Ralf Souquet

Ok you're right. He's not a champion nor one of the world's best.....in gambling.

How do you suppose one become a "Champion" of your sport then? Gambling? Lol

You really think the essence of winning is in "breaking the other guy down 100%"? That's not what being a champion is about. That's not even sportsman like at all. That's all about gambling.

You equate the gambling side and the sportsman side of pool too much.

Some people get a thrill out of gambling so they do it everyday. Some people do it on occassion for the sake of doing something different. Ralf loves pool not gambling and he's in the world's top percentile when it comes to his abilities. Yet he still doesn't deserve credit because he hasn't busted all the money out of someone else' pockets?
 
Perhaps the answer is that we should salute the sprinter and the marathoner.

Personally, I don't consider gambling matches to be part of the world of legitimate pool, and neither do the governing bodies of our sport. Nonetheless, I admire those who can play a long match and perform at a high level for a long time at pool or anything else.

Should we respect Usain Bolt less than the Olympic gold medalist in the marathon because he only runs 100 meters? Should we respect the Olympic gold medalist in the marathon any less because there is some guy who could beat him consistently if the race were extended to 100 miles? Ultimately, when it comes to sports, we respect those that excel in the events arranged and sanctioned by the governing bodies.

Who would win if US Open tennis matches were best of fifteen sets rather than five is of little importance to me, as the USTA has determined that best of five is the optimal match length to sort out who is our national champion.

I have enough admiration in me to give credit to all who excel at their disciplines, but when it comes to figuring out who is the best, there is only one way. Get all of the best together and let them duke it out until one of them is left. Every sport I can think of determines its champions that way, including pool.
 
sjm said:
Perhaps the answer is that we should salute the sprinter and the marathoner.

Personally, I don't consider gambling matches to be part of the world of legitimate pool, and neither do the governing bodies of our sport. Nonetheless, I admire those who can play a long match and perform at a high level for a long time at pool or anything else.

Should we respect Usain Bolt less than the Olympic gold medalist in the marathon because he only runs 100 meters? Should we respect the Olympic gold medalist in the marathon any less because there is some guy who could beat him consistently if the race were extended to 100 miles? Ultimately, when it comes to sports, we respect those that excel in the events arranged and sanctioned by the governing bodies.

Who would win if US Open tennis matches were best of fifteen sets rather than five is of little importance to me, as the USTA has determined that best of five is the optimal match length to sort out who is our national champion.

I have enough admiration in me to give credit to all who excel at their disciplines, but when it comes to figuring out who is the best, there is only one way. Get all of the best together and let them duke it out until one of them is left. Every sport I can think of determines its champions that way, including pool.
Click to expand...

well said. I totally agree with you
 
This if for SJM....

3777084698_a7ef4bf328.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
sjm said:
Perhaps the answer is that we should salute the sprinter and the marathoner.

Personally, I don't consider gambling matches to be part of the world of legitimate pool, and neither do the governing bodies of our sport. Nonetheless, I admire those who can play a long match and perform at a high level for a long time at pool or anything else.

Should we respect Usain Bolt less than the Olympic gold medalist in the marathon because he only runs 100 meters? Should we respect the Olympic gold medalist in the marathon any less because there is some guy who could beat him consistently if the race were extended to 100 miles? Ultimately, when it comes to sports, we respect those that excel in the events arranged and sanctioned by the governing bodies.

Who would win if US Open tennis matches were best of fifteen sets rather than five is of little importance to me, as the USTA has determined that best of five is the optimal match length to sort out who is our national champion.

I have enough admiration in me to give credit to all who excel at their disciplines, but when it comes to figuring out who is the best, there is only one way. Get all of the best together and let them duke it out until one of them is left. Every sport I can think of determines its champions that way, including pool.
Click to expand...

i used the same argument last week when someone said:
"for a win to be legitimate, you have to beat svb race to 100."

i said exact thing you said regarding usain bolt.
 
I like RALF... I'd like to see Ralf, against anyone, for the 100 race event that is spoke of in this thread.
 
The funny thing is that Ralph would probably be at his best in a 100 game race. He would be tough action to fade by any standard.
 
The Chinchilla said:
I totally understand that you, along with many others, don't get it. To beat another champion who's entire life is pool is very difficult. You have to break them, 100%.

How is beating someone evenly in a top-level tournament NOT breaking them 100%...or is it that the victory, or the achievement, only counts when you're gambling?

There is nothing more difficult than doing this to a true champion. Please define "true champion". Is Ralf not a true champion because he won't gamble? All of his accomplishments do not count over the last 15+ years because he won't bet a nickel?

...pool is about 50% tournaments, and 50% gambling. I would respectfully disagree and say that the perception of pool by gambling-lovers is 50/50, or perhaps more in favor of gambling. Most of you feel that pool...or competing...does not matter unless cash is on the line.

To say you are at the top while disregarding 50% of your sport is weak. Ralf never said he was at the top...we are stating that.

Further, the tournaments aren't even good tests like say tennis or golf. If they were, I'd have much less of a problem with him being at or near the top. Have you ever been to the U.S. Open...or the World Pool Masters? How you can claim that playing world-class players...and beating them...back to back in the same event, year after year, is not a true test escapes me. You "might" have a point if he only played in one event every other year...but he out-performs most on a CONSISTENT basis, and you choose to disregard his accomplishments because you don't think tournament formats are as challenging as a single race to 100 for the cash.

I think "worth" needs to come into play too when deciding the best in this situation. If a guy is the best guy in the world, technically, with a deck of cards, yet he can't perform in front of people, the worth of his skill is drastically diminished, I think we'd all agree. I think you can concur that Ralf has no problems "performing in front of people", since all tournaments are spectated upon.

I hope we'd therefore all agree as well that Ralf's decision to not play in this maybe 50% of pool lowers the worth of his skill, and thus his credentials (in my book). I disagree with this 100% (since you like to use percentages to make your points.)

You HAVE to put the people who perform well in both these venues at the top. Hell, even if he was unstoppable and won 10 tournaments in a row, i'd still feel this way. This just means that your mind is closed to accepting his many accomplishments simply because he will not gamble.

I mean if Orcollo comes up to him and asks him to play 15 ahead for 100k in Ralf's own room, and he says no, where does that leave him? If he's unstoppable, why not just take him down?? What is the difference anyway? In a tournament you put up money and other players do as well. Matching up you put up money, and one player does as well. I just don't even see his big hang up. Perhaps you should simply ask Ralf why he will not gamble, instead of passing judgement.

It's not about big races either, it could be races to 9 for 5k or something, what it is really about is making the other guy quit. He's never done that, and you think he is one of the best. Again, I just disagree. I think you are one of those fans who does not just want someone to lose, you want them to be demoralized and crushed completely...goes along with the MMA-culture we live in today. Don't just beat your opponent, humiliate them and punish them...and take all of their money to add insult to injury.

Here is a Bruce Lee quote to ponder:
“Don't fear failure. — Not failure, but low aim, is the crime. In great attempts it is glorious even to fail.”

Anyway, I know he is a popular guy. I like him too!! I simply don't think he is one of the best because he wont put himself out there. This is just how I feel, forgive if I was too crass before :)
Click to expand...

I don't think you're too crass...I simply think you should appreciate others' points of view.

Do you honestly believe Michael Jordan's accomplishments do not count because he never played Charles Barkley or Shaquille O'Neal a race to 100-points on a half-court for $10,000?

I view Ralf as a consummate professional.

There could be many reasons why he does not choose to gamble. Perhaps he does not like, or want to be associated with the seedy side of gambling, and the impression it gives. Perhaps he is concerned that he cannot afford to lose money since pool is his sole source of income and he has a family.

He travels the world for almost half the year working his guts out to win tournaments that "don't matter, or don't count" according to you...and perhaps he does not want to run the risk of losing that hard-earned money to someone in the back room.

I know he can get staked, and I am sure there are many who would back him, but he may be too proud to play with someone else's dime.

Not to mention, given Ralf's meticulousness and discipline, do you really think he would be the kind to take what he may deem "unnnecessary risk?"

Of course I do not know the facts, I am merely speculating. I have met him on several occasions and have had dinner with him a couple of times. He is a gentleman and a class act. Don't judge him too harshly (or others like him) simply because he will not gamble.

I think your assessment is unfair.
 
Last edited:
What's accomplishment?
He probably has better standard of living and a fatter bank account than most of the so-called gambling champions at the end of their career. In a race to 100, I don't think many people would want a piece of Ralf.
 
I think what makes another difference, if you compare Ralf to other Players, is the fact that he takes Pool to such a professionnal level that i think no other player, even Efren, Archer etc. will bring such a professionnalism to the table as he does. he shows no emotions at all, tries as noone else to take every unexpectedness out of the game and presents himself on and off the table ass very serious, gentleman-like and adaptes his-life style to his profession (Pool) as nobody else. it's true that his style of play will never be such attractiv as earl strickland crying and running around the table entertaining the croud, but apart from that, he will surely be one of the most reputable and respectable poolplayers in the hall of fame of all times.
 
SplicedPoints said:
What's accomplishment?
He probably has better standard of living and a fatter bank account than most of the so-called gambling champions at the end of their career. In a race to 100, I don't think many people would want a piece of Ralf.
Click to expand...

:thumbup: i coudn't agree more with you
 
The Chinchilla said:
I totally understand that you, along with many others, don't get it. To beat another champion who's entire life is pool is very difficult. You have to break them, 100%. There is nothing more difficult than doing this to a true champion. He hasn't done this to even one player. Other players have won tournaments too, AND they have got in done in other venues. It's just a difference of opinion I guess, no real big deal. But, i'd say pool is about 50% tournaments, and 50% gambling (I think that is generous too). To say you are at the top while disregarding 50% of your sport is weak. Further, the tournaments aren't even good tests like say tennis or golf. If they were, I'd have much less of a problem with him being at or near the top.

I think "worth" needs to come into play too when deciding the best in this situation. If a guy is the best guy in the world, technically, with a deck of cards, yet he can't perform in front of people, the worth of his skill is drastically diminished, I think we'd all agree. I hope we'd therefore all agree as well that Ralf's decision to not play in this maybe 50% of pool lowers the worth of his skill, and thus his credentials (in my book). You HAVE to put the people who perform well in both these venues at the top. Hell, even if he was unstoppable and won 10 tournaments in a row, i'd still feel this way. I mean if Orcollo comes up to him and asks him to play 15 ahead for 100k in Ralf's own room, and he says no, where does that leave him? If he's unstoppable, why not just take him down?? What is the difference anyway? In a tournament you put up money and other players do as well. Matching up you put up money, and one player does as well. I just don't even see his big hang up. It's not about big races either, it could be races to 9 for 5k or something, what it is really about is making the other guy quit. He's never done that, and you think he is one of the best. Again, I just disagree.

Here is a Bruce Lee quote to ponder:
“Don't fear failure. — Not failure, but low aim, is the crime. In great attempts it is glorious even to fail.”

Anyway, I know he is a popular guy. I like him too!! I simply don't think he is one of the best because he wont put himself out there. This is just how I feel, forgive if I was too crass before :)
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and I agree to a certain extent. I have always thought the nineball race to 9 format was a joke for the professional players. So, if Ralph beats another pro in this format it really proves nothing against that particular opponent. However, if he continually does this against the world's best players it does prove something about him - he is a great player. In other words, one short race against a contemporary proves nothing win or loss, but if you win enough of these short races it begins to add up. You have to play great, if not perfect pool to get through any of the top events. Ralph has done that many, many times.

Matching up is a different animal and I agree that it's much easier to determine who the better player is between 2 guys if they actually match up and play a long set.

Bottom line, his resume is pretty strong. He has to be ranked right up there as far as top tournament players go. His overall standing will always be questioned, as will all the non-gamblers. That's just how it goes.
 
Last edited:
SplicedPoints said:
What's accomplishment?
He probably has better standard of living and a fatter bank account than most of the so-called gambling champions at the end of their career. In a race to 100, I don't think many people would want a piece of Ralf.
Click to expand...


Money is the best scorekeeper.
 
JAM said:
I've never met anyone who has anything bad to say about Ralf, and I've also never heard Ralf say anything bad about anyone else. He's got the "wow" factor, and everybody likes him.
Click to expand...
I agree that Ralf is a great guy and I like to watch him play, but there's one pro who has trouble with Ralf and it's Earl Strickland. Earl complains that Ralf plays too slow and he takes him out of his game. One year at the US Open Earl was frustrated with Ralf's deliberate play and he turned to the audience and said "It would take this guy 2 hours to watch 60 Minutes" and of course he got a laugh from the crowd. I can't help but believe that Ralf is quite aware of this and he adjusts his game speed accordingly when he plays Earl.

James
 
ok well all agree ralf is a great player, no doubt a champion. his titles speak for themselves. You obviously have to play top tier level pool to win any major tournament. ralf has proved he can play and win these tournaments. but he has not proven he is better than anyone else who has won a major pool event. I believe we all agree races to 9 is too short in our sport. and does not decide who is the better player. here is why the winner of a race to 9 could have a lower accu stat shooting rating than the loser. how does someone who on paper played better lose? its not right. you have alot of factors, opponent misses and u are hooked, you kick at it and leave a shot. in tennis the person who played worse at the time loses. in golf whoever shoots the lower score loses, this is not the case in deciding champions in pool. especially with these short races. this is why great pool players want to play long sets, or more than one set. because it proves nothing. ralf has won more titles than shane van boening, to a non pool player, it would appear ralf is the better player. but shane would beg to differ, hed be standing at the table with a coin in his hand ready to flip for the break and posting with the other. last year i beat shane in a tournament in race to 6 for the hotseat, it doesnt mean anything shane is a way better player than me. and for those of you who say you dont consider gambling part of the sport are so off it aint even funny. if you asked the top 100 players in the world if gambling in pool was part of becoming a good pool player and even part of the role of being a pro pool player what would they say?
 
Last edited:
I think it's funny that everyone on here is saying he can't be recognized as one of the best just because he does'nt gamble. That is ridiculous. Ralf is easily one of the top players that has ever played, just look at his tournament resume. Just because he chooses not to gamble does'nt mean he should be kept from being considered one of the best players ever.

For all of you that want to get on here and say that he isnt as good as Shane and Shane would no doubt want to play him in a race to 100, why don't you sit back and think about what your saying. Who in the entire world has Shane said is barred from playing him??? Nobody from what I have heard. So to say something as stupid as I bet Shane would gamble with him shows your lack of knowledge of the rest of the game.
 
Give me a break! Just because Ralf doesn't gamble doesn't mean he's not one of the best players to ever play. Do you really think if he matched up with one guy for cash his back arm's going to lock up! Please! Ralph is rock solid. How many top players do you think would be beating Ralphs door down to play? Not many
 
BasementDweller said:
I understand what you are saying and I agree to a certain extent. I have always thought the nineball race to 9 format was a joke for the professional players. So, if Ralph beats another pro in this format it really proves nothing against that particular opponent. However, if he continually does this against the world's best players it does prove something about him - he is a great player. In other words, one short race against a contemporary proves nothing win or loss, but if you win enough of these short races it begins to add up. You have to play great, if not perfect pool to get through any of the top events. Ralph has done that many, many times.

Matching up is a different animal and I agree that it's much easier to determine who the better player is between 2 guys if they actually match up and play a long set.

Bottom line, his resume is pretty strong. He has to be ranked right up there as far as top tournament players go. His overall standing will always be questioned, as will all the non-gamblers. That's just how it goes.
Click to expand...

I totally see your points as well :)

I'm not trying to pump my credentials, but as a player myself, to just be able to stroll into any pool hall unmolested by the best players in town would be very nice at times, let me tell you. But it just gives off kind of an unmanly aura in my estimation. It is NOT the aura of a true champion. So, disagreement is fine, that is just what I, and many other players think -- and there are very solid reasons we think like this. To put this another way, it is very convenient for a pro pool player to just say he doesn't gamble. I wont expand on that, but just something to think about.

And forgive me for repeating, I still don't get the difference between an organized big set, and a tournament. Wouldn't the only difference be there would be only two players in the set? You put up entry fees in both instances (= "gambling" on your skill) I just don't see the real difference between tournaments and gambling. Can't you just have a tournament with only 2 players?? So, if you agree with me on this, where does that leave him? Why wont he go head to head with these guys??
 
The Chinchilla said:
I totally see your points as well :)

I'm not trying to pump my credentials, but as a player myself, to just be able to stroll into any pool hall unmolested by the best players in town would be very nice at times, let me tell you. But it just gives off kind of an unmanly aura in my estimation. It is NOT the aura of a true champion. So, disagreement is fine, that is just what I, and many other players think -- and there are very solid reasons we think like this. To put this another way, it is very convenient for a pro pool player to just say he doesn't gamble. I wont expand on that, but just something to think about.

And forgive me for repeating, I still don't get the difference between an organized big set, and a tournament. Wouldn't the only difference be there would be only two players in the set? You put up entry fees in both instances (= "gambling" on your skill) I just don't see the real difference between tournaments and gambling. Can't you just have a tournament with only 2 players?? So, if you agree with me on this, where does that leave him? Why wont he go head to head with these guys??
Click to expand...

It really isn't the gambling that really impresses me. Instead, it is the winning of the longer matches (ahead sets, race to 1,000,000 or whatever). If it was just the gambling that impressed me, Dippy would be the greatest player on the planet.

The only thing the gambling does is force a player to be able to execute under pressure. So, in that regard I don't think there is much difference between gambling and playing in high profile tournaments. The real question is - if YOU don't think that there is a difference between the two why would Ralph have to gamble to be considered one of the best?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top