Sarah Rousey comments on the Women's Worlds

[ShootingArts]

regardless of the final eight

Although there were good players in the final eight we don't know who had real battles to get out of the round robins, who had gifts, and who would have been in the final eight if they hadn't had very tough original draws.

Folks can name me what they want to call me but at the end of the day padding the field of a "World Championship" with your personal stable you want to give exposure and a draw done under very cloudy circumstances is BS. The very suspicious draw seems to be forgotten but that as much as anything else makes this event a travesty in my mind.

Hu

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. There were girls from Europe (like Kamilla) who were listed as "qualifing" and there were a bunch of girls listed as "world qualifing" or "open qualifing". You're saying they met some criteria to qualify prior to the event?
I thought they ment there would be a field of "open qualifiers" who would compete to see who got to play in the main event. They were still filling the qualifier field a day or two before the event so I assumed they just had barely enough competitors for the main event.
I agree an "open" should be completely open. A WC should require a system to bring in players who have earned there way in. The problem is there is no women's organized 10-ball anywhere else so this event had (1) qualified 9-ballers from WPBA,EPBF,etc (2) qualified individual DP sponsored tournament winners (Angel was supposed to be one),(3) last minute local substitues (still say Go.. GO:thumbup, (4) CW's friends/girl friends.
The WPA needs to set up some ground rules and make the sponsors stick to them. I wasn't trying to give CW/DP a pass, I'm just saying their motivations are a known. I'm sure that DP will address the minor problems that cropped up (equipment,venue,etc) before the next WC but unless the WPA makes them adhere to some standards for selection next year could just be a repeat of the CW "dog-n-pony" show.

My final thoughts 1) Good for Sarah speaking her mind:thumbup:
2)Good to Philipenes for having this :thumbup:
3) Congrats to Jay on a future lil Jr.:thumbup:
4) Thanks to DP for having the event but do it better
5) Shame on the media and CW for trying to turn a WC into a beauty pagent
6) Congrats to Rubilen Amit:thumbup:
7) Congrats to the kid even though under normal conditions she wouldn't have had the chance to play:thumbup:
8) CW......36"-24"-36" and cute are NOT QUALIFING SCORES for 10-ball !

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I have followed this discussion with some interest, and it appears that the central complaint being raised is just not being heard.

The event was to determine the Women's World Ten Ball Champion, sanctioned by the WPA.

A few of Jay Helfert's justifications as to the validity of the event follow:

1. What Dragon has done, if you are able to see the big picture, is to introduce women's pool to a far larger audience than has ever seen it before.
2. Dragon, with their efforts, are opening up entire new markets for women's pool to be seen and talked about.
3. Events like this one, can create many new opportunities for women professionals to make a living in their sport.

Unfortunately, while all these points have merit, none of them have anything to do with determining a World Champion. You determine a World Champion by offering a competition to the finest players, under the finest conditions, administered by trained referees enforcing the fairest interpretation of the rules of play.

The event was eminently watchable, and I appreciate Dragon putting in all the hard work. But the central complaint seems to me valid: The field did not consist of the finest players, the conditions were not good, and getting spectators to referee will not result in the fairest interpretation of the rules of play.


Quoting Jay again:

"About the AMF tables, I will upgrade my rating to a solid B."

Hardly World Championship standard, in my opinion.

In fairness regarding the equipment, not every tournament is decided on a GC5 or a Diamond. I see finals of big events all the time on TV contested on Olhausens or a Connelly with leather drop pockets.

And while the field included some players that probably had no chance, as Jay explained it they got in mostly due to some more qualified players that didn't make it to the tournament, opening up spots in the field. And it seems some of the less competitive players made it in as invites from regional member organizations from areas where perhaps the competition is not as strong.

Every first event has it's flaws but as Jay pointed out, it seems these are being acknowledged and will be addressed.

 

[Tbeaux]

So I decided I wanted to see how sleazy the website promoting this tournament (or beauty pageant as everyone has been saying) was and I was shocked.

http://www.womensworld10ball.com/

The page starts with a slide show of women like Jeanette Lee, Shanelle Lorraine, Jasmine Ouschan etc. and guess what? The pictures were so modest I couldn't even believe it. No cleavage whatsoever. Even the picture of Shanelle was the most unflattering picture I've ever seen of her cropped from the collarbones up.

The one of Jeanette Lee in a red polo shirt was a mind blower too. If Charlie is really all about turning this tournament into a beauty pageant he needs to have his webpage designer fired.

lol

That's JBETs website. The issue isn't the website. The issue isn't if there are or are not pretty girls there. The issue is 1) that players who were not qualified for a World Championship got in because of looks and who they have business with 2) as a result of point #1 more qualified players "may" have been excluded 3) that pretty women who were not even there were used to promote the event 4) that top players were ignored and possibly disrespected by the promoter/sponsor 5) that it could happen again.

 

[ronaldmcdonald]

I always thought Ronald McDonald was a clown. Now I'm sure of it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Jay you look like a clown and act like one sometimes. The players opinions are really the ones that matter not some guy that thinks a venue with no lighting and a sunroof is acceptable. Then openly admits that 1/3 of girls couldnt even play pool and thats ok too...Whats the deal Jay haven't you got your check yet from charlie and your trying to get a bonus by saying that whole ordeal wasn't messed up from start to finish.

Man up one time in your life and admit it was bad

 

[ronaldmcdonald]

Until it came time to pay them.

They paid off what 3 tourneys like a champ and then the tour went bust on the 4th. Guys like Varner, Buddy Hall, Earl Strickland, and all the great players all said this is what pool is suppose to be like . They were treated with respect and treated like professionals.

For a very short period of time pool players felt like all their hard work and practice had finally paid off they were all gonna be able to make a good living doing what they love to do. Everyone can bash Trudeau but for awhile at least there was some hope in pool. Just recently I saw a 14 year old kid that loved pool and i told his dad take his stick away and buy him golf clubs because pool is a dead end game and there will never be any money in it.

Meanwhile Jay you want to defend a guy like Charlie who is a pool player and runs events that are short races on bad equipment in bad venues and just because it paid good that makes it all okay. Well i don't agree and most won't either charlie knows what a good format is and what good tables are and it was his tourney im sure he could have said these races are too short dont we want the best player to win and he could have made them longer but he didnt...

 

[sjm]

For a very short period of time pool players felt like all their hard work and practice had finally paid off they were all gonna be able to make a good living doing what they love to do.

Try telling that to some of the players that were not afforded a chance to play on the IPT. I know of a World Champion whose application was denied by the IPT and a US National Champion also not afforded the opportunity to play that tour. The IPT, which filled fields by application rather than on merit, represented the single biggest injustice in our game's history as far as who did and didn't get the opportunity to compete.

Also try telling it to those who were essentially defrauded by the continuation of high-entry-cost qualifiers for a tour that was already insolvent and those who helped sponsor such qualifiers and/or participation in them.

The IPT was, ultimately, a scam in which countless people in the world of pool were victimized, and to lament it as if it represented a shining moment in our sport's annals is to engage in revisionist history.

 

[Blackjack]

The IPT was, ultimately, a scam in which countless people in the world of pool were victimized, and to lament it as if it represented a shining moment in our sport's annals is to engage in revisionist history.

Hindsight explains the injury that foresight would have prevented.

Were these countless people victimized by Kevin Trudeau, or were they victimized by their own desires?

It was hard to tell from where I was sitting, where according to some, I was obviously thinking as "unclearly" as possible.

What a difference a few years make, huh, Stu?

 

[jay helfert]

I have followed this discussion with some interest, and it appears that the central complaint being raised is just not being heard.

The event was to determine the Women's World Ten Ball Champion, sanctioned by the WPA.

A few of Jay Helfert's justifications as to the validity of the event follow:

1. What Dragon has done, if you are able to see the big picture, is to introduce women's pool to a far larger audience than has ever seen it before.
2. Dragon, with their efforts, are opening up entire new markets for women's pool to be seen and talked about.
3. Events like this one, can create many new opportunities for women professionals to make a living in their sport.

Unfortunately, while all these points have merit, none of them have anything to do with determining a World Champion. You determine a World Champion by offering a competition to the finest players, under the finest conditions, administered by trained referees enforcing the fairest interpretation of the rules of play.

The event was eminently watchable, and I appreciate Dragon putting in all the hard work. But the central complaint seems to me valid: The field did not consist of the finest players, the conditions were not good, and getting spectators to referee will not result in the fairest interpretation of the rules of play.


Quoting Jay again:

"About the AMF tables, I will upgrade my rating to a solid B."

Hardly World Championship standard, in my opinion.

I didn't name it, I just ran it. There were no spectators who refereed. All were chosen beforehand and overall it was a very good crew. We did have help with the shot clock duties by someone who posts here (fasteddieej). He did just fine.

By the way, I've officiated on other so called "World Championships" where the playing conditions were comparable to this one. The previous event, The Philippine Open, was played under similar conditions and I didn't hear many complaints about that one. The AMF tables we used were just as good and the refs just as well qualified.

One last time, the "conditions" had nothing to do with who won and who lost. The best players adjusted quickly and played better. It's really that simple.

The field did have some, but not all, of the finest players. Many who were invited did not attend for one reason or another. Just like what always happens in the men's World Championships.

 

[jay helfert]

Jay you look like a clown and act like one sometimes. The players opinions are really the ones that matter not some guy that thinks a venue with no lighting and a sunroof is acceptable. Then openly admits that 1/3 of girls couldnt even play pool and thats ok too...Whats the deal Jay haven't you got your check yet from charlie and your trying to get a bonus by saying that whole ordeal wasn't messed up from start to finish.

Man up one time in your life and admit it was bad

I don't know what you look like and really don't care. As far as your abundant criticism, it's like water off a duck's back. There will always be KNOCKERS who don't have a clue what they are talking about. Welcome to the club!

 

[ronaldmcdonald]

I don't know what you look like and really don't care. As far as your abundant criticism, it's like water off a duck's back. There will always be KNOCKERS who don't have a clue what they are talking about. Welcome to the club!

At least you are admiting you are in the club some people wouldnt come out and do that. I said you looked like a clown and now you are calling youself a duck okay.

Point is you know tourney was piss poor and you wont admit it simple as that a very respectable womens pro came out and said the truth and you are trying to defend it because you a sell out like charlie williams.

 

[JD_Hogg]

At least you are admiting you are in the club some people wouldnt come out and do that. I said you looked like a clown and now you are calling youself a duck okay.

Point is you know tourney was piss poor and you wont admit it simple as that a very respectable womens pro came out and said the truth and you are trying to defend it because you a sell out like charlie williams.

We'll be able to gauge the success of this tourney by whether or not they are able to run it again next year, and still provide the same payouts or more.

Events like this are not so much about what the players want, but what the audience wants.

Hopefully they can run it again.

 

[Tbeaux]

I went back and re-read Sarahs blog and the one thing that stands out most is the disrespect CW gave to Sarah when she asked about the seeding. He asked if she was top 32 on the WPBA then just brushed her off.
Heads up Charlie.....

1) she was asking in the general sense because she was surprised at some of the players not seeded.
2) Sarah finished last season around 12th (top 32) and is currently ranked tied for 5th.

 

[sputnik]

Meanwhile Jay you want to defend a guy like Charlie who is a pool player and runs events that are short races on bad equipment in bad venues and just because it paid good that makes it all okay. Well i don't agree and most won't either charlie knows what a good format is and what good tables are and it was his tourney im sure he could have said these races are too short dont we want the best player to win and he could have made them longer but he didnt...

Of course Jay will defend the tournament where he was tournament director. He was probably honored to have been chosen for the job. I think that the schedules went swiftly and the officiating was good. The rest, Jay did not have control of.

On short races, nobody complains in WPC race to 5 qualifiers and that is 9-ball with golden breaks. Point is that it happens in the best of tournaments. Besides, all the seeded made it through the race to 5. My guess is that there was broadcast considerations.

On bad equipment, I don't think that using the same equipment (if there will be a next year) will affect participant turn out.

I will agree with you on the bad venue. The daylight and leaks were terrible, though Jay had no say on the venue. He came in when everything was all set. And we do not know if Jay god paid good.

Seems to me like burger boy either has some beef with Jay, is a CW fan, or he's in partisan pool. Jay did alright.

What bothers me though is Sarah's allegation in unfairness with the draws. If so, Hu has a point in suspecting players favored in easy groups:

"Anyway, now people are supposed to be separated by country. Now in two of the groups there are three Japanese players and in another two Japanese players...obviously, they are getting screwed. In my group there are six top players. Four of the players in my group would obviously be seeded and have been seeded in other WPA events. In a couple other groups, there is one top player and then five of the people that were special promoter invites. Now in saying that there should be some research done before seeding and all of that this is what was said to me by Charlie Williams.."Are you in the top 32 of the WPBA and are you ranked higher than the other USA players?"

What I want to know from Sarah is (now that the tournament is done):
1] Was fairness really an issue? Do you feel cheated?
2] How will you rate the tournament from beginning to end?
3] Will you join next year if ever (there will be a next year, if you will be invited, and if there is available sponsorship)?
4] Did you have fun?
5] Was the tournament good for women's pool?

 

[ShootingArts]

Why was the draw held in Korea???

. . . What bothers me though is Sarah's allegation in unfairness with the draws. If so, Hu has a point in suspecting players favored in easy groups:

"Anyway, now people are supposed to be separated by country. Now in two of the groups there are three Japanese players and in another two Japanese players...obviously, they are getting screwed. In my group there are six top players. Four of the players in my group would obviously be seeded and have been seeded in other WPA events. In a couple other groups, there is one top player and then five of the people that were special promoter invites. Now in saying that there should be some research done before seeding and all of that this is what was said to me by Charlie Williams.."Are you in the top 32 of the WPBA and are you ranked higher than the other USA players?"

Sputnik,

I don't think anyone really doubts that the event was stacked with charlie's stable he wanted to showcase as were the early TV tables. Many would accept that this is in keeping with the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules. charlie had the gold. However a draw for a WPA sanctioned event is a horse of a different color. We expect fairness in all draws. We especially expect fairness in a draw for a WPA sanctioned event billed as a World Championship. According to Sarah's blog entry the draw was done in Korea where charlie has a lot of clout with a Korean rep of the WPA present. Who was that rep? Was the draw done before the final qualifiers and before some people had to drop out?

I don't know the answers to these questions but I don't understand why the draw was not immediately before the event, at the site of the event, unless it was to allow for shenanigans away from the public eye.

(the entire quote from Sarah concerning the draw, emphasis mine)
Here is the biggest gripe of all is the draw. Now there are supposedly certain rules to follow when doing the draw. Sixteen players are seeded. The way the seeding works is based on past world champions, WPA ranking, and overall ranking within your federation or association. The next rule is that a WPA official must be present for the draw. Supposedly the draw was done in Korea with a Korean official present. Strange that Dragon Promotions is run by two Korean/Americans and that most of the Dragon Promotions events are held in Korea. Anyway, now people are supposed to be separated by country. Now in two of the groups there are three Japanese players and in another two Japanese players...obviously, they are getting screwed. In my group there are six top players. Four of the players in my group would obviously be seeded and have been seeded in other WPA events. In a couple other groups, there is one top player and then five of the people that were special promoter invites. Now in saying that there should be some research done before seeding and all of that this is what was said to me by Charlie Williams.."Are you in the top 32 of the WPBA and are you ranked higher than the other USA players?" Wow, thanks buddy, those are great questions to ask now that the draw has been done and all of that. I'm not saying that I could have been seeded or not but I do know that one of the players in my group should have been, Akimi Kajitani. I am not sure of the last time she hasn't been seeded in a tournament.(end quote)

Anyone care to confirm Sarah's statements or correct them if they are in error concerning where the draw was held? Anyone able to tell us when it was held in relation to final qualifiers and people dropping out?

Hu

 

[sjm]

What a difference a few years make, huh, Stu?

I guess Bob Dylan was right ---- the times, they are a changing.

 

[jay helfert]

Of course Jay will defend the tournament where he was tournament director. He was probably honored to have been chosen for the job. I think that the schedules went swiftly and the officiating was good. The rest, Jay did not have control of.

On short races, nobody complains in WPC race to 5 qualifiers and that is 9-ball with golden breaks. Point is that it happens in the best of tournaments. Besides, all the seeded made it through the race to 5. My guess is that there was broadcast considerations.

On bad equipment, I don't think that using the same equipment (if there will be a next year) will affect participant turn out.

I will agree with you on the bad venue. The daylight and leaks were terrible, though Jay had no say on the venue. He came in when everything was all set. And we do not know if Jay god paid good.

Seems to me like burger boy either has some beef with Jay, is a CW fan, or he's in partisan pool. Jay did alright.

What bothers me though is Sarah's allegation in unfairness with the draws. If so, Hu has a point in suspecting players favored in easy groups:

"Anyway, now people are supposed to be separated by country. Now in two of the groups there are three Japanese players and in another two Japanese players...obviously, they are getting screwed. In my group there are six top players. Four of the players in my group would obviously be seeded and have been seeded in other WPA events. In a couple other groups, there is one top player and then five of the people that were special promoter invites. Now in saying that there should be some research done before seeding and all of that this is what was said to me by Charlie Williams.."Are you in the top 32 of the WPBA and are you ranked higher than the other USA players?"

What I want to know from Sarah is (now that the tournament is done):
1] Was fairness really an issue? Do you feel cheated?
2] How will you rate the tournament from beginning to end?
3] Will you join next year if ever (there will be a next year, if you will be invited, and if there is available sponsorship)?
4] Did you have fun?
5] Was the tournament good for women's pool?

Regarding the draw, invited players were separated by country. Players who got in via Qualifiers were drawn into openings in all brackets. That is why you see more players from the same country in one bracket. It was the luck of the draw.

 

[sputnik]

Sputnik,

I don't think anyone really doubts that the event was stacked with charlie's stable he wanted to showcase as were the early TV tables.
Hu

I agree. But even Matchroom sends all the Brits on the TV table in WPCs, especially Steve Davis. You may look at it as a golden rule but really, it's one of the benefits of organizing and promoting a tournament. That's why they are called promoters - either they show what the audience wants to see or what they want to make the audience see.

Of course, to the player who looks for the big career break, there is prejudice, but it is business prejudice. Otherwise, some players prefer non-TV tables due to how camera consciousness degrades their game. It can actually work against some players who are being "promoted" in TV tables.

Jay's explanation in invited players being divided by country actually should not really be the case. IMO, draws should be based only on ranking and not on any other factor. At the most, (if the player is inactive) past championships should be considered. Say if Earl or Efren have current rankings past x rank, they shouldn't be ranked past #50 (for example) in drawings.

But at the rate WPA is handling conflicts in pool, many players miss out on "playable" tournaments depending on the group they belong to. This is inconsistent with their job and responsibility in coming out with honest to goodness rankings. Of course they rank only WPA accredited tournaments but in the long run, it will be to the disadvantage of the higher-ranked-less-capable player like de Luna or say Chamat if he has Earl, Efren, Busta, Alex, Dennis, Lee Van, Alcano, as fillers in his bracket. World Championship rankings and draws should not consider country, color, stable, physical traits or even exclusive WPA rankings. Neither should they make these players go through Qualifiers because promoters will always be glad to dismantle WPA ranking and drawing policies to accommodate them in their tournaments. It's reality.

 

[srs314]

One last time, the "conditions" had nothing to do with who won and who lost. The best players adjusted quickly and played better. It's really that simple.

If the table was covered in mud could you say "well it's the same for both so whoever overcomes it deserves to win? Or maybe players can expect a standard.

Jay my only question would be did the conditions meet the WPA's standards to be sanctioned and be named a World Pool Championship? Is this the conditions and rules players should expect from a WPA sanctioned event?

I would call on the WPA to issue a statement concerning this event put on by Dragon Promotions and how it met their sanctioning requirements. Would the WPA want to use this as reflection of their own name and say this is the sort of thing players should expect in the future? The main reason they sanction is to ensure fairness and ensure players have earned their way to play. They must also govern and uphold a standard or quality at an event they sanction, especially if it is deemed a World Championship.

1. by the sounds of it the tables didn't meet the WPA's regulation and would not be on the WPA's recognized table list as mentioned in the WPA Tournament Table & Equipment Specifications.

2. Lighting as explained by SR does not meet the WPA's recommendation under lighting found in the WPA Tournament Table & Equipment Specifications.

Basically the WPA is our governing body for pool and in order to be sanctioned by them you must meet certain standards. Were they met at this event?

I also have never liked the excuse of it being the first year and there are growing pains. How many events have Dragon Promotions run? You would think they would learn to identify issues like the lighting and the rails. Do we not have a vast history of success and failures to learn from or can we just plead ignorance any time we get criticized?

 

[Tbeaux]

World Championship rankings and draws should not consider country, color, stable, physical traits or even exclusive WPA rankings. Neither should they make these players go through Qualifiers because promoters will always be glad to dismantle WPA ranking and drawing policies to accommodate them in their tournaments. It's reality.

I agree with all your points except on nationality. The WPA lists themselves in the heirarchy of sports as being under the IOC. The IOC is very much into separation by nationality.

 

[AnitoKid]

I second this!

I just want to mention Gillian Go's game. This girl is going to be a monster player when she gets older. Right now, she could give Kim Jones the 5 out and Zarah the 3 out playing 10 ball. If it wasn't for nerves, she might have beaten Yu Ram.