How cool would it be if pool was popular enough to plant a pool table where the pitchers mound is and have that many people come watch!
How cool would it be if pool was popular enough to plant a pool table where the pitchers mound is and have that many people come watch!
I think I know what he means. Pros, particularly those from yesteryear, seem to have a habit of reccontextualizing tournament wins. So you see CVs with claims like “70 majors” or “18 world titles”. But in reality they are just counting every tournament win with the word, “world” in the billing.Earl quote of the day: “Pool players are funny people, you know? They stretch their imaginations. Rempe said he had 18 world titles. You couldn’t get 18 world titles in nothing. You couldn’t get 18 world titles in marbles, you know what I mean?”
No, Earl, I don’t, but I love that you do.
What was his highest run?
Earl's runs for Day 6 | |
Earl had 30 innings today. High run was 147 | |
Lifetime high run of 480,....
My conspiracy theory:L
Lifetime high run of 480,....
Should read
Unverifiable claimed high run of 480.
Event witnessed high run of 238
I don't think the stats really work like that. What you guys are saying is basically "given enough time, Earl can run 400, or 600, etc, and the length of time needed is based on how long he took to run 200".
By that logic, you could calculate a time period for him to run 1000. Or 2000. Or for a banger like me to run 100. None of those are possible, even given an infinite amount of time.
I'm sure he'd get better with all that table time.about 20 000 weeks playing straight pool 40 hours a week or just 400 years playing straight pool full time. So for most players it's safe to assume, that they will never reach 100 in their lifetime.