Women of the IPT tour, thoughts?
- Thread starter SlimShafty
- Start date
Nostroke said:
And the point I made and that I stand by is that while they may deserve to be there and may compete well they are not any danger to be a real threat to win any events or be near the top of the field. As you say, there are alot of soft men in the tour, this is why I am hesitent to go betting huge amounts of money with ludicrous odds. I am not fearful of the women being a challenge to any of the top 30 or 40 men on the IPT, I am a little worried about the bottom 50 men on the tour though and I do think that those bottom 50 are very possibly going to play at a lesser speed then the top women on the tour, being Allison, Karen, and then Kelly. Regardless, my original feeling stands that those top women players are a step below the top 30 or 40 male players on the IPT tour and we will see this in the results over the next year. I DO think the break will be a large part of this, as Lasttwo said, the break is a HUGE factor in 8-ball, more so then it is in 9-ball and it is going to hurt Allison, it is going to hurt Karen, and it will hurt Kelly.
Onepocketchump knows damn well that the women he wants to take in his bet are part of the 43 person field. Women are being put into an event where most of the IPT members are not even competing. After this first event ANY of the women included in the first event are GUARENTEED to be in the top 43 of the 150 total players. This is not something that I am unaware of either. And it has nothing to do with skill one way or the other. It has to do with Kevin wanting to pick a good mix of people to make the premier event more exciting.
I dont think Allison or Karen or Kelly is the same calibre player as a Archer or Manalo or Reyes or Morris or Feijin or Strickland or Sigel or ect.... That was what I initially said. Onepocketchump took that comment and warped it attempting to get absolutely retarded bets that far surpass anything I ever said OR believe. This is obvious by his wanting to bet that any one of three women would make the top 75 when I said the same god damn thing in the first post I made on the bloody thread, only claiming that Allison OR Karen both had a chance to do just that.
We wont be betting, Onepocketchump has no gamble and he is putting out the most assinine odds and bets out there. If he wants to make a honest bet I am all for it. I will bet him that neither Allison or Karen end the year at the top ten, even money bet. I will be glad to pay if either one of them makes it into the top 10 on the money list. They are the two best female players in the world, I dont think it is unreasonable to offer that bet. It is a hell of alot more reasonable then anything he has put out there. But then I actually have some gamble, I dont need the nuts before I will put it out there.
wayne said:
I should sure as hell hope the best two women players in the world can beat a person who is lucky to play 4 hours a week and puts no effort into the game. The sad thing is if we are talking 8-ball on the 9-foots it is by no means a guarentee. But the amount of money I would be able to bet makes the whole arguement moot as it is a match that would never happen.
Regardless this is not at ALL what we are talking about in this thread so why change the subject and make this about the two top professional women in the world and how they would compete against a amature who few even know?
O
onepocketchump
Guest
I have no gamble? You set the platform and the parameters and I bet according to YOUR speculation as to what may happen.
Why don't you just give me odds on each of the women playing according to what they are up against. Let's eliminate 20 players out of 147 that we can confidently say that Karen, Allison and Kelly are much better than on average. That leaves us with 127 players that are as good or better than those three.
That is 127 to 1 for each of them against finishing in the top 75. Oh screw it, I am not a mathematician but everyone BUT you knows the odds are heavily in favor of the men simply because there are more of them. Put Johnny Archer in a tour with a thousand talented amateurs and he isn't guaranteed to make the top 100 every year simply because of the law of averages says that he will lose more sets simply by virtue of having to play more sets.
I don't want to bet you. My bets on this board are rhetorical unless someone actually puts up the money. The reason I made the bet is to illustrate that if you are so convinced of your position then why not bet it accordingly?
As for whether Kelly could beat you playing 8-ball on a 9ft table, I can pretty much predict that it is a lock. This is because if you were any good then I would already know about it. Since I don't then you aren't good enough to get there no matter how good you think you play.
If you want to bet something then I will make an even bet with you of $50US that Karen, Allison and Kelly all three are in the top 100 and retain their tour cards next year. Do we have a bet? I don't even care if they don't play the full schedule.
John
Why don't you just give me odds on each of the women playing according to what they are up against. Let's eliminate 20 players out of 147 that we can confidently say that Karen, Allison and Kelly are much better than on average. That leaves us with 127 players that are as good or better than those three.
That is 127 to 1 for each of them against finishing in the top 75. Oh screw it, I am not a mathematician but everyone BUT you knows the odds are heavily in favor of the men simply because there are more of them. Put Johnny Archer in a tour with a thousand talented amateurs and he isn't guaranteed to make the top 100 every year simply because of the law of averages says that he will lose more sets simply by virtue of having to play more sets.
I don't want to bet you. My bets on this board are rhetorical unless someone actually puts up the money. The reason I made the bet is to illustrate that if you are so convinced of your position then why not bet it accordingly?
As for whether Kelly could beat you playing 8-ball on a 9ft table, I can pretty much predict that it is a lock. This is because if you were any good then I would already know about it. Since I don't then you aren't good enough to get there no matter how good you think you play.
If you want to bet something then I will make an even bet with you of $50US that Karen, Allison and Kelly all three are in the top 100 and retain their tour cards next year. Do we have a bet? I don't even care if they don't play the full schedule.
John
I am just glad to see a pro event that includes both women and man. I have long thought that there is no real distinct advantage for men in the game of pool, and I feel that having both compete will be good for the sport, and its image in the long run!
onepocketchump said:
As I made pretty clear I am not to into betting against those women because they are playing in MORE events then most of the 150 IPT members thanks to this 43 person event. Plus if I am not mistaken Allison is in the HoF and therefore getting a bye to the third round by default and is guarenteed to make $30,000 before she even picks up her cue. Something that was made aware in the last day when the format of the tournament was revealed and obviously stacks the odds hugely into her favour. For all I know all of the events are going to have the same kind of favoratism to various players and it would be a stupid thing to bet against people. Case in point I will bet you that Sigel gets to the finals of this main event, wanna do that? Of course not, Allison is a similar situation although not so extreme. AFTER I made my post it is now looking like Allison would have to shoot terrible NOT to make it because she is one of the chosen ones.
For the record I would love to see Allison actually do really well and maybe even win a event. It would be great for pool, it would grab a ton of the general publics interest and help this sport progress. But I cannot imagine that with her break on slow nap cloth playing 8-ball and no breaking from the side rail that she is going to have very many easy tables to run out. She can shoot great pool, but if you let any top male pool player in the world attempt to run out her breaks I think they would be alot slower speed as well. The break is going to be a huge factor in this tour. If Larry Nevel was breaking for Allison in this tour I would not bet against her alone making the top 10. I wonder if you even realize it is the break that is the key factor I think is going to be a major inhibitor for the ladies? I mean I said it pretty clearly, never said anything about their actual shooting skills, but I did mention the break is going to REALLY hurt them. You seem to have missed that and have the impression now that I think they suck at pool, which you can go back and read any post I made in this thread, I never said anything of the sort. I simply said I dont expect them to do very well on the tour, and later in the thread before you showed up Lasttwo made a comment about the break being alot more critical in pool and I agreed and said that is the major factor that I see as a problem for the women. But you Onepocketchump in your efforts to get some ludicrous bet, or to simply argue, I am not really sure what you major goal is, ignored that whole point and go off on tangents and start putting words and thoughts into my mouth and head that I have never even said or felt.
Me and you can do some betting closer to the actual events. Maybe betting on certain people and whether they will or will not get through certain rounds of the round robin. Or betting on the open events. I enjoy watching pool more with a little bit of rail action anyway, win or lose it is more exciting. I do think the break is going to be a factor, but there are probably 50 or 60 players in the IPT I would bet on Allison beating straight up in 8-ball on the 9-foots in a race to 9. If she actually practices and manages to get a powerful break that number goes up, alot. If her break sucks she is going to have a tough time on this tour, and that goes for anyone, man, woman, and child.
An X factor ...
Granted Allison, Karen, and Kelly are very good, but most
women players do not play the same against men players
as against other women players. They do not dominate
like they are used to doing with lessor women players, who
commit easy errors in trying to get 'out'. There is some
difference in their approach to the game from men players.
It's kind of like when you see someone shoot real good for
awhile, but they are shooting players beneath their skill
level, and they may be spotting them. Then you see them
playing against someone that is even better, and you see
the first player's game go downhill from what you saw the
times before. You see, you don't know what a particular
player's confidence level is inside of them, and it does make
a difference ... and usually shows up in the outcome of the
match ... And even though a woman player may play 1 match
well, does not mean she can sustain it over the longhaul against
many tough men competitors. Kind of like a shortstop that has
a good run in a big tournament, but comes to an abrupt end
because they couldn't do it over the complete tournament.
Granted Allison, Karen, and Kelly are very good, but most
women players do not play the same against men players
as against other women players. They do not dominate
like they are used to doing with lessor women players, who
commit easy errors in trying to get 'out'. There is some
difference in their approach to the game from men players.
It's kind of like when you see someone shoot real good for
awhile, but they are shooting players beneath their skill
level, and they may be spotting them. Then you see them
playing against someone that is even better, and you see
the first player's game go downhill from what you saw the
times before. You see, you don't know what a particular
player's confidence level is inside of them, and it does make
a difference ... and usually shows up in the outcome of the
match ... And even though a woman player may play 1 match
well, does not mean she can sustain it over the longhaul against
many tough men competitors. Kind of like a shortstop that has
a good run in a big tournament, but comes to an abrupt end
because they couldn't do it over the complete tournament.
Snapshot9 said:
Joss Tour.
O
onepocketchump
Guest
Okay Celtic.
It is obvious that you don't really want to bet anything so I'll drop it. It's very interesting to see you backpedal now about how good the players are and use excuses about how they are playing in more events than the other people and yada, yada. I guess we can assume now that you are retracting your comment about Kelly struggling to be anywhere but the bottom 20 and about Allison and Karen having to play their hearts out to be close to the top 75.
It is also clear to me that your knowledge of eight ball is somewhat limited. I have played players with monster breaks that almost always had unrunnable tables after the break and conversely, players with soft breaks who always seem to have a good runout. Cheyenne Pete Trujillo looks like he barely hits the rack and yet all the balls spread out and he almost always makes two balls or more in 8 ball.
I think your comments are inaccurate, spiteful and misinformed concerning this topic. That is why you get argument from me.
John
It is obvious that you don't really want to bet anything so I'll drop it. It's very interesting to see you backpedal now about how good the players are and use excuses about how they are playing in more events than the other people and yada, yada. I guess we can assume now that you are retracting your comment about Kelly struggling to be anywhere but the bottom 20 and about Allison and Karen having to play their hearts out to be close to the top 75.
It is also clear to me that your knowledge of eight ball is somewhat limited. I have played players with monster breaks that almost always had unrunnable tables after the break and conversely, players with soft breaks who always seem to have a good runout. Cheyenne Pete Trujillo looks like he barely hits the rack and yet all the balls spread out and he almost always makes two balls or more in 8 ball.
I think your comments are inaccurate, spiteful and misinformed concerning this topic. That is why you get argument from me.
John
O
onepocketchump
Guest
Oh, and for the record, not to offend any of the ladies mentioned, but I believe that Alex Pagulayan weighs less than 110 pounds soaking wet and he has a monster break.
Do you even understand that the break is about timing rather than raw strength?
John
Do you even understand that the break is about timing rather than raw strength?
John
onepocketchump said:
So be it, I am happy to drop the subject with you. I know alot about the break in 8-ball not being about strength. I have saaid such on this board many times before, including mentioning Yu-Lun Wu who won the junior worlds the last 2 years running and has the best break I have ever seen despite his making Alex look like Andre the Giant by comparison.
If you think a hard break is not going to be a positive on a 9-foot with slow nap cloth I am not sure it is MY knowledge of 8-ball that is the limited one. I think you will see the big breakers are highly advantaged on this tour comapred to the weaker breaks. Yes hitting the break square is a HUGE factor in getting a great spread, but if you get two people who both break the balls square the one with more power is going to have more good chances to run out over the long haul. This is something you would be in the EXTREME minority if you believe otherwise.
O
onepocketchump
Guest
Celtic said:
Celtic,
Again you are speculating. Accustats has PROVED that the breaker does not win most of the time, contrary to popular belief. God, you are insufferable. You want to bet on something? Let's let someone do a test where they break 1000 times in eight ball using a Sardo rack and take a picture of the layout AFTER the break. I will bet you that more than 50% of the time there will not be a clear runout available without issues. We can let an independent jury decide whether the layout is easily runnable or not, easily being from a PROFESSIONAL perspective. Of course this is rhetorical but I hope that you get the point. ON an anecdotal level I break twice as hard as Cheyenne Pete, I squat the cueball in the middle of the table, balls fly everywhere and either I don't make any OR there are clusters that make the runnout difficult. Pete breaks softly and the balls open up like a lotus for him to enjoy at leisure. I could give you plenty of other such examples from my 20+ years of playing at a shortstop level and being fortunate enough to befriend many pro players but it would be wasted. I am just happy that you NOW seem to agree that the top women indeed have a good chance to remain on tour.
John
Lets just wait and see. I do believe the break will be a major factor in 8-ball with slow nap cloth on 9-foots. Accustats does not prove anything at all about that game under those conditions. We will know soon enough, and after the first event or two one of us can come back to this thread and put out a good "I told ya so". Until then this whole debate is pointless.
I want in with John!
John...I'm with you! The break is ALL about timing...and strength plays no part in a successful 8-ball break, and control of the CB! I'd like to add to that bet of the 1000 breaks, that a huge percentage (30-40%) would come up empty, making no balls on the break! That's the other big pool myth...that if you don't make a ball on the break, your break sucks, and needs work! LOL
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
onepocketchump said:
John...I'm with you! The break is ALL about timing...and strength plays no part in a successful 8-ball break, and control of the CB! I'd like to add to that bet of the 1000 breaks, that a huge percentage (30-40%) would come up empty, making no balls on the break! That's the other big pool myth...that if you don't make a ball on the break, your break sucks, and needs work! LOL
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Nostroke said:
Elaborate please. <~~~ consider it begging.
Scott Lee said:
You are welcome to quote ANYWHERE I said strength has anything to do with breaking ability. Agree with John all you want, he is arguing with himself on that point because I never said anything to the contrary of that whole damn post.