Tuning Stones XXVl - A Player's Experience

rickwen186 said:
To Superstar- I applaud the way mike handled that, thanks for the perspective.

To justaNobody- I'll recover just fine, are you old enough to be on the Internet this late?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm still here, long after your mommy tucked you into bed and read you a story.

Why come on here and knock the man who runs the single most sucessful regional tour? 26 Turning Stone events with over half a million in added money. Mosconi cup events. Not to mention hundreds of local stops with rooms putting up big money to have him there.

You are a knocker. You aren't a victim. You dam sure aren't a real player.
 
Last edited:
Mike is Mike & I actually applaud the way he runs his events. One of the last tourneys that hasn't caved to all the BS rule changes implemented elsewhere.
 
The original post is excellent. Other than those played at Derby City, Zuglan's Joss events are the smoothest, best events played in America.

Of course, Matchroom events like the World Pool Masters, the World Cup of Pool and the Mosconi Cup all have a neutral racker and a shot clock, which is why they are the best events on the pool calendar. No racking disputes and no slow play.

Despite your racking story, the truth is that Zuglan events rarely fall way behind schedule, and, outside of Matchroom events, I can't think of any events where the racking disputes are fewer.

Though not perfect, the Joss Tour is the best regional tour America has ever had and I'm glad you had a mostly positive experience.
 
Curious what are the reasons for not using a neutral racker ?

Costs, competence, availability ? All of these could be easily solved.

Or is it a matter of tradition ?
 
The match in question was a round one winners bracket match between Richard Miller and Jennifer Barretta.



It is only fair to hear two sides to every story. With much respect that many of us have for Mike Zuglan and the Turning Stone Classic, I contacted him in regards to this thread and to publicly issue a statement on the racking situation.

Post Match Discussion with Mr. Miller

According to Mr. Zuglan if a player does not report to a referee when they believe there is a rule infraction or conflict of rack opinion during the match, there is nothing he can do to retroactively correct the suituation. He explained to Mr. Miller that a ref should have been called over (and for a man who has ran tournaments himself, Mr. Miller should have taken this route).

But the whole conversation was not described accurately by Mr. Miller. Mike Zuglan explained that the conversation went south when Miller explained players might get together and not play in this tournament anymore - insinuating a player's boycott would be possible- if something isn't done. This is when Mike Zuglan shut the conversation down and walked away. Zuglan believes referees are there to help resolve the situation and he is as well if the ref can't. Mike believes players should be able to resolve their issue professionally first - and has also never said you should be afraid of calling a referee or TD during a match to get clarification.

Even in the middle of running a massive tournament inside a Casino event center - Mike Zuglan still took the time to listen to Mr. Miller - and did not shut down the conversation until he believed Miller was out of line.

Regarding the Racking Situation

"I have always said that I will not change my rules until everyone agrees on the same set of rules. When that times comes, I will gladly change to what is decided upon."

- Mike Zuglan

Mr. Zuglan is not tone def to the racking nonsense that has happened in the past and has made moves to work around the issue while still sticking to the original set of rules - opponent racks, wooden rack, winner breaks - format. In my opinion, there was less racking issues in this Turning Stone Classic than I have ever seen before (I've watched about 20 of them). The decision to charge each player $50 for a neutral racker if they can't agree on a rack is a good one.

Mr. Zuglan explained further that every tournament is changing rules on the rack, break box, racking template, where to rack the 9-ball, etc and yet still disagreements and complaints arise. He explained the Joss tour would be no different, if changes were made, then there would still be disputes in some way, shape, or form. So until the game is officially played to a set of racking rules, he will stay with these. And he really wants there to be an official decision so he can get rid of the headaches and nonsense that ALL tournaments have with the rack.

Also, he will never change to 10-ball. It is the Joss Northeast 9-ball Tour forever.

Regarding the Future of the Turning Stone

Mike Zuglan explained that what we have in the Turning Stone Classic is very special yet extremely fragile. The Casino puts up the space and the tournament is held in the most professional of manners.

If ever there was talk of rule infractions or hinting that the tournament is not run on the up and up (and he feels the original post by Mr. Miller does just that), the repercussions could be far more serious that we would know. The tournament and agreements that Mr. Zuglan has with the casino are never in stone and always very fragile - and if the Casino ever felt that something could bring a negative light on them or the gaming situation - they would pull the plug in a second.

Therefore, the game has to be played and presented as professionally as possible when under the banner of the Turning Stone Classic. Mike works for six days from the offloading of tables to directing the tournament, to raffles and responsible on-time payouts (he explained his back was hurting too).

Bravo to Mr. Zuglan for yet another full-field Turning Stone Classic - 26 in a row - and here's to another 26 more.

Thanks for reading.
 
Last edited:
ronscuba said:
Curious what are the reasons for not using a neutral racker ?

Costs, competence, availability ? All of these could be easily solved.

Or is it a matter of tradition ?
Click to expand...

Definitely cost. It would require someone to rack each game on however many tables are in the room. You would probably need more than one racker.

Hey, I wonder if there's a market for professionally certified rackers. Hmm . . .
 
JAM said:
Definitely cost. It would require someone to rack each game on however many tables are in the room. You would probably need more than one racker.

Hey, I wonder if there's a market for professionally certified rackers. Hmm . . .
Click to expand...

You listening to this JustinB ..... ? Here's a job opportunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAM
Per Cardigan Zuglan's response:

"But the whole conversation was not described accurately by Mr. Miller. Mike Zuglan explained that the conversation went south when Miller explained players might get together and not play in this tournament anymore - insinuating a player's boycott would be possible- if something isn't done. This is when Mike Zuglan shut the conversation down and walked away. Zuglan believes referees are there to help resolve the situation and he is as well if the ref can't. Mike believes players should be able to resolve their issue professionally first - and has also never said you should be afraid of calling a referee or TD during a match to get clarification."

So the truth comes out. How do you expect the tournament director to respond to your idle threats? His event will be just fine without a B player like you piping up. You got beaten 9 to 2 by an A player sir....
 
justaplayer said:
Per Cardigan Zuglan's response:

"But the whole conversation was not described accurately by Mr. Miller. Mike Zuglan explained that the conversation went south when Miller explained players might get together and not play in this tournament anymore - insinuating a player's boycott would be possible- if something isn't done. This is when Mike Zuglan shut the conversation down and walked away. Zuglan believes referees are there to help resolve the situation and he is as well if the ref can't. Mike believes players should be able to resolve their issue professionally first - and has also never said you should be afraid of calling a referee or TD during a match to get clarification."

So the truth comes out. How do you expect the tournament director to respond to your idle threats? His event will be just fine without a B player like you piping up. You got beaten 9 to 2 by an A player sir....
Click to expand...

Your post is nothing but ridiculous. A player's speed shouldn't matter on the weight of their concern. Each player should be treated equally. And the response from Cardigan Kid is basically the tournament promoter threatening - be quiet or the tournament will go away.

That being said, where has the #1 'A' player in the USA been during the past Turning Stone events. I can guess why he isn't there. Can you?
 
JAM said:
Definitely cost. It would require someone to rack each game on however many tables are in the room. You would probably need more than one racker.

Hey, I wonder if there's a market for professionally certified rackers. Hmm . . .
Click to expand...

Between the referees, other paid workers and volunteers, is the cost of implementing neutral rackers very high ?

Obviously the beginning of the tournament would be the biggest problem, but as players get eliminated it would get much easier.

How many total players were there and how many referees ?
 
I would gladly be a racker for room and board!!!! I'm thinking the need for personnel would be ten or twelve for the opening round. As the tournament progressed the worst rackers would be sent home and the best would advance.......just like the players.
All tongue in cheek....or is it really? Mitch
 
ronscuba said:
Between the referees, other paid workers and volunteers, is the cost of implementing neutral rackers very high ?

Obviously the beginning of the tournament would be the biggest problem, but as players get eliminated it would get much easier.

How many total players were there and how many referees ?
Click to expand...

One idea that comes to mind to cover the cost would be to require the players to pay the racker 25 cents for each rack.

I remember a pool room in Winston-Salem, NC that only one one door for entry and exit. There were no windows in this joint. :eek:

The front table had a sign over it saying "Action Table." There was always a ring game going on, and anybody could jump in. They had a young kid in there wearing an apron who was the rack boy. When it was time to rack, the breaker would yell out, "Rack!" The kid would come up and rack the balls, and the breaker would give him a quarter.

Problem solved. Players bear the cost of the neutral rackers in tournaments. :)
 
I'll say it -- when it comes to racking -- Mike Zuglan is nuts! He so desperately wants the game of 9 ball to be played like it was in 80's and 90's that he clings to these archaic racking rules. Hey I liked watching 9 ball back thrn too but the past is the past.

Racking for your opponent needs to die once and for all.

Template rack with the 9 on the spot or even the 1 on the spot if you want to watch 7/8 Ball is the way to go. If anyone, anytime is caught manipulating the template rack they will be disqualified from the event. How much easier would that be to enforce than this racking for your opponent nonsense?

Why should a professional player EVER get less than a perfect rack when a perfect rack is possible?
 
Cardigan Kid said:
It is only fair to hear two sides to every story.
Click to expand...

Thanks for doing this Cardigan Kid.

I really doubt anyone lied about anything here. It will always be difficult for a player to bring an issue to a director - especially an issue like this that seems to be a real headache and issue for this tournament.

I disagree with Zuglan - and agree with BasementDweller above - about how to handle racking issues, but Zuglan definitely has tried to deal with it in his own way.
 
I believe there were 16 tables total, so you would need 16 rackers for the first 2 days ??? I think the 3rd & 4th day they may have had less tables in use to being less matches going on at 1x. Possible may have needed 16 on the 3rd day as well.
 
gregnice37 said:
I believe there were 16 tables total, so you would need 16 rackers for the first 2 days ??? I think the 3rd & 4th day they may have had less tables in use to being less matches going on at 1x. Possible may have needed 16 on the 3rd day as well.
Click to expand...

16??? This isn't bowling where the pins are knocked down every 36 seconds. Surely someone could be assigned to rack for more than one table at a time.
 
gregnice37 said:
I believe there were 16 tables total, so you would need 16 rackers for the first 2 days ??? I think the 3rd & 4th day they may have had less tables in use to being less matches going on at 1x. Possible may have needed 16 on the 3rd day as well.
Click to expand...

Could 1 racker handle 2 tables ? I don't see why not. It is rare that 2 tables will need racking at the exact same time.

16 tables handled by 8 rackers. What about the refs ? How many refs are there ? Could they handle racking for 2 tables as well ?
 
watchez said:
16??? This isn't bowling where the pins are knocked down every 36 seconds. Surely someone could be assigned to rack for more than one table at a time.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think 8-10 could be sufficient. Not everyone can finish a rack as fast as Jayson or as slow as Mike Wong/Kevin Cheng/Charlie Williams/Ralf Souquet/Justin Bergman at the USBTC.
 
Maybe there ought to be two rackers per table in case one of them needs a potty break or a cigarette.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top