U.S Open Flukes
- Thread starter Joseph Ortega
- Start date
I don't think it's unreasonable to call a player or team a one hit wonder.
When you win something as prestigious as the US 9 Ball Open, you would think people would go on to win other high level tournaments.
It says as much about the tournament and the format as much as it does the players.
When you win something as prestigious as the US 9 Ball Open, you would think people would go on to win other high level tournaments.
It says as much about the tournament and the format as much as it does the players.
T
Timberly
Guest
LMAO, thanks for the laugh!john schmidt said:
Have you ever considered having your g/f type for you??
just bc there isnt an official betting line doesnt mean anything. i always thought that if two players were playing in the finals of a tourney for about ten grand that there could be a side bet for 20 or 30 grand and that could cause some major dumping.Nostroke said:
think about it, if you know the guy playing you could bet against him for triple of what they are playing for, he dumps, yall split the cash, he gets second place money and walks away with more $$$ than the winner after all is said and done.
thats kinda shitty but im sure it happens, maybe not to that extent but what do i know, i sit at home and read about pool instead of playing it.
Sorry I thought the infamous dump to LeBron was the US Open. He was a great player, no doubt. I have a tape of him playing in either the '99 or 2000 WPC, and he runs a 5 pack on steve davis. He must have been in his late 60s at that time.
pfduser said:
Fluke may not be the right term but a series of occurrences can often produce an out of the ordinary result. Tommy should have lost his first match to a nobody that went hill hill. He should have lost another but it went his way at hill hill. Even the final Archer missed balls he would never miss and Tommy was all over the place but managed to get out actually playing terrible and won a very lopsided match with Archer playing worse. It was just a series of events that resulted in him winning. He has not won another big tournament since.
TK and Lebron
Both of these guys are and were serious players. Tommy is still a threat to win wherever he plays. And Lebron was a top money player for years, beating everyone that came to Philly. Even Jimmy Fusco gave him a wide berth back in the day.
I always liked Mike's game. He had that soft easy style that looked effortless. And he missed nothing! I mean nothing. He never really got into tournaments until the tail end of his prime. He was a noted money player for years before he ever played his first tourney. Spanish Mike was a feared name by pool hustlers for many a moon. They pretty much ducked him, like Swanee in San Diego.
Both of these guys are and were serious players. Tommy is still a threat to win wherever he plays. And Lebron was a top money player for years, beating everyone that came to Philly. Even Jimmy Fusco gave him a wide berth back in the day.
I always liked Mike's game. He had that soft easy style that looked effortless. And he missed nothing! I mean nothing. He never really got into tournaments until the tail end of his prime. He was a noted money player for years before he ever played his first tourney. Spanish Mike was a feared name by pool hustlers for many a moon. They pretty much ducked him, like Swanee in San Diego.
Tommy Kennedy's road to the US Open Championship was no fluke. He had been killing everybody in Florida at the time, so to many of us his victory was no surprise. Tommy did not have an easy road to the championship either. When he got to Chesapeake, he defeated the following players
Coker
Rempe
Lebron
Fusco
Bustamante
Archer - TWICE in a row (9-1 in the final)
There's a few current and future Hall of Famer's on that list. Fluke? Not IMO. The finals between he and Johnny has been one of the top selling accu-stats tapes ever.
Coker
Rempe
Lebron
Fusco
Bustamante
Archer - TWICE in a row (9-1 in the final)
There's a few current and future Hall of Famer's on that list. Fluke? Not IMO. The finals between he and Johnny has been one of the top selling accu-stats tapes ever.
Blackjack said:
I was there and Tommy Kennedy became TKO that day. Archer had no chance, you should of been there to see Tommy bank that 6 ball in an run out early in the game, it gave me the chills. The final was special it felt like god was there by his side. Archer got his pockets picked that day. I also think they played on the table from the hallway that was there for anyone who wanted to attempt to break Mosconi's record run (cloth was brand new).
O
onepocketchump
Guest
A lot of people are forgetting that the US Open brings players out of the woodwork who don't go to a lot of tournaments otherwise. Thus it's entirely possible that an "unknown" can win it. It's just a tournament after all. 256 players playing on 9 foot tables, double elimination.
One thing that makes it tough though is the fact that good players come from all over the world to play in it. Most of the young guns make their way there, most of the stars make their way there.
A tournament like the US Open can certainly produce a winner that doesn't go on to make a name nationally or internationally through other victories. They are not so much one-hit-wonders as they are champions of a different caliber. They choose not to travel and compete as much as their fellow pros and so have less opportunity to shine.
The journeyman pro who competes in every event and rarely cashes who wins one major in their life is a one-hit-wonder. This doesn't mean they aren't good or aren't pro level. It just means they can't get there against their fellow pros for whatever reason. Against everyone else they shoot lights out. Once in a while though it all comes together and they are able to bring their game and boom - a major win, an upset in the eyes of the fans.
I know a lot of amateur players who I feel could win the US Open. They play technically good enough to beat any pro they come across. One of my friends put an 8 pack on Joyner and the other one put a 9 pack on Luat at regional tournaments. I know that if the stars lined up and they were "on" then they could win the US Open. The downside is that their average game is well below their best game. And the pro's average game is well above theirs. If one of them won the US Open they would most likely be one-hit-wonders.
John
One thing that makes it tough though is the fact that good players come from all over the world to play in it. Most of the young guns make their way there, most of the stars make their way there.
A tournament like the US Open can certainly produce a winner that doesn't go on to make a name nationally or internationally through other victories. They are not so much one-hit-wonders as they are champions of a different caliber. They choose not to travel and compete as much as their fellow pros and so have less opportunity to shine.
The journeyman pro who competes in every event and rarely cashes who wins one major in their life is a one-hit-wonder. This doesn't mean they aren't good or aren't pro level. It just means they can't get there against their fellow pros for whatever reason. Against everyone else they shoot lights out. Once in a while though it all comes together and they are able to bring their game and boom - a major win, an upset in the eyes of the fans.
I know a lot of amateur players who I feel could win the US Open. They play technically good enough to beat any pro they come across. One of my friends put an 8 pack on Joyner and the other one put a 9 pack on Luat at regional tournaments. I know that if the stars lined up and they were "on" then they could win the US Open. The downside is that their average game is well below their best game. And the pro's average game is well above theirs. If one of them won the US Open they would most likely be one-hit-wonders.
John
To win a 256 player tournament is at a minimum 8 matches won. There is no way you can tell me any of the US Open winners from the past are flukes. A fluke is perhaps some shortstop beating Bustamente in the first round.
When you add in the talent level of the US Open, the pressure, the audience and everything else that makes this tournament special--there is is just no way any winner can be considered a "fluke".
When you add in the talent level of the US Open, the pressure, the audience and everything else that makes this tournament special--there is is just no way any winner can be considered a "fluke".
