Folks:
I normally avoid these APA bashing threads because honestly, gratuitous complaining and whining disgust me. For the same amount of effort that people spend bemoaning the APA, they could be using the vehicle that the APA provides them to record complaints of sandbagging, and actually do something about it. But that's not the issue why I'm responding to "APA Operator's" post.
(Speaking of which, that's a funny screenname. Kinda reminds me of the old telephone switchboard days... "Hello, APA Operator... how may I connect your call, please?" 
)
The real reason why I'm responding here, is I FIRMLY and VEHEMENTLY disagree with APA Operator's "excuse-in-a-can" stating the reason why a handicap limit exists is to prevent "super teams" from being built that overrun everybody else. This is corporate "here, give 'em this"
drivel that is passed on from L.O. generation to L.O. generation.
I can just envision this fictitious scene, which seems to sum-up the APA-corporate excuse facade:
- A crowd is outside the APA headquarters, bashing at the huge steel-reinforced door, picketing and shouting how the "23" handicap limit is such an achilles heel to the enjoyment of the league.
- Instead of someone answering the door and opening it, a William F. Buckley or Bill Stein droll voice appears over the door's intercom system, and monotonously gives this "excuse-in-a-can" for the 23 rule -- again, without anyone ever answering the door. And then tells the crowd to go away. "Go away please... go away please... go away please" (in "Bueller... bueller... bueller" style).
The fact is, you can stack a team with the "best" players (which I'm assuming APA Operator means a bunch of 7s [in 8-ball] or 9s [in 9-ball]), but that's no guarantee that they'll win. In fact, most APA 7s (or 9s) that I know, absolutely abhor the idea of being matched up with a 3 or a 4. And team captains know it! I occasionally go to Big Shot Billiards in East Windsor, CT for the Eastern Regionals often, and I walk around, listening to the teams strategizing the matches. There's a trick they call "cutting the 7 off at the knees" -- matching up a strong "3" against the "7" that was just put up by the opposing team. More often than not, the 7 gets killed in this match. He/she gets cut-off at the knees.
And, let's assume worst-case scenario as a hypothetical situation for a moment. Bear with me on this one: "the APA secretly knows the 'Equalizer' handicap system is broken in that it doesn't adequately equalize the difference in skill between, say, a 7 and a 3 [i.e. they think the 7 still has the advantage]." If that's secretly true, why not fix the damn thing?!? Why not introduce a ball spot into the "Equalizer" handicap system? Introduce a ball spot in that system
(e.g. "a difference in handicap of two or more between the opposing players" [e.g. a 7 plays a 5] invokes a ball spot for the lower-skill-level player), and you *watch* what happens! It will change the game. Now instead of the "23" rule, teams can stack their team with 7s/9s all they want, but they risk being chopped-off at the knees by this considerable advantage the lower-skill-level player has with this change to the handicapping system. The lower-skill level players will learn how to use the ball spot to their advantage, making sure (in 8-ball) to tie-up the higher-skill-level opponent's category of balls with one of his/her own, and it becomes a different game.
Just in case any of the APA advocates may question my experience in league operations, let me present my credentials. My name is Sean Leinen, and I used to run the Boston Billiards 8-ball and 9-ball leagues for 3 years at a particular Boston Billiards location (the Danbury, CT location -- the largest one), before Boston Billiards closed it in January 2009. Back when I ran that league, we used ball spots to equalize the difference in skill between players. Depending on the difference in skill level between the two opponents, there can be up to a 3 ball spot!
(E.g. if a "7" plays a "3", it was a 7 - 3 race with a 3 ball spot for the 3. On the big 9-foot tables, this multi-ball spot system worked out really well, since it took into consideration that the distance on the table itself was a disadvantage for the weaker player. However, on the small barboxes, a single ball spot will do just fine.) I can tell you that when the teams were submitting their scoresheets to me after the matches were over, the lower skill-level players were beating the high skill-level players (and vice-versa) at an equal rate.
I know that the APA is exponentially larger than the Boston Billiards leagues ever were even in their heyday, but guys, come on, fix the system! Isn't the growing rancor outside that huge steel door starting to cause that steel door to rattle off of its hinges?
APA Operator, the only turing machine is the very one you're offering -- that pop-top "excuse-in-a-can" (being passed out by APA Corporate in huge truckloads) that the "23" rule exists to prevent teams being stacked. From what I've seen and experience (as an L.O.), nothing could be further from the truth. The "cutting the 7 off at the knees" technique is very real and actively used. Don't you think a team "stacked," as you call it, with 7s (or 9s in 9-ball) would be a target that other teams with lower-ranked players would lick their chops over?
That's exactly right, hence my point/discussion above. "Cutting the 7/9 off at the knees" is a very effective technique, and I think APA corporate knows it. But they continue to airlift and truckload out those huge pallets of pop-top "excuse-in-a-can" to cover up the real reason for why the "23" rules exists: capitalism. Now, there's nothing wrong with capitalism. If the reason for the 23 rule is as we expect, to fragment the team to form new teams (and thus grow the APA), then plainly state that. There's nothing wrong with honesty. Secretly, "we all know" that there's revenue involved, but we also know that the APA strives, at least from the corporate marketing effort (not necessarily at the regional level) to pump more dollars back into the sport with tournament/sponsorship deals, etc.
I think what the APA does in striving to keep pool alive and in the mindset of the general public is laudable. I have no issue with the APA other than the evasive and weasely excuses given for the existence of a particular rule. Be honest/upfront, guys. Stop the excuse facades!
Respectfully,
-Sean
). Even though I chuckle to myself at playing 9-ball this way, I smiled, knowing these guys are *at least* here patronizing the pool hall. So more power to 'em!
