World Summit Results - Saturday

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
OK, here's the scoop. I stayed until eight remained.

Finishing 17/24: Charlie Williams, Tony Crosby, Chris Szuter, Johnny Archer, Lee Chenman, Danny Barouty, Dennis Hatch, Danny Medina

Finishing 13/16: Tony Robles, Joey Kong, Jeremy Jones, Luc Salvas

Finishing 9/12: Jose Garcia, Branden Ashcraft, Danny Basavich, Max Eberle

For the last eight, the draw looked like this:

Corey Deuel vs Santos Sambajon, winner advances to the hot-seat match, the loser to play winner of John Schmidt vs Earl Strickland

Danny Harriman vs Mike Davis, winner advances to the hot-seat match, the loser to play winner of Dave Hemmah vs Rodney Morris

I'm sad to say I won't attend tomorrow, so this completes my coverage of the World Summit.

Now for the matches:

Eberle vs Hatch
This was a good one, andf at double hill, Eberle had a choice between a safe and a cross-side bank on the four ball. Max came with the bank and played beautfiul three rail shape to the five and ran out for the 11- 10 victory.

Hemmah vs Ashcraft
What looked like a good one at 4 – 4 got ugly, and Hemmah won the next six racks for a 10 – 4 lead. Ashcraft closed to 10 – 6, but that was it. Hemmah won it 11 - 6.

Davis vs Basavich
This was a good one on the winner side. It was 5 – 5, 6 – 6, and 7 – 7, but it turned when Basavich, with a chance to tie it at eight, hooked himself on the six ball. The result was a 9 – 7 lead for Davis, which he defended for the win.

Jones vs Schmidt
This was an uneven, but fairly well-played match. Jones got most of the rolls, but Schmidt hung tough all the way to double hill. Then came one of the more interesting racks I’ve seen in quite some time.

A sequence of tables shown below will make it clearer, but when Schmidt fouled on the five, Jones face a very tricky decision with ball in hand. The first table below shows the position he faced.

It didn’t appear the five could be caromed into the side off the seven. It didn’t appear likely that he could bump out the seven as he played the five and still make shape on the six. He considered the matter of playing onto the six at an angle that would allow him to draw the cue ball across the table to bump out the seven, but it seemed he didn’t like it. Finally, he considered playing a pattern on to bank the seven, and I must admit, I reckoned that would be his ultimate choice, as he banks balls so well.

The second table shown shows where Jeremy took ball in hand. He played a safety, running the five into the seven, and playing the cue behind the nine, and executed it well, to leave the position shown in the third table shown. Seemed like a pretty good shot.

Schmidt had no choice to play the kick in, and he didn’t hit it quite right, and the cue ball double kissed the five after it hit the right hand point f the side pocket. The five double kissed in, but the cue went to the position shown in the fourth table below. Frozen to the bottom rail, Schmidt hit it well to leave the position in the fifth table below. Now, he played the two-way bank on the seven in the corner, and he split the pocket in half, leaving the position shown in the sixth table below. Of course, he got out from there. What a finish!
 

Attachments

  • jones vs schmidt.JPG
    jones vs schmidt.JPG
    90.7 KB · Views: 500
Last edited:
Bob Romano said:
Thanks for the report. It was excellent! How was the spectator turn out today?

Turnout was a little better today than on Friday, but I'd still say it was pretty disappointing. Obviously, as it was Saturday today, there were no commuters passing through Grand Central Station, so the biggest chance to promote the game has already passed.

From my vantage point, meaning that of a serious fan of the game, this event hasn't been one of the better events to attend. The prices were too high, the general admission metal bleacher seats were uncomfortable, and you could only see the action at four of the six tournament tables from most of the general admission seats.
 
Adding to the original post, I'd be interested to hear what anyone felt about the match-deciding decision made by Jeremy Jones. If you care to comment, review the first wei table in the original post and describe how you would go about securing the win in the double hill rack.
 
sjm said:
Adding to the original post, I'd be interested to hear what anyone felt about the match-deciding decision made by Jeremy Jones. If you care to comment, review the first wei table in the original post and describe how you would go about securing the win in the double hill rack.

SJM,
Great update. I think JJ made a great decision, I wonder though whether he meant for the 5 to hit the right side of the seven, sending the 7 ball off the rail, and the 5 further down the table away from the 9 (that was my thought on the best shot with ball in hand on the 5). If that was not possible, I would have tried to freeze the cue ball on the 9.

This whole sequence would just prove that 9-ball is all luck, except HOW IN THE HECK COULD ANYONE RUNOUT the 6, 7, 8, and 9 from that position frozen on the foot rail. I would have bet next months mortgage payment against it - perhaps Schmidt can play a little.
 
sjm said:
From my vantage point, meaning that of a serious fan of the game, this event hasn't been one of the better events to attend. The prices were too high, the general admission metal bleacher seats were uncomfortable, and you could only see the action at four of the six tournament tables from most of the general admission seats.

i had no problem seeing all six tables from the far end bleachers..........kinda far, but viewable.

i also think the prices were high,,,especially when you consider the play was viewable from OUTSIDE the arena(the arena was not enclosed, so that passersby could watch from the outside). i guess you could say this was a good strategy to get some general public onlookers,,,however charging the interested $30 when they could easily watch without paying was steep. basically, anyone paying was doing so for the privelege of sitting. $10 would have filled the seats better for a venue that was 80% empty(on friday night).
 
Great commentary, sjm!!! Thanks for the updates. (Can you tell me how to include the wei table as an attached image?)

I think the decision made by Jeremy concludes my belief that it's better to lose shooting! Several times I've lost a match because of a less-than-stellar safety, and put my cue away thinking that at least if I'd gone for the tough out, I'd have had a chance of winning that turn at the table. If you play a safety, you're relinquishing the table to your opponent; and if you play a bad safety, you're in trouble! If you go for the tough out even if you miss there's the possibility of getting a good roll. So unless the safety is a true lock-'em-up one (especially at hill-hill!!), I think this example illustrates what can go wrong when you give up the table.
 
SJM,

Thank you for the updates. You and Insidepool.com should be personally thanked by AZB for your updates. According to Insidepool.com, Harriman crushed Strickland 11-2.
 
SJM did an excellent job of giving us the scoop. Although, You know in all defense of Mike and AZBilliards, something must have happened for us not to have had coverage.

Mike is always on top of stuff, so let's wait to see what happened...

Eydie
 
I believe they played on the winners side and Harriman won big. Earl just lost to Mike Davis and took third place. Mike and Santos are playing in the finals.

And yes, there is a reason that I don't have coverage. Hopefully it won't happen in the future. Sorry guys.

Mike
 
Without the chart and brackets, it is difficult to discern who beat who and whether it occurred in the winners or losers side.

The way I read the results, Danny Harriman beat Earl Strickland 11 to 2 and thereafter had to play Mike Davis. The semi-finals and finals recorded by ESPN are a race to 7, similar to the BCA Open, shortened for television. Yet, Earl comes in third and Mike Davis is in the finals with Santos. So if Danny beat Earl and Earl comes in third, where did Danny Harriman place? :confused:

It is unfortunate that the UPA didn't exert a stronger effort to report the results of the $30,000-added Michelob Amberbock World Summit of Pool tournament to the pool public. Usually, I am able to keep track by the charts on AzBilliards. I think SJM provided some super great updates on this tournament, and I thank him and the AzHousePro for their efforts.
 
Last edited:
Wait a miniute guys, did I see Earl's name mentioned? Did Earl join the UPA? Was he given a one event pass for the "betterment" of pool? Whats the story? Perhaps that is the biggest story out of the World Summit! With some of both Earl haters and lovers on this forum, I'm suprised no one noticed him there! :confused:
 
cardiac kid said:
Wait a miniute guys, did I see Earl's name mentioned? Did Earl join the UPA? Was he given a one event pass for the "betterment" of pool? Whats the story? Perhaps that is the biggest story out of the World Summit! With some of both Earl haters and lovers on this forum, I'm suprised no one noticed him there! :confused:


Earl must be a UPA member now.

Only touring pro members with current dues and player agreements signed may play.

world sumit requirements

- BilliardsBeast
 
BilliardsBeast said:
Earl must be a UPA member now.

Only touring pro members with current dues and player agreements signed may play.

world sumit requirements

- BilliardsBeast

Earl was a gentleman on Saturday (the only day I was able to watch). During his match with Corey Duel, Earl politely asked the referee a few times to call Corey on his "soft break" fouls...the referee seemed to blow off Earl's requests until the audience could be heard talking about the lack of fairness on the referee's part. The referee finally stepped in and put Corey on notice that if three balls don't pass the middle of the table on the break (sunk balls count as a ball), Earl would get ball in hand.

On Corey's next break only two balls passed the center of the table. Corey gave up the match at that point...he didn't concede but his level of play dropped a notch. Enough for Earl to comfortably win.

Two highlights at the tournament...

(1) During a trick shot exibition, Steve Lillis to Brenda (a NYC league player) after Brenda failed to make a relatively easy trick shot Steve kept setting up: "don't shoot it like a GIRL...oops!" Brenda smiled and finally made the shot.

(2) An overzealous fan grabbed Earl's shoulders during a match...Earl jumped away and gave the fan the coldes stare imagineable...but maintained his cool and finished Corey off. The fan felt two inches tall even after Earl won...but Earl told him not to worry about it.

PoolMouse :cool:
 
Last edited:
runmout said:
Great commentary, sjm!!! Thanks for the updates. (Can you tell me how to include the wei table as an attached image?)

I think the decision made by Jeremy concludes my belief that it's better to lose shooting! Several times I've lost a match because of a less-than-stellar safety, and put my cue away thinking that at least if I'd gone for the tough out, I'd have had a chance of winning that turn at the table. If you play a safety, you're relinquishing the table to your opponent; and if you play a bad safety, you're in trouble! If you go for the tough out even if you miss there's the possibility of getting a good roll. So unless the safety is a true lock-'em-up one (especially at hill-hill!!), I think this example illustrates what can go wrong when you give up the table.

The procedure to embed a Wei Table in a post was shared by Colin Colenso in the following thread. http://azbilliards.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=7304 Within this thread, the pertinent posts are #37 through #43, and if you read them, you should be in business.
 
Santos Sambajon Jr. won

wakuljr said:
ok, who won and who got 2nd and 3rd and so on.......?????

Santos Sambajon Jr. just won the Finals against Mike Davis
in World Summit Pool 7-6...nail biting huh!

Here is the list of winners and money won.

1st Santos Sambajon Jr. $12,000
2nd Mike Davis $6,000
3rd Earl Strickland $4,500
4th Danny Harriman $3,500
5th Corey Deuel, Dave Hemmah $2,500
7th John Schmidt, Rodney Morris $2,000
9th Jose Garcia, Danny Basavich, Brandon Ashcraft, Max Eberle $1,500
13th Tony Robles, Jeremy Jones, Joey Kong, Luc Salvas $1,200

or you would like to see it from inside pool.
Here's the link http://www.insidepool.com/article1115.html
 
runmout said:
I think the decision made by Jeremy concludes my belief that it's better to lose shooting!


Sometimes it is but not always. JJ should have IMO went for the run out. One thing for sure and I know he knows this, is not leave the o/b in front of a pocket especially if you leave a kick. I'm sure he didn't want the 5 to get to far out and in the process didn't lock the c/b up on the 9. There may have been a 2 rail kick as well but with the 6 there it's a little tight. I'd think his main focus would have been a lock up. Although John made a good shot it was IMO a poor safety. I'll bet JJ knows it as well.

Rod
 
Rodd said:
Sometimes it is but not always. JJ should have IMO went for the run out. One thing for sure and I know he knows this, is not leave the o/b in front of a pocket especially if you leave a kick. I'm sure he didn't want the 5 to get to far out and in the process didn't lock the c/b up on the 9. There may have been a 2 rail kick as well but with the 6 there it's a little tight. I'd think his main focus would have been a lock up. Although John made a good shot it was IMO a poor safety. I'll bet JJ knows it as well.

Rod

Thanks, Rodd, for your insights, and thanks to all who participated in the post-mortem of the Jones vs Schmidt match.

I think the comment that it was a somewhat poor safety is the key point. Leaving the five so near the side pocket was careless. As Williebetmore commented, surely Jeremy Jones was trying to bump the five in to the right hand side of the seven to get it out into play while sending the five a little further up table. Had he done so, I'd say he would have been about a four to one favorite to win the rack. Nonetheless, the position he left was still difficult, and JJ was still the clear favorite to win the rack from that point.

I've thought about this position some more, and the conclusion I've reached is that Jeremy Jones made an excellent choice but didn't execute as well as a player at his level should. As Jeremy banks balls so skillfully, I wouldn't fault a choice to play a pattern onto bank the seven, but deep down, I think he played the shot that the position called for.

Runmout, we're obviously nowhere near on the same page here, though your philosophy is true to your "Runmout" name. The idea that one should always "go down shooting" is one of pool's greatest myths. With experience, we all come to realize that not every runout should be attempted, not even with ball in hand. Sometimes, the safety is the best percentage. I know where you're coming from, though. It's always exasperating when you play a safety with opponent on the hill and never see the table again. Been there, done that.
 
Back
Top