2001 Kentucky Superbowl Of Foosball Results
foos...@my-deja.com
Amateur Doubles 87 Teams
1. Thomas Merritt and Justin Racicot
2. Mark Snyder (IN) and Kelly Day
3. Bud and Tony Spredeman
4. Wes Thompson and Brian Gerding
5/6. Mike Churchfield and Amy Powers
5/6. Vince Ramirez and Pat Myers
Amateur Singles 122 Players
1. Tony Spredeman
2. Tony Vogel
3. Fio DiPalma
4. Thomas Heath
5/6. Dave Ross
5/6. Rob Matanguihan
Amateur Mixed 17 Teams
1. Randy Hicok and Michelle Triplette
2. Tracy Roberts and Thomas Merritt
3. Keith Maurer and Liz Day
4. Rob Matanguihan and Katie Stall
5/6. Dave Ross and Brenda Back
5/6. Chris Elliott and Kelly Fork
Beginner Doubles 11 Teams
1. Jeff Christian and Duffy McKalip
2. Bob Zaffarese and Mike Giganti
3. Nils Lindbeck and Preston Dellas
4. Dan Sarafin and Danny Fouts
17 & Under Doubles 4 Teams
1. Ryan Moore and Nicholas Roberts
2. Justin Smith and Michelle Moore
3. Harry Erskine and Tony Spredeman
4. Jennifer Moore and Lindsay Albert
17 & Under Singles 5 Players
1. Ryan Moore
2. Jennifer Moore
3. Nicholas Roberts
4. Lindsay Albert
17 & Under DYP 5 Teams
1. Tony Spredeman and Michelle Moore
2. Ryan Moore and Justin Smith
3. Jennifer Moore and Harry Erskine
4.Nichalas Roberts and Derrick Dye
Designated Mixed 14 Teams
1. Dusty Bambenek and Keith Maurer
2. Mary Moore and Bill Haydon
3. Amy Fletcher and Tony Vogel
4. Tracy Roberts and Delano Casey
5/6. Brenda Bailey and Danny Summers
5/6. Genia Blakeman and Dave Ross
Expert Doubles 84 Teams
1. Steve Dodgen and Billy Caylor
2. Steve Santomassimo and Michael Capone
3. Brian Piper and Mike Belovesick
4. James Raymond and Jamie McGriff
5/6. Jim McKenney and Mike Philbrook
5/6. Kevin Westcott and Dusty Bambenek
Expert Singles 152 Teams -Single Elimination
1. Bill Bell
2. Eric Stumpf
3. Steve Santomassimo
3. Kevin Skaltsis
5/8. Eric Hartman
5/8. David Helms
5/8. Ted Saum
5/8. Brandon Moreland
Open Doubles 84 Teams
1. Todd Loffredo and Terry Moore
2. Rodney Jenkins and Billy Caylor
3. Bill Haydon and Delano Casey
4. Greg Pulliam and Randy Secrest
5/6. Steve Dodgen and Ken Williams
5/6. John Merkel and Mike Philbrook
Open Singles 87 Players - Single Elimination
1. Todd Loffredo
2. Terry Moore
3. Brian Piper
3. Frank Goff
5/8. Mike Philbrook
5/8. Rodney Jenkins
5/8. Bill Bell
5/8. Dennis Claroni
Open Mixed 24 Teams
1. Amy Powers and Mike Philbrook
2. Delano Casey and Tracy Roberts
3. Coy Wight and Bill Bell
4. Michael Smith and Karen Smith
5/6. Doug Hajek and Janet Hajek
5/6. Ken Phipps and Genia Blakeman
Rookie Doubles 64 Teams
1. Eric S. Stewart and Pat Myers
2. Mike Noblett and Jim Mogielski
3. Rich Pangburn and Jeff Scarchilli
4. Greg Hess and Monty Melchior
5/6. Hunter Hachenson and Tim Constable
5/6. Tom Jomes and Justin Racicot
Rookie Singles 91 Players
1. Jeff Kimmerling
2. Brian Barnett
3. Gary Johnston
4. Dave Whipple
5/6. Joel Wooldridge
5/6. Mike Weyrowske
Women Doubles 14 Teams
1. Mary Moore and Genia Blakeman
2. Dusty Bambenek and Coy Wight
3. Tracy Roberts and Katie Stall
4. Lisa Pride and Amy Powers
5/6. Pauli King and Angie Stewart
5/6. Janet Hajek and Gina Lane
Women Singles 16 Players
1. Genia Blakeman
2. Amy Fletcher
3. Gina Lane
4. Dusty Bambenek
5/6. Brenda Bailey
5/6. Liz Day
Women Amateur Doubles 10 Teams
1. Amy Fletcher and Monica Steagal
2. Liz Day and Tracy Roberts
3. Kelly Fork and Michelle Triplette
4. Ann Thomas and Coy Wight
5/6. Brenda Bailey and Linda Canfield
5/6. Gina Lane and Brenda Back
Women Amateur Singles 9 Players
1. Amy Fletcher
2. Brenda Bailey
3. Coy Wight
4. Tracy Roberts
5/6. Janet Hajek
5/6. Amy Powers
DYP 1 (Thursday) 27 Teams
1. Delano Casey and Kyle Stall
2. Monty Melchior and Tony Vogel
3. Tom Wotherspoon and Mike Churchfield
4. Bill Bell and Cliff Williams
5/6. Chuck Dooley and Michael Smith
5/6. James Oslund and Joel Wooldridge
DYP 2 (Friday) 69 Teams
1. Tony Spredeman and Steve Dodgen
2. Mike Phillbrook and Thomas Heath
3. Ted Saum and Rob Balza
4. Chris Smith and Michael Smith
5/6. Jason McCall and Chris Sheppard
5/6. Chris Imhoff and Mike Giganti
Forward Shootout 14 Players
1. Mike Philbrook
2. Jason McCall
3. Chris Marks
4. James Oslund
5/6. Spirit Mollice
5/6. Larry Spruill
Last Chance DYP 11 Teams
1. Larry Spruill and Mike Weyrowske
2. Dave Whipple and Keith Bryan
3. Nils Lindbeck and Jay Elmore
4. Lester Baldridge and Pauli King
5/6. Dan Sarafin and Jason McCall
5/6. Jack Tudor and Richard Hunt
3500 Limited 36 Teams
1. Spirit Mollice and Bill Bell
2. Don Chalifoux and Tony Spredeman
3. Kevin Westcott and Mike Philbrook
4. Michael Capone and Steve Santomassimo
5/6. Mike Churchfield and Rich Pangburn
5/6. Ken Williams and Rodney Jenkins
Roto DYP 12 Teams
1. Mike Philbrook and Mike Weyrowske
2. Danny Lynch and Michael Smith
3. Chris Bothe and Kyle Stall
4. Frank Friesse and Spirit Mollice
5/6. Rich Pangburn and Larry Spruill
5/6. Keith Bryan and Mike Hernandez
237 total players attended
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
OOPSULOST
What happened? Did he run out of hair spray?
>Expert Singles 152 Teams -Single Elimination
>1. Bill Bell
>2. Eric Stumpf
>3. Steve Santomassimo
>3. Kevin Skaltsis
>5/8. Eric Hartman
>5/8. David Helms
>5/8. Ted Saum
>5/8. Brandon Moreland
Respectfully, =)
Kevin Munro
Ronnie Garrett
Ronnie Garrett
Lets Foos!
FOOSMASS
You seem to obsessed with my hair. So I will give you the report. It looked
good all weekend. By the way...you always wear a hat.... Do you have hair? I
can let mine grow and give you some.
Also you seem to be following my foosball career. Don't make me look into
internet stalking laws! :P
>Kevin Skaltsis only took THIRD?!?!?
>What happened? Did he run out of hair spray?
I lost to Eric Stumpf. He played well. No excuses...he just beat me.
>Respectfully, =)
>Kevin Munro
Respectfully,
Kevin Skaltsis
OOPSULOST
Skaltsis finished this month's issue of his lifetime subscription to GQ, took a
double take as he passed a well-placed mirror on the way to his computer, first
checking his Vidal Sassoon stock, then typing:
>
>Kevin,(Munro)
>
>You seem to obsessed with my hair. So I will give you the report. It looked
>good all weekend.
For some reason, I don't doubt that one bit. =) Just as natural as that pull
shot of yours, right?
> By the way...you always wear a hat.... Do you have hair?
>I
>can let mine grow and give you some.
Thanks anyhow, I could never afford your hair products. Besides, you'd be
better off spending time working on your push-shot defense.(Hint: you can't
race what you can't see.)
Cya in Vegas,
Kevin Munro
youn...@my-deja.com
> I lost to Eric Stumpf. He played well. No excuses...he just beat me.
Beat You??!!
That looked more like a gang rape to me. It was brutal. Tell me, did
you hurt down there after he was through with you?
I have an excuse..I let Bill go on and win it for me. That's why my
name isn't at the top. I didn't lose a match in Expert singles..haha
I'm just playing with you Kevin. Eric was extremely hot when I saw him
play you. Everything he hit went on goal. Those push kicks and dinks
were nasty. And, then he'd set up a really good pull shot now and
again also. He beat Bill one match. But, he lost his consistency when
Bill got kind of hot.
later,
brandon
Louis Cartwright
Louis Cartwright
Louis Cartwright
<foos...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:95aob6$opu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Louis Cartwright
question.. did you lose cause you didnt have confidence to win or for what
reason?
Louis
<youn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:95b2di$cg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
frap...@my-deja.com
In article <t7i6jgn...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Louis Cartwright" <chea...@lvcm.com> wrote:
> Question..The only top pros at this tourney were Todd and Terry?
>
> Louis Cartwright
>
>
Dan S.
> Open Doubles 84 Teams
> 1. Todd Loffredo and Terry Moore
> 2. Rodney Jenkins and Billy Caylor
> 3. Bill Haydon and Delano Casey
> 4. Greg Pulliam and Randy Secrest
> 5/6. Steve Dodgen and Ken Williams
> 5/6. John Merkel and Mike Philbrook
Was I dreaming, or did Billy Haydon and Delano Casey
lose to Todd and Terry in the FINALS. I thought they
got 2nd.
Brad McWaters
Congrats, to Thomas & Justin and Randy & Michelle.
I guess they got tired of winning sandbagger rookie
titles and moved on to sandbagger amateur titles.
For some reason NC players always take home money
from Kentucky, why is that? Every player I know
down here is some kind of Kentucky champion. brad
Dan S.
1 definite mistake, & 1 possible mistake:
2001 Superbowl Of Foosball
Lexington KY Jan 25-28
Beginner Doubles 11 Teams
4. Dan Sarafin and Johnny Foults
(Johnny Foults, not Danny Fouts)
Open Doubles 84 Teams
3. Bill Haydon and Delano Casey
(didn't they take 2nd?)
foosyo...@my-deja.com
Dan S. <dan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> 1 definite mistake, & 1 possible mistake:
>
> 2001 Superbowl Of Foosball
> Lexington KY Jan 25-28
>
> Beginner Doubles 11 Teams
> 4. Dan Sarafin and Johnny Foults
> (Johnny Foults, not Danny Fouts)
>
Mike Newlin Jr.
Kyle Stall
>
> Louis Cartwright
Yes. Danny Casey is also considered a Master in Mary's Tournaments.
--
Kyle
Kyle Stall
> I guess they got tired of winning sandbagger rookie
> titles and moved on to sandbagger amateur titles.
> For some reason NC players always take home money
> from Kentucky, why is that? Every player I know
> down here is some kind of Kentucky champion. brad
Brad,
So when are you going to come up here and let me TAME that scorpion of
yours.
--
Kyle
FooserX
> Brad,
>
> So when are you going to come up here and let me TAME that
scorpion of
> yours.
Careful Kyle...that scorpion is nasty. It's the pushkick that's the
option. :-)
X
Louis Cartwright
just suprised there were not more.
Louis
<frap...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:95bftd$b5i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Brad McWaters
X, I have a couple of new scorpi-options that I look forward to
lighting you up with. But I won't bother taking your lunch money
cuz it looks like you might need it. My only suggestion would be for you
to drop this "I'm real shy" routine and finally come out of your shell.
You may even want to talk a little smack. That should snap the foos
world back into focus and make everyone recognize your skills and end
all this challenge game foolishness. brad
LHeilb8013
Chargers.....
Lloyd Heilbrunn
Cptm
Dan Fouts was a San Diego Charger Quaterback, not a Ram
Pat "Charger Fan stuck in Ohio" Myers
Ronnie Garrett
Ronnie Garrett
Lets Foos!
Louis Cartwright
Louis
"Cptm" <cp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010201213642...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
youn...@my-deja.com
> Regardless letting someone go on is a loss. So yes you did lose=)
Now
> question.. did you lose cause you didnt have confidence to win or for
what
> reason?
Well, since I did LOSE it was b/c we were playing with each other that
weekend. He was playing better than me so, it seemed smarter to send
him on to win the event. I personally believe that either one of us
would have won it but, I would have made it harder on myself b/c I
wasn't playing very well that weekend. He's beaten me all 3 times
we've ever played each other in singles but, I do have a good overall
record against him. I doubt I would have beaten him this time though
b/c I was really off at KY.
He gave me the choice of going on or for him to go on..but, he didn't
want to play. I think I made the right choice...nevermind..i know I
did...he won! lol I let him keep the jacket for being the one who did
all the work.
Who says I'm not a fare guy...:P
Brandon
Are u playing with Trevor at Vegas?
Louis Cartwright
Louis
<youn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:95dke7$8vr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
foos...@my-deja.com
here is the corrected info...
Beginner Doubles
4th Johnny Fouts and Dan Sarafin
no, Danny Casey and Billy Haydon did get third -losing to Billy Caylor
and Rodney Jenkins who went on to play Terry and Todd in the finals.
Ben
>In article <95c0r4$pmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Dan S. <dan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
Cptm
Notjust high yardage, enough yardage to make the Hall of Fame even without ever
playing in the Super Bowl!!!!
Dan Fouts Rules!
Pat "I beg the Chargers to dump Ryan Leaf" Myers
Dan Schuermeyer
rookie semi and am who basically play for free. You must place 3rd or
better to break even at all. This tournament should pay like 32 places
in many events instaed of 6 places . If you cant beat terry and todd ,
You are breaking even at best . Congrats to all that did well though.
Shoe 1900 point Pro who didnt attend tourney 1 hour away from me .
CMAX42
division of money is the only criteriain determing whether or not we support a
tournment foos is weaker than i think cmax
Pat Goff
>division of money is the only criteriain determing whether or not we support
>a
>tournment foos is weaker than i think cmax
>
should be judged? I agree with Dan, if you're putting up your money to play,
you should feel like you have at least an even chance of having a return on
your investment.
This is still a free country, and we are still free to make our own judgements
on what's best for us. A pro player is exactly what it says, a Professional.
Not amateur, not novice, not sportsman, but Pro. If he feels like it's not a
good deal for him to attend, then that is certainly his choice.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "state" of foosball.
Ronnie Garrett
Free??! Hmm...let's see. I got the package + registration which equaled $175.
Add to that, I also played in 3500 limited and Open Singles which was another
$50. So I spent $225 just to play over the weekend. Yeah...we rookies, am's and
semi's played for free!
Ronnie Garrett
Lets Foos!
CMAX42
>judgements
yes sir.>Not amateur, not novice, not sportsman
yes free to all...!>It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "state" of
foosball
okay . can i ask would foos be stronger if the whole alphabet was supported by
all ustsa vifa nasta ifp etc they all spell foos to a dumb novice like me
cmax..
Amy Powers
and hardware and sometimes not even a jacket. That's not fare either.
Pat Goff
>What about tour events that don't even pay rookies at all.
Amy,
I'm not ragging on you, or is this going to be insulting..
You are a grown woman, and the choice is yours. If you don't like the way
it's run, then why go? If you show up anyway, then they think they are doing
something right. It's when you DON'T show up, then they'll think about making
a change.
David_...@sabre.com
Dan,
are you a pro there or an "expert"? If you are in the open only category
there, then i definitely agree, the payouts for those events are bad if
thats the only thing you can play. But if not, the expert payouts are
pretty nice especially considering its basically a no top 20 event and
that does mean you get to play 4 events instead of 2...
-David
Keith Erskine
: > if the division of money is the only criteriain determing whether or
: > not we support a tournment foos is weaker than i think
: A pro player is exactly what it says, a Professional.
: Not amateur, not novice, not sportsman, but Pro. If he feels like it's not a
: good deal for him to attend, then that is certainly his choice.
Excuse moi, but IMO the nomenclature for foos ranking is rather misleading.
In *every* other avocation I've been involved with, the term professional
denotes one who pursues the avocation full time, paid by sponsors, does
not have an alternate day job. A professional musician does music full
time and supports (albeit often very meagerly) himself financially.
A professional bike racer races full time, paid by his team.
I describe myself as a semi-pro, not pro, musician, because while I receive
good $$$ for playing, have been playing $$$ gigs since junior high school,
am just a few credits shy of a college bachelor of arts degree in music,
have done studio work/concerts/instruction/bar, corporate, wedding gigs/etc,
I DO have a day job, I am NOT a full time musician....
In VIFA ranking, the term pro has NO such connotation, instead indicating
the individual has achieved a certain level of success in tournament play.
As we've all discussed before, winning open in EVERY tournament would NOT
yield an income one could easily live on, nor are there Valley/Tornado
sponsored pro players, to the best of my knowledge. (Though there certainly
should be, imo)
I think the ranking should instead use terms such as beginner/rookie/
expert/master, and reserve the term PRO for those, if any, who ARE
full-time, salaried foos jockeys.
I don't intend to disrespect the dedication, skill, talent, & accomplishments
of the SP, P, PM ranked players - I just callz em as I seez em.
: If the pro feels its not a good deal for him to attend, then that is
: certainly his choice. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the
: "state" of foosball.
Very true.
: It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "state" of foosball.
True. It reflects more on the motivation of the individual more than
anything else.
Keith Erskine
I don't speak for HP.
zenfoos
> And BTW like you said if you don't like the way something is run don't
show up,
> well I don't like the way Vegas is run and I'm not going this year,
but I doubt
> I'll be missed and I'm sure that they're not going to change or even
think
> about changing just because a little semi-pro women didn't show up. I
just
> can't do that to myself anymore. I love Vegas. It is so much fun
there, but
> every year I get stuck in the tourney room for long hours and can't
leave and
> don't get called in anything for long amounts of time and then when I
feel
> really angry (for waiting so long) and feel like I can't wait any
longer,
> that's when I get called. I wouldn't mind going and just watching
others play,
> but I don't want to play in that tourney any more unless the League
conflicts
> are resolved or changed.
>
Amy, I agree with you 100%. Las Vegas is my favorite city
and I love foosball but as far as going there for that
tournament its not for me either.
I'd rather go there to visit my Dad and see some shows and
go to another tour event so I can concentrate solely on
foosball.
Randy Stolzberg
David_...@sabre.com
foos...@aol.com (Amy Powers) wrote:
> I was just trying to say that at least
Mary
> supports Rookies. I think that it is important to have somewhere that
a rookie
> player can go and have a chance to win some money and maybe break even
on
> expenses.
Not to nit pick Amy, but 3 tables is a pretty nice thing for rookies to
get at every tour event. We also give 3 tables to rookies at Texas State
every year. Not to mention Rookie Doubles in Kentucky is not exactly a
chance for rookies to win allot of cash. The rookie doubles winners this
time? 1570 and 1440 as far as USTSA points... Mary takes great care of
the smei's, pros, and low masters. Her's are the best tournies for
these guys to go to, true roookies though? Nahhhh.
-david
Foosnut2
>Not to nit pick Amy, but 3 tables is a pretty nice thing for rookies to
>get at every tour event.
Yes, David but you have to play in open events to get a chance to win them.
It's not like you win rookie doubles or singles and get a table. I understand
that the playoffs are all rookies but it's not exactly the same thing, is it?
Besides, the tables are a small cost when you take into account the average
rookie package runs about $125. or so. The payout to win rookie events is a
big trophy, wow. We both are promoters and buy trophies for our tourneys and
know the cost of such items. There's not alot of overhead there. Not even
Jackets in Vegas for winning rookie or semipro events, so I'm not impressed.
>Not to mention Rookie Doubles in Kentucky is not exactly a
>chance for rookies to win allot of cash. The rookie doubles winners this
>time? 1570 and 1440 as far as USTSA points...
I agree but the players who usually win on tour in the lower ranked events
are not usually rookie or semipro level either. They are usually sandbagging
(not all of them) ...don't show up to a major until they are above their skill
level for their ranking. A good example is Trevor Park. He certainly was NOT
a semipro level player 2 or 3 years ago but cleaned up in the semipro events on
tour. He even qualified for Master's singles. Suddenly, in 1 year, he's
playing in open doubles finals and ranked promaster. Last year he's playing in
the finals of Open Doubles at the World Championships! Not pro but a
promaster...there's definitely a problem there too.
Jim (Full-Ninja-Snap) McKenney
David_...@sabre.com
foos...@aol.com (Foosnut2) wrote:
> Yes, David but you have to play in open events to get a chance to win
them.
> It's not like you win rookie doubles or singles and get a table. I
understand
> that the playoffs are all rookies but it's not exactly the same thing,
is it?
> Besides, the tables are a small cost when you take into account the
average
> rookie package runs about $125. or so. The payout to win rookie
events is a
> big trophy, wow. We both are promoters and buy trophies for our
tourneys and
> know the cost of such items. There's not alot of overhead there. Not
even
> Jackets in Vegas for winning rookie or semipro events, so I'm not
impressed.
Maybe I'm a little jaded being a pro player, but i think its great that
you have to get good to win a decent chuck of change at these things.
why the hell would you try to excel at this game if the rewards are the
same as if you just play a couple times a month and then go to the tour
events as a rookie? The original post said that its nice that at
kentucky rookeis are given a chance to win some money and have a chance
at paying for their expences. It didn't mention rookie events in
particular, so three tables is impressive. The wiunner of the highest
rookie team playoff in vegas will get paid the same amount as what the
3rd place team in open doubles? for half the cost? Mary's package deals
are how much cheaper than valleys for vegas? Notvery much if at all. She
gives away very little to the rookie players. The post was not going rah
rah rah valley is over generous to rookies, it was to point out than in
reality Kentucky rewards true rookies even less than the tour does.
> I agree but the players who usually win on tour in the lower ranked
events
> are not usually rookie or semipro level either. They are usually
sandbagging
> (not all of them) ...don't show up to a major until they are above
their skill
> level for their ranking. A good example is Trevor Park. He certainly
was NOT
> a semipro level player 2 or 3 years ago but cleaned up in the semipro
events on
> tour. He even qualified for Master's singles. Suddenly, in 1 year,
he's
> playing in open doubles finals and ranked promaster. Last year he's
playing in
> the finals of Open Doubles at the World Championships! Not pro but a
> promaster...there's definitely a problem there too.
>
> Jim (Full-Ninja-Snap) McKenney
There's really no solution to this. Can you rate someone on what their
potential is? no you have to wait til they accomplish somehting. I think
it speaks well of the system that it took so short a time for Trevor to
rise to an appropriate point level. The Kentucky system, if it didn't
use the USTSA system to reset players to new levels would still have
trevor an amateur at least, or expert at most. To say that the problem
of non "true rookies" winning exists on tour is fine, but the fact of
the matter is that these same players can play rookies in KY as well a
ton of proven semi-pros. The example you give is greta and all but that
is also not an example of a rookie player which is the jist of this
comment.
Cptm
Why are you busting me out with how many USTA points I have? It is not my
fault that Mary has a different ranking system...if you keep this up, she may
move me up before the August Tournament....:)
Pat Myers
Columbus, Ohio
Foos27
I wonder if she made enough to pay Bobby D. back? I believe that she might
help out her tournaments by maybe bumping up the pro-master payouts. A larger
Pro-Master turnout might draw more lower rated players wanting to learn from
the big dogs.
youn...@my-deja.com
> at paying for their expences. It didn't mention rookie events in
> particular, so three tables is impressive. The wiunner of the highest
> rookie team playoff in vegas will get paid the same amount as what the
> 3rd place team in open doubles? for half the cost? Mary's package
deals
> are how much cheaper than valleys for vegas? Notvery much if at all.
She
> gives away very little to the rookie players.
I very much agree with you on this subject David. Those tables are
very worth while for the rookies. I know for a fact that after X sold
his tables off last year he ended up taking home the 2nd largest sum of
money (2nd to Mares) as a rookie.
Now, take the rookie (USTSA points book) that made the most money at KY
and, see how much he/she took home. I'll guarantee it wasn't even
close to what X brought home.
YoungFoos;)
Amy Powers
>get at every tour event. We also give 3 tables to rookies at Texas State
>every year. Not to mention Rookie Doubles in Kentucky is not exactly a
>chance for rookies to win allot of cash. The rookie doubles winners this
>time? 1570 and 1440 as far as USTSA points... Mary takes great care of
>the smei's, pros, and low masters. Her's are the best tournies for
>these guys to go to, true roookies though? Nahhhh.
>
>-david
>
>
Well. I really don't think that a true Rookie has a good chance to win a table
at a tour event. They probablly wouldn't be able to win Rookie Doubles or
Sinlges either. That is just the nature of the sport. In any division there
are going to be under ranked players on tour or in Kentucky. The competition
is just as good on tour as it is in Kentucky, except that there are probablly
larger charts on tour. This year the guys that won Rookie Doubles were from
another country and they win a lot over there. I played against these guys and
they don't play like true Rookies.
For a Rookie to win a table they have to play in a whole other event (Open
Doubles) and play with a Rookie partner where as many Rookies might like to
play with a semi pro friend for Open Doubles or maybe not even play in Open
Doubles (or Open Singles, they can qualify for a table that way too). Yes
winning a table is good and all and I was not trying to put down the tour
events really... but it's not the same as rewarding Rookies with the chance at
some cash for placing high in their own event. I mean it is still $500 for
second and on down the line for Rookie Doubles in Kentucky. That means that
more Rookies have a chance to get some cash yes and even under ranked Rookies
too. I was only trying to say that you have to have a trade off somewhere and
if there isn't a lot of money in Open Doubles maybe that's due to money in 4
rankings including Rookies. There's also $1000 for Am. Doubles and Expert
Doubles as well as Rookie and Open (which has a little more than $1000).
That's cool because as a rookie you get 4 chances (well 3 if you say that you
just wouldn't win Open as a Rookie) to win some cash. I remember when I was a
Rookie that made me want it real bad. Money is a good insentive. Having 4
rankings is very cool. Maybe a true rookie couldn't win there, but at least
they have a chance to win the cash. They can't win the cash if it's not there.
Giving away tables is a cool bonus. But for what I was talking about I don't
feel that it is the same as winning cash in your own ranking. I mean it is a
single elimination chart. How many times has a hot team lost their first round
and come all the way through the loser's bracket? It's almost like a specialty
event to me at least.
BTW I know that Trevor is not an Am. in Kentucky. I "think" he is an Expert
like Bill Bell.
Amy Powers
> This year the guys that won Rookie Doubles were from
>another country and they win a lot over there. I played against these guys
>and
>they don't play like true Rookies.
I was reffering to the guys who one Rookie Doubles at the worlds this year not
the guys who won Kentucky. They are the same guys who won Rookie Doubles in
Vegas and from what I was told they are European champs, but since those points
aren't the same as USTSA points they are still Rookies here in the US (well,
probably not any more). There names are Henk Habets and Danny Jansen. I was
just trying to show that it is just as hard to win Rookie events on tour as it
is Kentucky, (maybe even more difficult on tour beacause there are so many
players) Sorry if that was confusing.
Kyle Stall
> just trying to show that it is just as hard to win Rookie events on tour
as it
> players) Sorry if that was confusing.
I disagree... 'Most' Rookies on tour lack the experience and knowledge to
win. They may have a fast shot or a good five, but without the experience,
you can't win. Because it is so easy to jump from Rookie to Semi-pro with
the bonus points, it is tough for a 'Good' rookie to remain at that status.
Whereas with the IFP tournaments, Players don't get points unless they
money! Regardless of how well they could be playing, or whom they maybe
beating. Rookies at an IFP tournament just get better and better learning
more and more until they win some money. Think about it this way...
Example: 70 teams in Rookie doubles (140 people), only 16 people will get
some points for that event. Regardless of who beats who. And most will get
a second chance at it!
The only real true solution to this is to use the ELO points system (refer
to Bonzini web site) This fix's all the known problems with the current
point rating system.
--
Kyle
Slow But Effective
myth?
--Rich Tench
> Subject: Re: 2001 Kentucky Superbowl Of Foosball Results
Boris
bhind Collignon & Alallou. They are natural Topper/Jupiter players. The standard
of front-pin play in Belgium & Holland is very high, Frederic did not get where he
is by playing against mugs.
Boris
Boris
The only real true solution to this is to use the ELO points system
(refer
to Bonzini web site) This fix's all the known problems with the current
point rating system.
--
Kyle
Apparently, Tornado used to use a system which sounded suspiciously like
Elo, but abandoned it as players found it hard to understand, and
Tornado found it complicated to administer. In a double elimination
event, the winner could gain more points from the Losers Bracket - as
more matches=more wins=more points - then they would from the winners
bracket.
Elo certainly producees more accurate rankings, and hope NATSA can get
it to work.
Boris
Kyle Stall
> Elo, but abandoned it as players found it hard to understand, and
> Tornado found it complicated to administer. In a double elimination
> event, the winner could gain more points from the Losers Bracket - as
> more matches=more wins=more points - then they would from the winners
> bracket.
>
> Elo certainly producees more accurate rankings, and hope NATSA can get
> it to work.
>
> Boris
But they should get more points from the loser's.... It's harder due to the
many matches you need to win.
--
Kyle
>
Boris
Is is me or do you have your date set all wrong. You apparently replied on
Sunday at 2138 to a post I sent on Tuesday at 0245 (GMT). I know there is
a time difference but this is ridiculous.
I have the messages listed in chronological order, and yours always seem to
get left way behind. I thought the server was just slow, but this episode
(cue 'outer limits' music...) puts paid to that theory.
Boris
Boris wrote:
> The only real true solution to this is to use the ELO points system
> (refer
> to Bonzini web site) This fix's all the known problems with the current
>
> point rating system.
>
> --
> Kyle
>
Kyle Stall
>
> Is is me or do you have your date set all wrong. You apparently replied
on
> Sunday at 2138 to a post I sent on Tuesday at 0245 (GMT). I know there is
> a time difference but this is ridiculous.
>
> I have the messages listed in chronological order, and yours always seem
to
> get left way behind. I thought the server was just slow, but this episode
> (cue 'outer limits' music...) puts paid to that theory.
>
> Boris
That was my Wife. Thanks for pointing it out, I would have never fixed it.
--
Kyle
Snake Factory
first match and trying to maximize points from the losers, but the risk that
one would take in order to do that, would not, in ANY way, outweigh the
potential benefit.
Chris
"Kyle Stall" <Kyle...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:t8jab5h...@corp.supernews.com...