I played Saturday. Won two and lost two. The two matches I lost were to two of the guys that came in the money, Darryl and Bill S. I played about 7 hrs straight. The last match I considered forfeiting because I was very,very tired by then, and the overwhelming thought of what would happen if I kept winning? I would have to play 3 or 4 more matches! No good for a 73 yr old man like me.
So regrettably, this will probably be my last Iron Man one-day tournament.
I don't use artificial stimulants anymore, so I can no longer expect any help. When I played til 5:30 in the morn and came in a 3 way tie for first, I did use one of those 5 hr energy bottles. I have decided not to use them anymore. It was a two day recovery from that particular tournament. My "upper" days are well over.
Mark Jarvis won it in spite of me praying that the lights would dislocate from the ceiling and fall on his f'king head. He was the best player,and figured to win. I cant believe that he was actually a student of mine when he was a teenager. He is my least favorite, least liked pool player -- ever. And remember, I knew Ray Boots Maples, and even hung out with Detroit Whitey once in awhile.
This will give you an idea of what I thought of him even back then: He was paying me $50 an hour for lessons (30 years ago ?) and I fired him as a student because I couldn't abide his attitude and character.
Final note: the format for the bank tourn was a race to 23 balls. It is a great, fair format to determine the best player, but IMO it is too long to cram into a one day tournament with 32 players. The matches are never going to end until 5,6, or 7 in the morn.
They use the same format for the big Cincinnati bank tourns, but they carry it over two days. I had an idea for a game adjustment, and I might even copyright it as I have done for my Speedo Onepocket and Bank Pool rules.
My idea for a speedier tournament result would be the same exact rules and format for the 23 out of 45 game, but just cut the race to 20 balls rather than 23. The key component would be to cut the size of the racked balls from 15 to 13. You would remove the 2nd ball from the corner ball on each side of the last row of balls, leaving 13 on the table and a legitimate rack to break to. (If you removed the two corner balls it would become too easy to make a ball (or two) on the break. My way would leave a legitimate rack to break at.
This would still leave a maximum of 3 racks played and the race would be to 20 out of a possible 39 balls (13 x 3 = 39).
The time saved result for this would be: 32 man field, 1st round 16 matches, 16 matches with 3 less banks to make = 48 less banks needed to get thru the first round! In a double elimination tourny, the second round is also 16 matches, that means another 48 less banks needing to be made, that is a total of 96 less banks for the first round! The economy of time saved is obvious, and 20 banks in more than enough of a contest. ie., in DCC in their 3 out of 5 Nine ball bank format, all you need to win the match is to make only 15 balls first.
Beard
I am now off to the Copyright people (it is not an expensive proposition).
