well over 200 balls at straight pool (including a 150 and out I thought in a 14.1 tourney a few months after Varner worked with him)and didn't grow up playing the game so I don't think O.O has anything over Johnny in the natural talent category. I think Johnny could give Oliver all he wanted if he grew up on 14.1 .

I'll take old Sands events where guys like Johnny, Earl, Rempe,etc.. were shooting well over .900 accu-stats against strong fields (Efren, Sigel, Hall, Davenport, Parica, Varner, etc...) over any Euro Championships except in the very last few years.

11 Worlds and US Opens for Earl is ridiculous...I forgot just how much this guy has won. Who else is even close in nine ball in the last couple of decades?

Bud,
I agree with you that Earl Strickland's record 5 U.S. Open's and 6 World 9 Ball Championships is an awesome accomplishment. I personaly don't think
we'll see anybody achieve what he did when it comes to these kind of credentials, at least not in my lifetime.
I disagree with you when comparing Johnny Archer's ability in 14.1 to Ortmann's. Archer would beat him in 9 ball and Ortmann would beat him in 14.1.
Archer's 1 U.S. Open 9 Ball and 4 World 9 Ball Championships most certainly qualify him for the HOF. First ballot or something's fishy. But this thread was not about deserving Americans who should (and will) be enshrined. It was about Ortmann being eligible or not. If you review my threads on the subject, I think Ortmann deserves to be in 100%. I'm not pitting him against our American champs, just opining that based on his stellar credentiials, he deserves enshrined also. At least as much as Butera, Murphy and Moore.
Anyway, this is all so much fun, debating back and forth with real pool fans.

 

[NYC cue dude]

johnny archer will be in on his first ballot. Imo, he will be the last of the first year eligible players to get in. Johnny has won many, many titles, including a fistfull of majors. Add to that his recognizability through sponsorship, and it tells u that he is the most "famous" and deserving player alive, that is not yet in. Johnny will also be the LAST PLAYER EVER THAT WILL BE ABLE TO DOMINATE YHE SPORT FOR AS LONG AS HE DID. His accomplishments mark the end of an era, forever.

As for Ortmann, and his accomplishments thus far, i dont think he is even close to being in the HOF. With the exception of his european troumphs, and there have been many, he is primarily known as a one trick pony (14.1). Heck, he is not even the 2nd best player in germany now.

Rg

 

[Terry Ardeno]

Randy,
You make an interesting point about Archer. When I'm done with this post, I'm going to post a question of that nature on the main forum.

As for your thoughts on Ortmann. First, I respect your opinion greatly.
But for calling him a "one trick pony (14.1), well, how about the OTHER players who are in the BCA HOF for just that, ONE TITLE in ONE DISCIPLINE.
I've copied something I posted in this thread earlier...
Lou Butera is IN the HOF for winning the 1973 World 14.1 Championship.
His BCA bio, the paragraph they write about their enshrined champions, also said he finished runner up to Irving Crane in the 1972 14.1 World Championships. That's all. AFTER he was enshrined, he won some other mid level tournaments. Never won another major title, let alone any other championship.
Cicero Murphy is in the HOF. His paragraph reads in part "Murphy was the first and only African-American ever to win a world or US title". He did win the 1965 World 14.1 Championship, a tournament, by the way, that the same BCA never sanctioned. So when they say that Grady Mathews, Hopkins, etc have not won "sanctioned" tournaments, guess what? Neither did Murphy.
In Jimmy Moore's case, he's IN the HOF and guess what? The very first line in his paragraph states "Although Jimmy Moore never won a world title..."

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Here is a quick recap of Ortmann's accomplishments...
Oliver Ortmann - HR in 14.1 = 326
1995 World 9 Ball Champion
1989 & 1993 U.S. Open 14.1 Champion
2007 World 14.1 Champion
1997 & 2000 Challenge of Champions winner
5 time European 14.1 Champion
3 time European 8 Ball Champion
6 time European 9 Ball Champion
3 time German 9 Ball Champion
10 time German 14.1 Champion.

Allen Hopkins, I can make just as strong a case for him as well. Same with Bennie Allen.
I could go on, but why?

So I guess my question is, why is it OK for Butera, Murphy and Moore to be in the HOF for being known primarily for one thing, but not Ortmann, who ALSO, in addition to his World 14.1 and TWO U.S. Open 14.1 titles, ALSO is a World Champion in 9 Ball as well?
That thinking / reasoning does not make sense to me.

 

[JAM]

Anyway, this is all so much fun, debating back and forth with real pool fans.

It is fun to debate back and forth with pool fans for sure, but some of the recent comments (not you, Terry) were rude and not well-founded against the American players. In fact, they stink, and in some instances reak of ignorance.

I could elaborate on Jose Parica by saying that when Jose won his titles, there WAS NOT ANY WORLD POOL CHAMPIONSHIP by Matchroom Sports. He was the best there was in this era, won all the MAJOR tournaments in this era, and therefore, his tournament wins were superior in this era. To compare them to today's WPC and restricted European events is ridiculous.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.

JAM

 

[hemicudas]

It is fun to debate back and forth with pool fans for sure, but some of the recent comments (not you, Terry) were rude and not well-founded against the American players. In fact, they stink, and in some instances reak of ignorance.

I could elaborate on Jose Parica by saying that when Jose won his titles, there WAS NOT ANY WORLD POOL CHAMPIONSHIP by Matchroom Sports. He was the best there was in this era, won all the MAJOR tournaments in this era, and therefore, his tournament wins were superior in this era. To compare them to today's WPC and restricted European events is ridiculous.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.

JAM

Going out on a limb here, JAM, I am going to predict that Jose will and should be, the next inductee into the BCA and One Pocket HOF. No one deserves it more.

 

[NYC cue dude]

Terry,

as far as Hopkins, he is a world champion in multiple disciplines, AND has made great contributions in the billiards community off the table as well.

As far as a few of the other old timers, I have suspicions and my own speculations too. Of course I can't say for certain, but my theories make sense to me.

Cisero murphy is in because of the few chances he recieved, he capitalized on and performed well. I think the pool community in retrospect, was ashamed of preventing cisero from competing becuase of racism and segregation.

Other great players got in without world titles, IMO, becuase there was no one else. Not that they might not be deserving, but after the dominant winners
were inducted, who else could they consider? I don't think the HOF would have made themselves irrelevant by not having inducted, so perhaps there were "lean" years in comparrison to the years where players like mosconi and lassiter were considered.

As far as oliver is concerned, i dont think its
fair to cross compare player
accomplishments of past generations with those of todays. In days gone by, 14.1 was the measuring stick to which evaluations were made. Sadly todays focus is 9ball but with heavy consideration to plywrs that have consistently won in different disciplines. In essence, what I'm saying is that olivers stats might stack up against those already in the HOF, they aren't as quite impressive as those of his present peers.

Rg

 

[billbOK]

BTW, I love that name "Oliver." It's one of my favorites!

Here's all I could find that is publicly available. Please add to the list:

2007 World 14.1 Champion
1995 World Nine-ball Pool Champion
1997 and 2000 International Challenge of Champions winner
1995 and 2002 Mosconi Cup winning captain
2007 EPBF European Eight-ball Pool Championships

JAM

Hi everybody, I'm neew in there!
For the European championships and the Eurotours, here are some informations
Oliver Ortmann has also:

- 15 european champion titles
- 5 times european championships runner-up
- 9 times bronze medallist in european championships

- 13 Eurotour titles
- 8 times Eurotour runner-up
- 10 Eurotour bronze medallist

And also many times German champion in different disciplines!

For the information, Souquet has:

- 20 european champion titles
- 12 times european championships runner-up
- 2 times bronze medallist in european championships

-13 Eurotour titles
-9 times Eurotour runner-up
-10 Eurotour bronze medallist

And Engert

- 8 european champion titles
- 7 times european championships runner-up
- 10 times bronze medallist in european championships

-8 Eurotour titles
-10 times Eurotour runner-up
-10 Eurotour bronze medallist

These are just great players!

Regards

 

[Jimmy M.]

Cicero Murphy is in the HOF. His paragraph reads in part "Murphy was the first and only African-American ever to win a world or US title". He did win the 1965 World 14.1 Championship, a tournament, by the way, that the same BCA never sanctioned. So when they say that Grady Mathews, Hopkins, etc have not won "sanctioned" tournaments, guess what? Neither did Murphy.

My idea of the HOF, which, admittedly, might not be the true purpose of the HOF, is to honor those who have had some sort of historical significance in our sport. For some players, such as Mike Sigel, Earl Strickland, and Willie Mosconi, this means that they dominated the sport so thoroughly that their accomplishments will be (or already are) historically significant. While Cicero Murphy's career wasn't as stellar as those of the aforementioned players, I would definitely consider his accomplishments "historically significant". It could be argued that he's the Jackie Robinson of pool. It is for this same reason that I believe Ronnie Allen should be in the HOF. While he might not have a long list of world championships, who could deny the impact that he had on the game of pool, most notably the game of one-pocket? Many of today's run-and-gun style of one-pocket players might not even play that style if it weren't for Ronnie paving the way. For me, the HOF is there so the rest of us, and the people after us, never forget the impact these players had on the game. Some of them might have won countless tournaments and, as a result, should be remembered for their sheer dominance. Others, such as Cicero Murphy or Ronnie Allen, might have less tournament wins, but their impact on the game was so significant that they should, most certainly, be remembered as well.

With all of that said, I won't argue the fact that there could be some people in the HOF who appear to be there ahead of others out of pure favoritism. As far as Oliver Ortmann, while I won't go as far as to say he shouldn't be there (because that just wouldn't be true), I will say there are some others whose names should show up on the ballot before his.

 

[Blackjack]

It is fun to debate back and forth with pool fans for sure, but some of the recent comments (not you, Terry) were rude and not well-founded against the American players. In fact, they stink, and in some instances reak of ignorance.

I could elaborate on Jose Parica by saying that when Jose won his titles, there WAS NOT ANY WORLD POOL CHAMPIONSHIP by Matchroom Sports. He was the best there was in this era, won all the MAJOR tournaments in this era, and therefore, his tournament wins were superior in this era. To compare them to today's WPC and restricted European events is ridiculous.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.

JAM

JAM,
I think that any "rudeness" in this thread was caused by the translation of some of Markus' comments and it was not intentional at all.

U.S. Domination In Pool Is A Thing of the Past
There was a time when the best players in the world were from the United States. That time passed a long long time ago. There are 14, 15 and 16 year olds in Germany and Taiwan that are playing the game at a level that is unfathomable. In the not too distant future the torch will be passed to John Morra (Canada), Justin Bergman, Mike Dechane, and Landon Shuffett. In the production of top players, the ratio tilts in the favor of other countries such as Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan and Germany.

I believe it comes down to ATTITUDE
Instead of perfecting their matching up and woofing skills, the players from those countries are perfecting their playing skills to a level that our players aren't coming close to. Traditionally they play from their hearts, not their wallets, and they would never trade pool in for a poker game - as many of our players have done recently. I'm not pointing fingers, I'm just stating facts.

Back to the HOF ... and how it relates to all of this
The BCA HOF should honor all great players, not just American players. Jose is going to get in very soon. I agree with others that Jose will be next. Then Allen Hokins. Then Johnny and Jeanette. After that, what other American player has HOF credentials? There aren't very many. The attention then must switch over to 1994 - forward. Let's break it down.

1994 - Present
This is where names like Souquet, Chao, and Luat will come into the picture. When that is over, Corey's name will definitely come up - along with names like Hohmann, Immonen, and Morris. So I count two American players - Morris and Deuel. That's it. The case for the women looks even worse. After Jeanette and possibly Vivian, who else? Nobody. The attention will switch over to the Fisher-Corr era - domination by two of the greatest women to ever play the game - non-Americans. Other than Jeanette, no American has won on the WPBA in a very long time.

Comparing Era's

If there is a definite HOF standard, than we ALWAYS compare players of one era to players of other eras. It is unavoidable.

For those that have the argument against Ortmann because he primarily played straight pool, I refer to the great Hall of Fame player Dallas West. He didn't win a lot of majors, but he has 2 US Open 14.1 titles to his credit, and second place finish in the WPC in 1995. Is he a Hall of Famer IMO? Definitely. Also, IMO, Oliver has 2 US Open 14.1 titles and countless others titles in Europe and abroad, and is deserving of the same honor.

The way that I see it
FWIW, I spent the better half of the 1990's working with players from both Asia and Europe. They were hungry to learn and they were extremely dedicated to take their game to an extremely high level. Some of those same players are now respected internationally as some of the best players/teachers in the world. So are some of their students.



That is how long this trend has been going on and I don't see it changing any time soon.

 

[JAM]

I do not agree with everything you state, though there are some points which in my opinion are valid.

To say U.S. domination of pool is a thing of the past is irritating to this reader. When I read of all the European titles which were NATIONALITY-RESTRICTED, meaning no Americans competed in these events, I just cannot for the life of me deem those accomplishments as worthy.

Pool today is quite different in the United States than in times gone by, and championship titles, if used as a ranking system, is a difficult nut to crack. When countries have restricted tours and events, I compare these to America's regional tours, like Joss, Florida Pro, Viking, et cetera. And I don't care of Ralf and Thorsten were competing in these European regional events. The fact is that they excluded Americans from many of them.

So, when one states that a player has 41 titles in a given discipline in Europe, well, to me that's 41 Joss Tour wins. It is not a good comparison.

The U.S. domination in pool is hampered by the international players coming to our soil, competing in the OPEN events, and then they use these wins as well as their own restricted country tournaments as notches on their belts. Sorry, it doesn't fly with me.

I do not desire to engage in any negativity on this thread, but I stand FIRMLY by my opinion and respect the opinions of others even if they differ from mine.

JAM

 

[Terry Ardeno]

My idea of the HOF, which, admittedly, might not be the true purpose of the HOF, is to honor those who have had some sort of historical significance in our sport.

Jimmy,
Another good post by you!
Instead of my usual paragraph, I want to list a few points...

1. Using the criteria you stated above, then Pat Fleming (Accu-Stats) deserves to be in the HOF. He will probably get in anyway (meritorious (sp) service) and I personally hope he does.

2. I hope in my pontificating for Ortmann that people don't misunderstand and assume that I believe he should go in ahead of certain other players.
I DO BELIEVE HE IS A WORTHY CANDIDATE for inclusion, as I've written ad nausem.

3. IF I had the vote as to who gets in the HOF NEXT, it would be Allen Hopkins and Grady Mathews. Nobody (in my opinion) deserves it as much as these two. (Although I don't think they'll sit together IF they were inducted at the same time )