DCC - random comments

Deeman

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
1,333
vapros said:
Deeman, today for a change, I don't quite agree with you. I nearly always do. If I understand the criteria for this award correctly, the amounts of money involved in these matches must always be seriously considered, and I don't think that money can be said to buy the prize. You win by impressing and exciting and entertaining those who are present. That's why the rest of us cannot vote. I don't think it was ever meant to be an evaluation of contests between top players. Dippy's a clown - no doubt about it - but he's an action clown, and a gambler. jmho
Vapros,

You can ask Fred, I voted for Dave, So I am sort of speaking out of both sides of my mouth! I still think it is worth the discussion, even if it can't be completely agreed on some points. Since I knew Louie pretty well I especially see the spirit of a Dippy but like Texas Holden with open by-INS (no limit) it has to impact the characters that can even get involved if a single deep enough pocket just shows up. Like Artie said, we probably owe Dave for soaking up so much action this year but even the most ardent fan has to see how trivial most other matches became! Not that there is anything wrong with it but it does change the complexion, and I am not saying for the worse but just asking the question.

As entertaining as it was, we were, in the past, very well entertained by Scooter and others when the stakes were high but maybe a collective rather than a single horse.

Not saying, again, that I am right, just liking the discussion processs.

DeeMan
Never saw anyone rip up a grand and throw it at someone before.... :)
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,536
SJDinPHX said:
I think Dippy, whatever his motives, should be a shoo-in for this years Action Award...Who else put more $$$ in action, and provided more entertainmeent...?

Great player's don't always win this award...Look at Scooter...Matching up, and gettig down, should count for something...:D
I think Chris Gentile should be considered for the award as well. He probably played more people then Dippy and was always in action. But like you say it's hard not to give Dippy the award considering all the attention he drew.

Billy I.
 

SJDinPHX

Suspended
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
9,226
Deeman said:
Vapros,

You can ask Fred, I voted for Dave, So I am sort of speaking out of both sides of my mouth! I still think it is worth the discussion, even if it can't be completely agreed on some points. Since I knew Louie pretty well I especially see the spirit of a Dippy but like Texas Holden with open by-INS (no limit) it has to impact the characters that can even get involved if a single deep enough pocket just shows up. Like Artie said, we probably owe Dave for soaking up so much action this year but even the most ardent fan has to see how trivial most other matches became! Not that there is anything wrong with it but it does change the complexion, and I am not saying for the worse but just asking the question.

As entertaining as it was, we were, in the past, very well entertained by Scooter and others when the stakes were high but maybe a collective rather than a single horse.

Not saying, again, that I am right, just liking the discussion processs.

DeeMan
Never saw anyone rip up a grand and throw it at someone before.... :)
Dee,

It was only $500, but, as you know, he did give his nemesis, Scott Frost, $500 to commentate his match. Scott immediatley turned it into a "drunken fiasco"...Dippy never complained !..:rolleyes:
 

vapros

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
3,738
The process of genuine discussion is nearly always good, and is often absent when we post here, Deeman. You were there, so maybe you can clear up a question that occurs to me. Was Dippy primarily responsible for the big bets that seem to have tainted the back room for some folks? Did he say that he would only play if they bet high with him or was it the other side who pushed for the big score? I think maybe the plunging was like Topsy. It just grew. Dippy's sin might have been that he was so willing.
 

Deeman

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
1,333
SJDinPHX said:
Dee,

It was only $500, but, as you know, he did give his nemesis, Scott Frost, $500 to commentate his match. Scott immediatley turned it into a "drunken fiasco"...Dippy never complained !..:rolleyes:
Never thought Dippy didn't have a big set, I'd prefer he wore pants with less plumber's butt showing! :)

Hey, Will this Yukon Jack keep till next year or do I need to arrange a trip out there to share it and challenge Scott? Say, 18-4? :)

DeeMan
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
10,195
wincardona said:
I think Chris Gentile should be considered for the award as well. He probably played more people then Dippy and was always in action. But like you say it's hard not to give Dippy the award considering all the attention he drew.

Billy I.
Right on, bro! Chris got my vote. I suspect that if Peat were out of the picture, Gentile would be a shoo-in. But it looks to me as though Peat has it locked up.

It'll be interesting to see whether Peat's action matches will pump up action everywhere, or whether his match ups will only be unique single instances of high-dollar contests.

There have been a lot of guys over the years who, just by their infectious presence, have stirred up action for an entire poolroom. Will Peat be one of these guys, or will he simply attract action for himself only?

Doc
 

Deeman

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
1,333
vapros said:
The process of genuine discussion is nearly always good, and is often absent when we post here, Deeman. You were there, so maybe you can clear up a question that occurs to me. Was Dippy primarily responsible for the big bets that seem to have tainted the back room for some folks? Did he say that he would only play if they bet high with him or was it the other side who pushed for the big score? I think maybe the plunging was like Topsy. It just grew. Dippy's sin might have been that he was so willing.
I took Dave as nobody's fool who just didn't want to give it away! Most of the action offered was not in his interest, IMO, and he would simply not be "played"! I underestimated his ability to make a reasonable game early on but he had no fear, but was more thoughtful than his demeanor suggested. I think he just did not want to waste time with those who wanted the nuts in every way. he did play a grand a game straight up with a pretty evenly matched opponent with no issues. Overall, I liked the guy's style but, as I said earlier, his action sucked up a lot of the interest and may have unintentionally made some other matches not get much buzz.

With apologies I think many just saw him as an easy score and an idiot but they underestimated him, IMO. Artie probably got a better read on him but what I saw as a guy who was as we say in German,Ein Alter Hase! (a smart old rabbit) who too many took for an easy mark! Even with the large spots to world beaters, he was not making insane bets and as a couple said, he seemed to grow in moving as he played. If you think about it, it takes nuts to be on either side in seeming lopsided one hole matches, so much hangs on a roll or two.

Hell, I even picked up a WWDD t-shirt to try and lure Cliff into a crazy spot next time I see him! :)

DeeMan
 

Fatboy

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
678
i got the flu so bad on wednesday at the Derby I didnt leave the room until Sunday when I left. i was shaking with the chills so bad, i had filling fall out of my tooth. I missed the Fatboy Challenge, one pocket and 9 ball. It was miserable sitting in that room.
 

ace

Verified Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
372
SJDinPHX said:
Dee,

It was only $500, but, as you know, he did give his nemesis, Scott Frost, $500 to commentate his match. Scott immediatley turned it into a "drunken fiasco"...Dippy never complained !..:rolleyes:
I think Deeman was making a comment about Dippy ripping up $1000, throwing it in Strong Arm John's face and telling him to pick it up and just leave. No bet was made at that time. Dippy basically just payed John to leave. John picked up the ripped bills and left.
 

Ktown

Verified Member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
89
Fatboy said:
i got the flu so bad on wednesday at the Derby I didnt leave the room until Sunday when I left. i was shaking with the chills so bad, i had filling fall out of my tooth. I missed the Fatboy Challenge, one pocket and 9 ball. It was miserable sitting in that room.
Well, at least you were nice enough to share it with me. :(

I couldn't remember if it was Wed or Thurs night you came by the room and said you were feeling bad. I understood what you meant by bad on the ride home Sunday. Wow, I wanted to die but didn't have the energy to....
 

stljohnny

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
101
Well, to get back to the original post, that Frost/Brumback match is still available on the accu-stats on demand theatre, for any of those who bought the package or that day.

I was really wondering what the foul was too, but I thought it was the CB was *nearly* frozen to another ball, and when he masse'd out he double-hit the CB unintentionally. I might rewatch that game to see, but that what I got out of it.

i haven't read the 4 pages of dippy-fueled comments, so if this was actually settled earlier, sorry for missing it.
 

Cary

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
871
ace said:
I think Deeman was making a comment about Dippy ripping up $1000, throwing it in Strong Arm John's face and telling him to pick it up and just leave. No bet was made at that time. Dippy basically just payed John to leave. John picked up the ripped bills and left.
If any of you guys see Dippy, tell him for a thousand I won't even show up.
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
1,860
gulfportdoc said:
There were some interesting things which occurred at the Derby. In a TV table one-pocket match between Frost and Brumback, JB was faced with a leave in which he had to elevate his cue to full masse level in order to nip a ball out of the stack to stay safe. It was a good shot, but after a brief pause, Frost came over and said to JB that it was a foul. He said that his cue had brushed two balls which slightly moved them. John didn’t think it was a foul, since it was “cueball fouls only”, and I was in agreement from the stands.

However, Scott called for Ken Schuman, and after a discussion Schuman did rule it a foul. John accepted it without comment, put a coin up, and took his seat. One or two observers questioned Schuman’s call, but he told them that he could take care of it by himself, and didn’t need their input (which was true).

So there is a difference between the DCC 1P rules, and our own from 1po. If they’d been using our rules, providing there was no other foul on the stroke, then the Frost would simply have been allowed to replace the two balls as close as possible to their original position. I like our rules better.

Playing out the bank pool finals in the middle of the night was a travesty. They always used to play the final few matches on Tuesday. This year they insisted on finishing it out Monday, even though they had 387 players (I believe) in the banks. Their decision probably cost Brumback a third DCC banks title. Obvious fatigue had set in, and John was missing what would normally be hangers for him.

Buddy Hall was waiting for his opponent to show for a banks match in an upstairs room. During the lull a young man very timidly approached Buddy to ask him what kind of cue he was using. Buddy smiled, stuck out the cue to him, and said, “Here, why don’t you hit some balls with it.” The guy’s eyes got real wide, and he gingerly reached out for the cue. He did hit some shots, and actually ran about 7-8 balls. When he handed the cue back to Buddy and thanked him, the kid had a bad stammer, and was obviously not real bright. Buddy then engaged him in a little conversation until Buddy had to go. I guarantee you that that kid will never, ever forget his contact and kindness from the great Buddy Hall.

For me, the most interesting player to watch in the whole event was Chris Gentile from Chicago. He’s a professional poker player and a fearsome after hours 1P player. He man-handled both John Schmidt and Buddy Hall 3-1. He certainly can run balls, but his true strength is a lock-down Chicago squeeze style which completely frustrates his opponents. His other strengths are an unflappable demeanor, a kind of hip chicness, and a self-assured attitude which seems to unconsciously impart to his opponents that they really don’t have much of a chance. I was picking Gentile to get into the 1P final 6 or so, but I don’t know where he ended up. I think he was up all night Tuesday night playing an action match (Brad Smith?), so he might not have been in good shape for his matches Wednesday. I’m sure the action money is more important to him than the tournament. As a matter of fact, I’m surprised that he showed his stuff in a big tourney. That was his “coming out”, so he probably won’t now be able to get the same games.

To my delight, the shuttles from the hotel to the venue ran much more often this year than they did two years ago. I had to make the long trek only about ½ the time. The hotel is very nice, but they nickel & dime you to death. Everything placed in the room tempts one to use it, and to be charged for it. I’m surprised they didn’t charge for turning on the lights! There were more food choices available this year right near the venue: sandwiches, salads, pastries, drinks—all no more costly than, say, New York City…

There seemed to have been slightly fewer tables this year. I believe in 2009 that there were 63 tables. I’d guess that there were 6-8 fewer this year. They’ve mostly ironed out the computer scheduling system, so that ran fairly smoothly. All the match times were posted in advance, and the pertinent web pages were streamed to the hotel TV system. There are still common problems with scheduling when players have not finished the Banks division, but yet are currently scheduled to play one-pocket matches. Many of the matches are postponed until the next day, which then causes the waiting player to have to re-group. The banks may have been the largest division—at least much larger than the 1P, so they’ll have to factor that in for ensuing years.

Doc

Great report, Doc. Thanks. And I watched the Gentile/Schmidt match too and Chris really is a scary player.

Lou Figueroa
 

Deeman

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
1,333
gulfportdoc said:
Doc,
A bit more on the officiating when during a TV match Shuman wAs called to watch good/bad hit. Now, it was touching cue and object ball and an official is supposed to witness the stroke, then make his call. in this case, Ken was telling the player how to adjust his cue to avoid the foul (he never did elevate it enough to get away with the hit but Shuman called it good. now, in my mind and Ace's this was coaching, not officiating. Are we wrong? To me, there's a big difference in asking a clarification question on a rule but to actually coach a player that, Yes, you are high enough is coaching plus it prejudices the ref to call for the shooter he has just coached.

DeeMan
 

ace

Verified Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
372
Deeman said:
Doc,
A bit more on the officiating when during a TV match Shuman wAs called to watch good/bad hit. Now, it was touching cue and object ball and an official is supposed to witness the stroke, then make his call. in this case, Ken was telling the player how to adjust his cue to avoid the foul (he never did elevate it enough to get away with the hit but Shuman called it good. now, in my mind and Ace's this was coaching, not officiating. Are we wrong? To me, there's a big difference in asking a clarification question on a rule but to actually coach a player that, Yes, you are high enough is coaching plus it prejudices the ref to call for the shooter he has just coached.

DeeMan
True...I was there. An official is supposed to watch a shot and then determine whether the shot was legal or not, not coach a player how to shoot a legal shot. Ken even held the players cue stick.
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
10,195
Deeman said:
Doc,
A bit more on the officiating when during a TV match Shuman wAs called to watch good/bad hit. Now, it was touching cue and object ball and an official is supposed to witness the stroke, then make his call. in this case, Ken was telling the player how to adjust his cue to avoid the foul (he never did elevate it enough to get away with the hit but Shuman called it good. now, in my mind and Ace's this was coaching, not officiating. Are we wrong? To me, there's a big difference in asking a clarification question on a rule but to actually coach a player that, Yes, you are high enough is coaching plus it prejudices the ref to call for the shooter he has just coached.

DeeMan
Oh man, I didn't see that one! No, the referee (even the TD) cannot coach. He can answer any pertinent questions about the rule in any given situation. But otherwise he is just there to observe and rule. It's expected that the players are familiar with the rules. Especially at the DCC, where the players meetings covering the rules go on and on and on-- all with nit picking examples. Shuman is a good TD, but a little full of himself.

Incidentally, the notion that a player who elevates his cue to 45 degrees will not get a double hit is erroneous. My guess is that they use that distinction simply to make it easier on the referees.

Doc
 

ace

Verified Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
372
gulfportdoc said:
Oh man, I didn't see that one! No, the referee (even the TD) cannot coach. He can answer any pertinent questions about the rule in any given situation. But otherwise he is just there to observe and rule. It's expected that the players are familiar with the rules. Especially at the DCC, where the players meetings covering the rules go on and on and on-- all with nit picking examples. Shuman is a good TD, but a little full of himself.

Incidentally, the notion that a player who elevates his cue to 45 degrees will not get a double hit is erroneous. My guess is that they use that distinction simply to make it easier on the referees.

Doc
Yeah....And I won't name the player he was coaching, But I think D'jango, from the Philippines, knows how to play the game.
 

Deeman

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
1,333
gulfportdoc said:
Oh man, I didn't see that one! No, the referee (even the TD) cannot coach. He can answer any pertinent questions about the rule in any given situation. But otherwise he is just there to observe and rule. It's expected that the players are familiar with the rules. Especially at the DCC, where the players meetings covering the rules go on and on and on-- all with nit picking examples. Shuman is a good TD, but a little full of himself.

Incidentally, the notion that a player who elevates his cue to 45 degrees will not get a double hit is erroneous. My guess is that they use that distinction simply to make it easier on the referees.

Doc

I was thinking of submitting that to Ken's monthly column on refereeing! He'd probably ignore it as there is no defense for it but I, as you know, am not that high on the S**t Stirring scale you invented! :)

I do agree with your take on the 45 degree rule but most refs are not that well trained so I know why they do it!

DeeMan
 

SactownTom

Moderator
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
813
During his LONG lull between tournaments, Ken Shuman helps me at Hard Times with the Monthly and Weekly 9 Ball tournaments. His help is appreciated.

He makes the calls correct 99% of the time. Kudos for all the correct calls Ken had made.

What might be perceived as 'coaching' might be a responce to a specific question about the rules.

I get to discuss these titilating questions with Ken and enjoy the private answers... LOL

Deeman said:
I was thinking of submitting that to Ken's monthly column on refereeing! He'd probably ignore it as there is no defense for it but I, as you know, am not that high on the S**t Stirring scale you invented! :)

DeeMan
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
10,195
Deeman said:
I was thinking of submitting that to Ken's monthly column on refereeing! He'd probably ignore it as there is no defense for it but I, as you know, am not that high on the S**t Stirring scale you invented! :)
Well Dee, thanks for reviving interest in the STS'er distinction. We mustn't let it die in the dark of night. Don't be too modest though. You weren't all that low on the STS scale...;)

Doc
 
Top