View Full Version : CW stepping down??
08-27-2003, 07:35 AM
OK, who knew? And why no posts?? I just found out last night. Ken in CT, have you declared this day a national holiday yet?
I haven't read anything about it yet, so I don't know what to think.
08-27-2003, 07:40 AM
This Month's Billiard Bigest has the Story on CW... Stepping down at the old age of 26... it was time.. he completed what he wanted to..
08-27-2003, 08:48 AM
Who's the new President?
08-27-2003, 08:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Brady_Behrman:</font><hr> Who's the new President? <hr /></blockquote>
If they are smart, they will hire a professional business manager / adminsitrator who will run the organization as a business and not as a "Tea Party" or "Fraternity"
08-27-2003, 08:54 AM
How about Gary "whutcha talkin bout, Willis" Coleman?
08-27-2003, 09:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Doctor_D:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Brady_Behrman:</font><hr> Who's the new President? <hr /></blockquote>
who will run the organization as a business and not as a "Fraternity"
Will the new Pres be on 'Double Secret Probation'? /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Eric >Delta Tau Chi
I read that article about a week ago and considered it to be a self-serving series of replies punctuated by what I perceive to be outright lies or at least half-truths. I've said enough about Charlie and the UPA so without them really making any news I saw no reason to trash what he said in the BD article.
He is right about his taking a lot of flack and some of the quotes from others give some of the reasons. I say let him rest in peace.
I think there's still hope for the UPA if they stop trying to take over independent events and start doing what the WPBA does. That is, secure sponsorship and venues and start a true UPA tour of their own. Thus far the few UPA events were possible due to the charity of those who believed a professional pool players' organization was a good idea. Those sponsors are beginning to pull out since the organization has not lived up to its potential and instead has created enemies among promoters. Hopefully that will change and they will leave the promoters alone.
When they started, sanctioning was supposed to mean that the players would get the money that was advertised. Many in the industry supported that. The UPA abandoned that idea and now sanctioning means that the players have to pay extra to play and the UPA pros get seeding and byes. That is a slap in the face to the amateurs who make up the major part of the fields in independent open events. In turn, the promoters get nothing.
The UPA has become a union and is behaving like a union. It does not provide playing opportunities but it dictates who will benefit the most from them and makes life difficult for those providing the playing opportunities. I thought the idea was to start a professional tour.
08-27-2003, 11:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> ... and now sanctioning means that the players have to pay extra to play and the UPA pros get seeding and byes. That is a slap in the face to the amateurs who make up the major part of the fields in independent open events. <hr /></blockquote>
Amen. When the UPA began, they were holding single-elimination races to 15! It was tantamount to saying, "OK, amateurs, thanks for the entry money. We appreciate it. Hope you've greased yourself up real good, because you know what's coming next..."
Does the UPA really give their players "first dibs" on the byes? I did not know that. That is outrageous.
08-27-2003, 11:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Steve Lipsky:</font><hr> OK, who knew? And why no posts?? I just found out last night. Ken in CT, have you declared this day a national holiday yet?
I haven't read anything about it yet, so I don't know what to think.
- Steve <hr /></blockquote>Hi Steve,
I apologize for not remembering who, but someone posted not too long ago that BD had put up part of their magazine on their web site. When I checked it out, I found this:
Charlie Williams interview (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/current_issue/)
08-27-2003, 11:29 AM
This is the entire story, I read it last nite. Word for word from the magazine.
Thanks for the link..
08-27-2003, 11:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> How about Gary "whutcha talkin bout, Willis" Coleman?
Eric <hr /></blockquote>
I think Gary's busy running for Governor of CA /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
08-27-2003, 12:11 PM
Quote SL: Does the UPA really give their players "first dibs" on the byes? I did not know that. That is outrageous.
BD Article: Williams defends the UPA’s position on sanctioning events, saying the criteria are based on nothing less than common sense. “All we ask of promoters are four simple and basic things: 1) that all participants be UPA members (with occasional special exemptions); 2) that players are seeded according to UPA rankings; ...
That's why I called the Big Apple rigged. UPA sets up the rankings of their members and the top 16/32 get seeded. 1st round they get a bye; 2nd round they are guaranteed that they do not have to play any player in the tournament who is in the top 16/32. Wouldn't you like to enter tournaments like that and be one of those seeded? Jake
As far as the byes go, I gave the chart in the Big Apple a quick look and it seemed that it's mostly UPA members getting byes. With so many byes to give out there had to be some going to non-members. I can't say for sure there was preference given to Touring Pros. It would be interesting to see how the byes really were distributed. I wonder if there was even one UPA Touring Pro that did not get a bye. I didn't notice any but I would have to look again.
One of the arguments in favor of the UPA is to look at the WPBA and then conclude that the men need something similar. It's common for the WPBA pros to get the byes so I would think that Charlie would do the same. Of course, the womens' events are true pro events, brought about by the efforts of the WPBA. In contrast, the men's events are supposed to be "open" events so there's no justification for seeding or preference in awarding byes.
"I mean, in the end, [Panozzo’s] just doing what he thinks is right, just like I’m doing. We’re doing the same thing, so how can I be upset?”"
That does sound a lot different than the CW of a couple of years ago! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
08-27-2003, 12:48 PM
Ken, the WPBA no longer gives any byes. I am assuming this is in response to the overwhelming wrath they incurred when they started giving out double-byes to the top 16. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Thanks for the info, though.
08-27-2003, 01:10 PM
I had mentioned this in a post about three weeks ago. I geuss nobody noticed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
I noticed Ralph, Thank you. I'm in kind of a pissy mood today, but I was glad to hear the little dictator is stepping down. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
08-27-2003, 01:19 PM
That's my point! Depending on the outcome of the CA election, maybe he can run for another position he has no clue how to run(or Arnold for that matter). /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Eric >more corny than the Cass' backyard
08-27-2003, 10:23 PM
I am running for gov nor, vote for me and not that arnold guy.
08-27-2003, 10:57 PM
Big Apple Byes:
1. Mika Immonen UPA Touring Pro
2. Danny Barouty
3. Danny Hewitt UPA Touring Pro
4. Efren Reyes UPA Touring Pro
5. Danny Harriman UPA Touring Pro
6. Bill Ferguson
7. Hsiao-Lan Fang
8. Young Hwa Jeong
9. Francisco Bustamante UPA Touring Pro
10. Corey Harper UPA Touring Pro
11. Mark Ramson
12. Ronnie Wiseman UPA Touring Pro
13. Santos Sambajon UPA Touring Pro
14. Jimmy Wetch UPA Touring Pro
15. Evian Johnson
16. Mike Denault
17. Max Eberle UPA Touring Pro
18. Johnny Archer UPA Touring Pro
19. Cory Deuel UPA Touring Pro
20. Utpal Raval UPA Touring Pro
21. Brian Yi
22. Luc Salvas UPA Touring Pro
23. Charlie Williams UPA Touring Pro
24. Nick Varner UPA Touring Pro
25. Jason Kane
26. Tony Crosby
27. Ralf Souquet UPA Touring Pro
28. Jose Parica UPA Touring Pro
29. Mike O'Connor
30. Ali Balushi
31. Troy Frank UPA Touring Pro
32. Tony Robles UPA Touring Pro
33. Shawn Putnam UPA Touring Pro
34. Rodney Morris UPA Touring Pro
35. George San Souci UPA Touring Pro
36. Frankie Hernandez UPA Touring Pro
37. Neils Fiejen. UPA Touring Pro
08-28-2003, 04:22 AM
Chump, do you happen to know if there were any UPA Touring Pro's in the tournament, who where not seeded?
I'm just curious.
I think this list is a bit incomplete. Tony Crosby, Young Jeong and Bill Ferguson are all listed in the UPA rankings which means they must also be Touring Pros. I believe that means only 9 out of the 37 byes went to players who are not UPA Touring Pros.
It seems that about 3/4 of the byes went to the Touring Pros who probably made up about 1/3 of the field. It's been a long time since my last statistics course so I won't even guess what the probability of that occurring by chance might be. If there are people out there who believe O. J. didn't do it then perhaps C. W. is innocent also.
One person listed in the UPA rankings who didn't get a bye at the Big Apple is Robb Saez. He isn't listed as a Touring pro at the website but I doubt that site is up to date. Robb may not have signed the new contract and may no longer be a member. Copies of the new "revised" contract are still available by email to all who are interested. I have many copies left.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.