The women
WCrimi
>Just wondering if anyone has some insight into possible reasons for the
>almost complete lack of skill on the women's tour. I mean, venture
>outside of the top 5, and they're pretty damned inept.
You are inviting a lot of backlash with a comment like this. Let me say
that the quality that I have seen on occassion has been quite impressive
thru the top 20.
It has also been improving rapidly. The primary reason that there aren't
as many high quality women players is that until recently there were very
few pool rooms that a woman could go to and be comfortable. The number of
men who practice frequently and love the game is larger than the number of
woman that do the same. Given the math, you would expect the best players
to be men and that there would be more of them. The only thing I have
seen that "might" truly separate them is the break shot. I'm not sure why
this is so because a successful break is not pure power, but there are
very few women that drop and get a real good spread of balls. At the
highest level of play this is often the deciding factor.
SGLipper
Just wondering if anyone has some insight into possible reasons for the
almost complete lack of skill on the women's tour. I mean, venture
outside of the top 5, and they're pretty damned inept.
I was at the tournament in Amsterdam Billiards about a month ago, and I
couldn't believe my eyes. I saw a match between two of the top 5 (no
names), and neither seemed capable of running four balls. Which is not to
say that they always play like that, but it was still pretty pathetic. On
nearby tables, I saw one "pro" who I swear to God had a shaky stroke (it
looked from her play and her form that she took the game up about a year
ago), and one who was missing balls (that's plural) by DIAMONDS.
On a televised match, I saw another lady player miss an almost straight
nine-ball that was about a foot from the pocket and a foot from the
cueball.
At Amsterdam, there's a list of straight pool high runs. The men's list,
as expected, was long and impressive. The women's? Well, according to my
friend (a believable source), they actually listed a woman who ran
something in the twenties. The TWENTIES!
Before we watched the previously mentioned tournament, my friend and I
played in a Tri-State in Jersey. And without a doubt, we saw MUCH better
pool that afternoon than that night.
SGLipper
I just wanted to clarify and qualify my previous entry. I know the tone
of the letter was strong, but I truly believe that the difference in
quality between the men and the women is so vast that it deserves some
discussion.
It's true that women have only recently felt more comfortable in poolrooms
(although "recently" is a bit misleading; I would say that since the Color
of Money boom - 10 years ago - the change in atmospheres has been
apparent). So let's even say that in 8 years of serious play, do you
truly believe that the women's games reflect said time? I have been
playing pool for exactly 8 years, and my straight pool high run is over
100. And ya know what? That makes me a nobody in the men's world.
WCrimi mentioned in her reply that the break shot might make the
difference in nine-ball, but what about straight (IMHO a much more elegant
and artful game)? Through 1991, the women's record in the U.S. Open was
somewhere in the fifties. That's approximately four racks. Which, again,
is not to say that some of the women (like Jeanette Lee) haven't run more
in practice, but clearly there is a difference between the skill levels.
A guy in the same tournament runs fifty-something and leaves an open
table, he's almost a favorite to lose! So what's the problem in straight
pool, then? There's no need for strong break shots, and it wouldn't even
be valid to say that the women don't practice straight pool. There are
numerous examples of men who NEVER play the game that have run 150-and-out
after a few months of solid practice (Johnny Archer, for one).
So although the tone of the letter was a bit arrogant, I suppose, I
believe it was to a point justified.
kari orr
In article <4u2olf$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, sgli...@aol.com (SGLipper) says:
The central question that you are asking is why hasn't womens performance
in billiard reached the level of men's play?
one of your arguments, in the last 8 years you have been able to run
100 balls in straight pool, whereas the professional high for women
is in the mid 50's. So if you can do it, why can't they?
In this level playing field of America every person has equal opportunity
in all endeavors, and if one person can succeed, that means anyone
and everyone can succeed because each person is interchangeable.
Each of us has equal access to information and opportunities. Each of
us has the ability to become whatever we want to be without regard to
situations outside of out our control.
That notion might be idealistic, but it's not realistic. Pool might be
a more balanced playing field than the rest of america because of it's
basis in merit, but that is not the only factor in creating champions.
When women play pool, not only do they have to concentrate on their
games, there are other factors.
How many women in this country would feel completely secure going
to a pool hall?
How many of those that attend pool hall, have to also attend to male
fascination?
How many of those are taken seriously and encouraged?
How many of those play straight pool regularly?
How many of those play with adequate competition?
How many of those women, also have the the ability to access the
body of knowledge that male straight pool players have? Which in many
cases are other males?
Do these numbers correlate with the numbers of male play of straight
pool at the time when straight pool was introduced to the male
billard playing population?
The issue has many factors outside of natural playing ability.
if you look at other sports, you can wonder why women have gotten
so close to the marathon numbers for men?
Why hasn't the rest of the world caught up with the level of our Dream
team, or why haven't we caught up with the rest of the world when it
comes to international men's soccer on any level?
How would you increase put women on the performance fast track for
straight pool?
1. Bring more people into the game of straight pool by raising the publics
awareness?
2. Change the image of pool halls all around the country.
3. Encourage young people to play. Younger americans, don't have as many
of the biases that older americans have.
There are many things you could do to make women better straight pool
players, these are just a few.
k. orr
Tom Bellhouse
WCrimi wrote:
>
> >Just wondering if anyone has some insight into possible reasons for the
> >almost complete lack of skill on the women's tour. I mean, venture
> >outside of the top 5, and they're pretty damned inept.
Yeah, and I got my butt beat by one of those "inept" women pros outside the top 20 a
couple of months ago, and learned a lot from her in the process. And Nikki Benish (sp?)
was through here a couple of years ago, and beat a bunch of the local shortstops in a
tournament.
But on the whole, I'd agree that the average male player out-plays the average woman
player, and that the top male pros shoot better than the top women. The best players
start out early. There are lots of male players with fathers who owned pool halls, or
who took the boy to the pool hall to show him the game, or who played a lot and
encouraged by example. My guess is that the women who got an early start did so in the
home, and missed out on the ruthless, competitive atmosphere where you determine who is
"ranked" by counting up the cash after the match. They're only now getting that chance.
That'll all change, as pocket billiards (not pool) becomes more "wussy" and yuppified,
and as more women learn to enjoy winning.
Regards,
Tom Bellhouse
WCrimi
>Tom Bellhouse wrote:
>WCrimi wrote:
>
> >Just wondering if anyone has some insight into possible reasons for the
> >almost complete lack of skill on the women's tour. I mean, venture
> >outside of the top 5, and they're pretty damned inept.
It wasn't me that wrote this. In fact I defended the women's play. So
far in this thread I've been referred to as a "she" and been given credit
for calling women inept. Please pay attention everyone. Especially if
you are going to quote me!!!
Wayne Crimi - get it - Wayne - a guy - If Allison Fisher had a
break, she'd be one the better players on the men's tour.
Bob Jewett
WCrimi (wcr...@aol.com) wrote:
: If Allison Fisher had a break, she'd be one of the better players
: on the men's tour.
I played her at the BCA Trade Show. She broke and ran out the first
rack, then broke and didn't make anything and I ran out. I had to leave
then. I'd like to think that makes us even. The thing that impressed
me most about her play was how she could fire in balls a hundred miles
an hour when she had to for position.
Bob Jewett
Tom Bellhouse
Regarding my post starting "WCrimi wrote..." followed by somebody else's (not Wayne
Crimi's) post: I goofed. Wayne Crimi had posted a generally positive note, not the
quote I attributed to him. Sorry, Wayne. Sloppy snipping. (Say that fast ten times!)
Tom Bellhouse
Tarl Roger Kudrick
kari orr (or...@weiss.che.utexas.edu) wrote:
: The central question that you are asking is why hasn't womens performance
: in billiard reached the level of men's play?
There was an article in Billiards Digest back in '91 or '92 that
was written by Billie Billings which addressed this problem. Please
understand that I'm paraphrasing from memory, but I read that article very
closely because this situation has always bothered me (for reasons I'll go
into in a minute).
AS I RECALL, her main points were:
1) Not enough money on the women's tour to make women give up
their day jobs to practice (although now, in 1996, I think there's more $$
for women than men)
2) The tour women all know each other and get along well and there
isn't any of the killer-instinct play you see on the men's tour
3) Many of the women just don't practice as much or as often or
under such pressure-packed situations (hustling for a living) as many of
the men did, and to some extent still do.
Now here's why this painfully obvious gap between men's pro play
and women's pro play bothers me. Logically, there's simply no reason for
men to be better at pool than women, because size and strength have
nothing to do with pool. This isn't long jumping or basketball. This isn't
even golf, where women don't drive balls as far as men.
More, I'm a psychologist (Master's candidate) whose area of
expertise is rapidly becoming personality development, especially in the
field of achievement motivation. Every day I see examples of men who will
dedicate their entire lives to becoming #1 at something, and I look around
and I just don't see very many women who say "I want to be the best, and
I'll do whatever it takes". Okay, Jackie-Joyner Kersee, but who else?
I wonder sometimes whether Robin Bell and Ewa Mataya WANT to be
the greatest pool player in the world as badly as Johnny Archer and Earl
Strickland seem to.
Now, interestingly, gobs of research on achievement motivation
have failed to find significant differences between the sexes. But take a
good look at the measuring devices used to detect achievement motivation
and you'll see statements like "It's important to me to be good at what I
do", and "I want my work to be of the highest quality", and the like.
People are asked to indicate their level of agreement with these
statements. As I said, there hasn't been much empirical support for the
idea that men have more achievement motivation than women.
But examine the issue of competitiveness, and you get different
results. Through a complex mix of biology and culture, American men, as a
whole, tend to be significantly more competitive than American women.
What follows is pure speculation, so don't cite me in journals or
anything. But I think statements like "I want to be the best pool
player I can be" would get equal agreement from both male and female pros.
However, statements like "I want to be a better pool player than everyone
else in the world" would not. I would hypothesize that men would agree
with this statement more than women.
I think it is, at bottom, this hypothesized difference between
levels of COMPETITIVE DRIVE between male and female pros which keeps the
female pros' game one or two notches below the men's.
Anne Mayes, if you're reading this, I'd love your input...
--Tarl Roger Kudrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|ta...@access.digex.net
"You get what you settle for." |
Thelma, in "Thelma and Louise" |I don't speak for my company. People
|who visit me can speak for themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Mayes
Tom Bellhouse wrote:
>
> WCrimi wrote:
> >
> > >Just wondering if anyone has some insight into possible reasons for the
> > >almost complete lack of skill on the women's tour. I mean, venture
> > >outside of the top 5, and they're pretty damned inept.
>
> couple of months ago, and learned a lot from her in the process. And Nikki Benish (sp?)
> was through here a couple of years ago, and beat a bunch of the local shortstops in a
> tournament.
>
> But on the whole, I'd agree that the average male player out-plays the average woman
> player, and that the top male pros shoot better than the top women. The best players
> start out early. There are lots of male players with fathers who owned pool halls, or
> who took the boy to the pool hall to show him the game, or who played a lot and
> encouraged by example. My guess is that the women who got an early start did so in the
> home, and missed out on the ruthless, competitive atmosphere where you determine who is
> "ranked" by counting up the cash after the match. They're only now getting that chance.
>
> That'll all change, as pocket billiards (not pool) becomes more "wussy" and yuppified,
> and as more women learn to enjoy winning.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Bellhouse
Thanks Tom, for not mentioning my name <SMILE>
Annie
--
WPBA Classic Tour Player | Ranked 24th
Editor/Publisher: Billiard & Dart News
Web Site: http://soho.ios.com/~amayes
E-Mail to: ama...@soho.ios.com
Ron Shepard
In article <4u856p$c...@news4.digex.net>, ta...@access5.digex.net (Tarl
Roger Kudrick) wrote:
[...]
> More, I'm a psychologist (Master's candidate) whose area of
>expertise is rapidly becoming personality development, especially in the
>field of achievement motivation. Every day I see examples of men who will
>dedicate their entire lives to becoming #1 at something, and I look around
>and I just don't see very many women who say "I want to be the best, and
>I'll do whatever it takes". Okay, Jackie-Joyner Kersee, but who else?
I don't mean to pick a fight here, but isn't it true that psychologists
consider such attitudes a sign of a mental health disorder? Basically, it
seems that they think that anything further than two sigma away from the
population mean is bad and must be "cured" with drugs and therapy.
> Now, interestingly, gobs of research on achievement motivation
>have failed to find significant differences between the sexes.
Do you mean in general, or in specific fields? There are many fields that
are dominated by one sex that would, on the surface, appear to be
gender-neutral. The best chess players are, and have been for centuries,
men. Mathematicians are more often male than female (despite the fact
that girls are better math students up to age 12 or so). I've heard of
many computer science departments that are in trouble within their
colleges because they are so male dominated that they appear, at least on
paper, to be descriminatory in their hiring and promotions.
There are of course "nature vs. nurture" arguments in all of these
situations, but sometimes you just have to wonder how much of the drive,
competetiveness, and creativity is due to hormones?
If it is due to hormones, then it is easy to see in this context why males
are drawn to, and excel at, pool. If you mix together geometry, algebra,
physics, competitive situations requiring strategy and tactics, along with
the physical, dexterity, and coordination challenges, it is easy to see
why it is so easy to become addicted to this game. (And yes, I know that
many good pool players probably did poorly in geometry, algebra, and
physics in school, but that doesn't mean that pool doesn't rely heavily on
these topics. The fact that these people couldn't get excited about these
things is school is evidence of the failure of our school system to teach
an inherently exciting subject in a remotely exciting manner, but this is
a topic for a different thread.)
[...]
> But examine the issue of competitiveness, and you get different
>results. Through a complex mix of biology and culture, American men, as a
>whole, tend to be significantly more competitive than American women. [...]
One bad thing about the current cultural influence is the emphasis on
winning. Someone with good intentions gave a hat to my 8 year old son the
other day, and on the inside it says "Second place is another name for the
first loser". This "winner take all" attitude is something I disagree
very strongly about. Competitiveness is fine, and competition is great,
but it should be enjoyed for itself, not simply as a means to determine
the winner. I think if we continue to take the fun out of competition, as
"winner take all" does, then our culture will be for the worse as a
result.
There are many people around here who do agree with me, whether they know
it or not. They are called "Cubs Fans", but that's another topic too. :-)
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Sascha Pawlowski
SGLipper wrote:
>
> Just wondering if anyone has some insight into possible reasons for >the
> almost complete lack of skill on the women's tour. I mean, venture
> outside of the top 5, and they're pretty damned inept.
I've been reading an article in Scientific American about the human
brain, referring to the differences between men and women that have
developed by evolution.
Significant differences in some abilities have been discovered. The
tests have been made with very young children, so that social influences
could not interfere.
One of the differences was that men in general were more skilled in
aimed coordination, as it is used for example in spear throwing. This
makes sense to me, as the male population was responsible to hunt for
food for some thousand years with spears and bows.
This could be the reason for women beeing less skilled in pool. It does
of course not mean, that no woman could play as good as a man, it says
that the average man is better than the average woman, and still a good
female player can be better than average men.
Bye
Sascha
SGLipper
Well, I see that this topic has indeed raised a few brows. The range of
attacks or explanations we have seen so far has run from "Well, you're
flat-out wrong," to "Well, yeah, but here's why." In my opinion it is the
latter that makes more sense, because denying the existence of a vast gap
seems, to me, to be a ridiculous attempt at throwing political correctness
into the discussion. Maybe it's not right to say that the women aren't
nearly as good, but it's the truth.
Because of the way that the social structures of this society are set up,
there are most certainly severe barriers to entry to the highest level of
the pool world for women. You rarely see (I have never) a woman gambling
$500 a set (of her own money) in a pool hall late into the night. Thus,
there is no need for a woman to choose NOT to become a pro. They can make
MUCH more money joining the tour, and placing in a few events. Now the
men's situation is much different. For every guy on the pro tour, there's
probably three guys out there who feel the recognition of being a "name"
will preclude them from making as much as they can on the road. Of
course, the fierce competition on the men's tour guarantees them, once
they choose to take the plunge, nothing at all in terms of chances to
place.
So we have a situation in place that almost assures us of seeing ALL (or a
huge percentage of) the top females, yet at most forty to fifty percent of
the top men. Mind you, this does not say that the top five on the tour
aren't the top five in the country; it only says that once you venture
into the top 20 or 30, you'd be wrong to assume that there's no "unknown"
frothing at the mouth to play these guys straight up.
Now, besides the clearness of the numbers, let's talk about what the
differences in skill are. What do you think would be an appropriate spot
between a top male player and a top female? If you say anything higher
than the 6, then I truly feel that you do not have a grasp on the level of
the men. I've heard that Parica gave the six to a STRONG male player from
the NYC area and beat him out of $4,000. What's the six mean when you
don't miss?! These guys play flawless sets more often than you think, and
the women, well, the women don't. Simple as that.
So I certainly agree that there are explanations to this gap, which is why
I started this thread, but I just cannot believe that the levels are
somewhat equal.
Carl M. Pearson
Gotta love'em. I love good pool and I love women.
If either were missing from the planet, I would not want to be here.
And when women play good pool, I put on my best cologne and my
eyes sparkle and I open doors and send flowers and act like a
teenager in heat.
Sigh.
Carl
Peter Grogono
In article <32073F...@mbox.iri.uni-hannover.de> Sascha Pawlowski <sascha.p...@mbox.iri.uni-hannover.de> writes:
>One of the differences was that men in general were more skilled in
>aimed coordination, as it is used for example in spear throwing. This
>makes sense to me, as the male population was responsible to hunt for
>food for some thousand years with spears and bows.
Can you give a specific reference to Scientific American? If the article
you read is the one I remember, it came from the largely discredited
"biological determinism" camp -- the guys who want to prove that gays
are physiologically different from straights but can't find any evidence
of such differences. Are there any serious anthropologists who still
believe that hunter/gatherer crap from the nineteenth century?
And -- just to keep on topic -- just how much similarity is there between
potting the eight-ball and skewering a mammoth?
Perhaps, thinking of some of the games I've watched recently, I'll
withdraw that question.
Peter
Tom Bellhouse
Ron Shepard wrote:
>(snip) ... Mathematicians are more often male than female (despite the fact
> that girls are better math students up to age 12 or so).
After that they go downhill, because they're told over and over that something the
length of your thumb is eight inches long. Enough to confuse anybody!
Tom Bellhouse
Milliken b
In article <4u1lek$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, sgli...@aol.com (SGLipper)
writes:
> On
>nearby tables, I saw one "pro" who I swear to God had a shaky stroke (it
>looked from her play and her form that she took the game up about a year
>ago), and one who was missing balls (that's plural) by DIAMONDS.
>
I recommend care when watching pros play. Last year, watching the Gordons
tournaments on TV, I can remember at least 2 occasions when the
commentator said something like "Its not like Loree Jon to miss by that
much". What she was actually attempting was not the obvious shot but a
carom into the 9, which she almost made. There was a difficult runnout
and the carom was a 2-way shot. But the commentator (Dawn Hopkins as I
recall) called a miss on a simple cut shot!
>
>At Amsterdam, there's a list of straight pool high runs. The men's list,
>as expected, was long and impressive. The women's? Well, according to
my
>friend (a believable source), they actually listed a woman who ran
>something in the twenties. The TWENTIES!
>
Well, if you were there, why didn't you look for yourself. I'll check the
board when I'm there next, but I recall seeing something in the 70-80
range by Jeanette Lee.
Barry Milliken
Knut-Håvard Aksnes
jew...@netcom.com (Bob Jewett) writes:
Top Snooker players is able to put a lot of juice on the cue ball
without sacrificing too much precision, their stroke is very often the
reason they are top Snooker players.
What I would find interesting is a project involving some of the top
stroke coaches/gurus in Billiards, Snooker and Pool. The expected
outcome:
=091) Some interesting transfer of knowledge, probably
=09 benefiting all of the sports.
=092) Some interesting statistics. (Different ways of doing
=09 things can be compared.)
=093) A good stroke book and a video.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
Name:=09Knut-H=E5vard Aksnes (ECMA 94) or=09=09Knut-Haavard Aksnes (ASCII)
Ericsson signature: HI/ETO/TX/I KNA=09=09Phone: +47 37 05 14 81
Email: eto...@etn.ericsson.se (internet) ETO.ETOKNA (memo)
Sascha Pawlowski
Tarl Roger Kudrick wrote:
> AS I RECALL, her main points were:
> 1) Not enough money on the women's tour to make women give up
> their day jobs to practice (although now, in 1996, I think there's
I don't think that's it. If women were equally skilled in pool as men,
couldn't they simply go and win the major open tournaments? Isn't there
a need for a women's tour just because they can't keep up with the men?
Bye
Sascha
dougg
>==========Ron Shepard, 8/6/96==========
>
>One bad thing about the current cultural influence is the emphasis on
>winning. Someone with good intentions gave a hat to my 8 year
>old son the
>other day, and on the inside it says "Second place is another
>name for the
>first loser". This "winner take all" attitude is something I disagree
>very strongly about. Competitiveness is fine, and competition is great,
>but it should be enjoyed for itself, not simply as a means to determine
>the winner. I think if we continue to take the fun out of
>competition, as
>"winner take all" does, then our culture will be for the worse as a
>result.
Ron,
I just wanted to comment on this point ... I agree this is a
serious problem. I think it's rediculous if 50 people are
competing in an event to say there were 49 losers and one
winner. One way to look at it is that anyone who finished in
the top half (25 people) were winners.
Someone who finished 49th in the last event and finished 35th in
this event might consider it a personal victory. Certainly, the
idea that whoever finished second out of 50 is a loser doesn't
make sense.
In the case of the Olympics, this stuff gets even more
rediculous. We're not talking about second out of 50; we're
talking about second in the whole world ... WOW! To say that
winning a silver medal is the same as losing is
stupid/rediculous/pompus/dumb/arrogant/etc.
I can't remember buying anything Nike anyway; but, I will make
sure I don't buy anything from them in the future. Something
must be done to keep these types of people from brainwashing our
children ... and us.
The only time it bothers me really bad to lose is when I know I
didn't play as good as I am. Many times I have lost in sporting
events or pool and said ... hey, that's as good as I am ... I
played average for me ... no excuses. But, I have played awful
(the past VNEA playoffs is a good example) and that does really
bother me.
I know that one very seldom plays average ... you usually play
either better than average or worse than average. Given this, I
understand that I didn't necessarily choke (because I played
below average) but I feel like I choked whether I did or not. I
think we usually expect to either play average or above average
but it just doesn't work that way.
Doug Gilliam
SGLipper
Barry Milliken wrote:
>I recommend care when watching pros play. Last year, watching the
Gordons
>tournaments on TV, I can remember at least 2 occasions when the
>commentator said something like "Its not like Loree Jon to miss by that
>much". What she was actually attempting was not the obvious shot but a
>carom into the 9, which she almost made.
Do you think it makes sense to attack my knowledge of the game, when all I
was doing was reporting what I saw? And do you think that I would even be
reading this newsgroup if I couldn't tell she was trying a carom or a
safe, or even a two-way shot? Well, I take that back, because there are
many novices that write in, which is fine. But if I were just learning
the game, I probably would not be commenting on the women's play. And
this still does not explain the shaky stroke.
Barry also wrote:
>Well, if you were there, why didn't you look for yourself. I'll check
the
>board when I'm there next, but I recall seeing something in the 70-80
>range by Jeanette Lee.
According to my entire message, I did mention that Jeanette is capable of
such runs, and I also wrote that the run in the twenties was not the high
run. It was merely listed, which is bad enough.
If you were really significantly offended by my comments (for whatever
reason), then that is just a difference of opinion. But it seems like you
feel a need to rebut for the simple reason that you refuse to believe my
point about the women.
LEON3MN
Dougg <doug.g...@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> wrote:
Ron Shepard wrote:
>>
>>One bad thing about the current cultural influence is the emphasis on
>>winning. Someone with good intentions gave a hat to my 8 year
>>old son the
>>other day, and on the inside it says "Second place is another
>>name for the
>>first loser". This "winner take all" attitude is something I disagree
>>very strongly about. Competitiveness is fine, and competition is great,
>>but it should be enjoyed for itself, not simply as a means to determine
>>the winner. I think if we continue to take the fun out of
>>competition, as
>>"winner take all" does, then our culture will be for the worse as a
>>result.
>>$.02 -Ron Shepard
>I just wanted to comment on this point ... I agree this is a
>serious problem. I think it's rediculous if 50 people are
>competing in an event to say there were 49 losers and one
>winner. One way to look at it is that anyone who finished in
>the top half (25 people) were winners.
>Doug Gilliam
These discussions remind me of a joke about America-Russia competitiveness
at the height of the cold war. I've updated it and made it relevant to
rsb'ers:
At the 2004 Olympics, there were only two entrants to the Olympic
Pool/Billiard Competiton, Joe Smith of the USA and Slavak Kochenski of
Russia. After an exhaustive duel, Joe Smith took the game 11 to 10. He
was awarded the Gold, and Slavak was awarded the Silver. No Bronze was
given since there were only these two competitors.
The dispatch to the rest of the world stated as such: Gold to USA, Silver
to Russia. However, the Russian Correspondent's dispatch to Pravda (O.K.,
Pravda has folded, but who's to say Murdock doesn't buy it and resuscitate
it) goes as follows:
"AFTER HEAVY DUEL, COMRADE SLAVAK CAME ONE GAME SHORT OF TAKING THE GOLD.
WITH JUST ONE COUNTRY IN FRONT OF HIM, HE LEADS THE REST OF THE WORLD AND
TAKES THE SILVER MEDAL. AMERICA'S SOLE ENTRY CAME DEAD NEXT TO LAST."
LeonW
Frederick Agnir
Bob Jewett wrote:
>
> WCrimi (wcr...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : If Allison Fisher had a break, she'd be one of the better players
> : on the men's tour.
>
> I played her at the BCA Trade Show. She broke and ran out the first
> rack, then broke and didn't make anything and I ran out. I had to leave
> then. I'd like to think that makes us even. The thing that impressed
> me most about her play was how she could fire in balls a hundred miles
> an hour when she had to for position.
>
She's pretty cute too.
--
Freddie
Frederick Agnir
Tarl Roger Kudrick wrote:
> Logically, there's simply no reason for
> men to be better at pool than women, because size and strength have
> nothing to do with pool. This isn't long jumping or basketball. This isn't
I am not a doctor, physical therapist, or infomercial specialist. But I
do know that there are a multitude of physiological differences between
men and women that are overlooked that must make an impact on any
SPORTING COMPETITION.
I'll leave it to the physiologists for reasoning and explanations (or
rebuttles) but here's a few to consider.
1.) Testosterone and adrenaline. On the break, which gender has more
of these?
2) Shape. When Steve Mizerak was winning, he wasn't nearly as round.
There are also not too many (on average) large great pool players. I
can't recall seeing any overly round snooker players either; snooker is
a discipline that demands a low shooting profile for accurate shot
making. What does this have to do with women? You guessed it,
BREASTS. I am not trying to be sexist here, but we've all seen women's
breasts get in the way of stroking. This also may cause imbalance, and
therefore too much effort may be placed in balancing, and not in
shooting. Large breasts may eliminate 1/2 the pool playing women to
ever become great.
3.) Strength Ratio. A man's upper body is stronger than a woman's
body, as far as strength to body mass ratio is concerned. That means
that on stretch shots, a man has no problem holding his body up with his
stronger back and arm. Women may have problems.
4.) Center of gravity. Men have a higher center of gravity than
women. I have no idea what the consequences would be, but again, this
difference is real and rears its head in several athletic endeavors.
Why not in pool? Center of gravity must be important in there
somewhere.
> More, I'm a psychologist (Master's candidate) whose area of
> expertise is rapidly becoming personality development, especially in the
> field of achievement motivation.
My bet is still on physiological, not psychological.
--
Freddie
Frank Glenn
Frederick Agnir <oha...@infinet.com> wrote:
>Tarl Roger Kudrick wrote:
>> Logically, there's simply no reason for
>> men to be better at pool than women, because size and strength have
>> nothing to do with pool. This isn't long jumping or basketball. This isn't
>> even golf, where women don't drive balls as far as men.
after you learn to play, it takes 15 years to become "World Class".
The women as a general rule haven't been playing that long. I know, I
know there are some (Jones/Fisher), but AS A RULE, they are new to the
game. Being a good shotmaker doe not make you world class. Experience
does.
Frank (far from word class) Glenn
Dan Allred
In article <Dvtz6...@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM>, dougg
<doug.g...@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> writes:
>Someone who finished 49th in the last event and finished 35th in
>this event might consider it a personal victory. Certainly, the
>idea that whoever finished second out of 50 is a loser doesn't
>make sense.
>
>
Thank goodness for society that it does make sense for at least some people.
A philosophy that "I'm satisfied with my performance--even if I came in
second" is identical to the philosophy that "I'm satisfied with things the
way they are." If everybody thought that way through history, where would we
be now? There would probably be only two newsgroups that we would be
drumming out on our drums: alt.rocks.like and alt.rocks.dislike.
A truly competitive person shouldn't be satisfied with his or her
performance--even if he or she won, because that would signify that no
further improvement is possible.
IMHO, there are no physiological or psychological barriers preventing women
from reaching the highest levels of competitive cue sports. Robert Byrne
talked about a Japanese female billiard player, Masako Katsura, who could
compete with her male counterparts on an equal footing. The key to her
success was the same as that of lot of the top male players: a keen interest
and an early and unlimited access to a billiard room.
The primary barrier, I believe, is early sociological conditioning. "Daddy's
not going to take his little girl into a pool hall." "Pool is a boy's
sport." "Pool is mathematics and girls don't like mathematics." "It's not
whether you win, but how you play the game..." If you get enough of that
CRAP in your early life, you actually begin to believe it. Usually, by the
time a woman learns that pool can be a fascinating sport, she's in her late
teens and it's too late to become really great at it.
DB Allred OKC
Carl M. Pearson
In article <Dvtz6...@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM>,
>The only time it bothers me really bad to lose is when I know I
>didn't play as good as I am.
Losing?
Bothered by Losing?
HA! I LAUGH at Losing!
Losing doesn't bother me!
I do it all the time.
'Cept when I win.
Carl
kplews
2) Shape. When Steve Mizerak was winning, he wasn't nearly as round.
There are also not too many (on average) large great pool players. I
can't recall seeing any overly round snooker players either; snooker is
a discipline that demands a low shooting profile for accurate shot
making. What does this have to do with women? You guessed it,
BREASTS. I am not trying to be sexist here, but we've all seen women's
breasts get in the way of stroking. This also may cause imbalance, and
therefore too much effort may be placed in balancing, and not in
shooting. Large breasts may eliminate 1/2 the pool playing women to
ever become great.
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the comments posted on why top pro women aren't as
skilled as top pro men in pool and appreciate that this
newsgroup has writers that are decent gentlemen. The following
comment is meant as an honest opinion and in no way am I
inviting slimy responses....I'm married and a serious 8 ball player....
Regarding breasts getting in the way, I think the opposite is
true, for me anyway as I'm certainly no Dolly Parton. A friend
with a lot of tournament experience was giving me (a beginner)
some instruction in 8 ball one evening and actually suggested
that I position the cue stick against my torso, right under my
breast, explaining that this will ensure keeping the cue stick
stroke straight (gee say that 5 times fast!) and let me tell
you, I've been playing often for the last year with this
technique and beat most opponents in the bars! And no, my
friend was not getting cheap thrills, cause he's gay.
I'm curious to know if the other women reading this use the same
technique, because I see it as an advantage, not a hindrance!
Regards,
Kris
Paul Meyers
Dan Allred wrote:
> <stuff deleted>
>
> The primary barrier, I believe, is early sociological conditioning. "Daddy's
> not going to take his little girl into a pool hall." "Pool is a boy's
> sport." "Pool is mathematics and girls don't like mathematics." "It's not
> whether you win, but how you play the game..." If you get enough of that
> CRAP in your early life, you actually begin to believe it.
Dan,
I'm not sure what you are tring to say here. Having goals are great... That is
what keeps people going and moving forward. When a goal is obtained,
re-evalutation is done and new goals are formulated. However, if people set
goals that are unobtainable, then failure will result and no positive progress
will be made towards ones goals. Goals are a person thing. One persons goals
and values may differ from another persons.
To look at how one plays (regardless of winning or losing) is to evaluate ones
progress towards a goal. Honest reflection and messuring can be used to
determine if ones goals are to high or to low for the current time. The same
person at age 20 will have different goals then at the age of 40.
In defeat, (which is where I think you have the most problems with the above
statement) can be a learning experience. To honestly walk away with a good
understanding of how you performed and what to work on is very powerful. To
realize that you performed above your average level is useful knowledge and
can be used as an advantage. But to look at any competition in black and white,
win/lose, etc, is a simplist and limiting view of the world.
In all forms of competition, one must ask the following question:
1) Why did I win?
- did I perpare better, more practice (both physical and mental),
- was it due to my opponent-
- lack of practice (both physical and mental)
- level of play not up to par
- not as skill as you
- etc
- lucky breaks (this might be a result of practice.)
-etc
2) Why did I lose?
- not enought practice
- opponent just better than I today
- unlucky breaks (lack of practice or practice of oppenent)
- etc
> Usually, by the
> time a woman learns that pool can be a fascinating sport, she's in her late
> teens and it's too late to become really great at it.
>
> DB Allred OKC
Just some thoughts,
Paul Meyers
DBAllred
In article <320FC4...@rosemail.hp.com>, Paul Meyers
<mey...@rosemail.hp.com> writes:
>I'm not sure what you are tring to say here. Having goals are great...
That
>is
>what keeps people going and moving forward. When a goal is obtained,
>re-evalutation is done and new goals are formulated. However, if people
set
>goals that are unobtainable, then failure will result and no positive
>progress
>will be made towards ones goals. Goals are a person thing. One persons
>goals
>and values may differ from another persons.
>
>To look at how one plays (regardless of winning or losing) is to evaluate
>ones
>progress towards a goal. Honest reflection and messuring can be used to
>determine if ones goals are to high or to low for the current time. The
same
>person at age 20 will have different goals then at the age of 40.
>In defeat, (which is where I think you have the most problems with the
above
>statement) can be a learning experience.
I have no problem with anything you are saying here. In fact, I think I
tried to say the same thing from a different angle with a different point:
The competitive spirit gets a lot of bad press from people who seem to
believe it is harmful. Of course, one's realistic expectations of
performance or improvement of performance should vary. Even if you're 80
years old and you can't really expect to play as well as you did 30 years
ago, you can still express the feeling, "I know I can do better than I
just played." Being the best in the world or even being finishing in the
top half of a neighborhood tournament may be an unrealistic goal, but
being dissatisfied with specific parts of your performance and knowing
that you could have done better is totally realistic and necessary if you
want to retain the competitive spirit.
I do believe, though, there are limits to the therapeutic effects of
competition. When adults, for example, use their children as proxies to
compete against other adults the effects can be devastating to the mental
and physical well-being of the children... But that's a different thread
for a different newsgroup, like, maybe, rec.sports.olympic.gymnastics or
rec.aviation.records.
DB Allred OKC
Jeffrey Weiss
There was a question about the high runs posted at Amsterdam Billiards. On the
Women's side, Jeanette's 74 leads the pack. Following that are a 71, a 41, and
a 31. That's it.
The Men's side has all three-digit runs, I believe, led by something in the 250
range if memory serves. There are about a dozen Men's high runs posted.
BTW, congratulations to Barry Milliken for scoring his personal best run in
last week's league match. I'll leave it to him to post details if he's
interested. His run - while modest by professional standards - was right up
there with the best one or two runs that have been achieved against me in my 35
matches since joining the league. I think the only higher run I've been a
victim of was by a guy who'd be spotting Barry about 50 balls in our
handicapped games to 100.
--
jw
Carl M. Pearson
In article <4va52i$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, inno...@aol.com says...
......
>So there I am, balanced on one foot straddling the rail and sliding a
>shaft through my fingers. The table is pushing into my sex and the slight
>vibration of the balls hitting the rail...
......
>....The sound of a break sends a shiver through my body.....
......
>Perhaps it's the fact that we can hide the arousal that makes us more
>susceptible than you guys.
......
>More leaning over the table, more chauking that cue tip. And all the time we
>we squeeze our eyes shut and grip that shaft a little harder when you break.
......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHOA! DAMMIT! WHOA!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I accidentally dork up a TCP/IP address, or hit ctl-alt-sex
and get redirected from rec.sport.billiard to
alt.sex.canyon.shot.takeme.takeme.i.cant.stand.it ?????
Am I playing in the wrong pool hall or what?
No, I didn't write it, even though I have been accused of
being the resident r.s.b pervert. NOT TRUE!
I betcha we have encountered an electro-transvestite rsb'er! Oh No!
Hmmmm. On the SUPER-SLIM chance this was a legitimate post,
could you, like, on-the-sly-so-all-the-rsb'ers-don't-find-out,
e-mail me 200 or 300 jpeg's with you at/on the table? Huhh?
Name, address, phone, pool hall, game of choice, weight desired (wild-8?) and
OTheR ImPOrTaNt (sorry, getting excited) preferrences would
also be appreciated. Include salary requirements.
>......
>More leaning over the table, more chauking that cue tip. And all the time
>we squeeze our eyes shut and grip that shaft a little harder....
>......
Hurry!
Carl
;^)
Innocuous
Kris was brave enough to embrace some of questions about woman-ness and
inherent pool skill. I think we women have a much harder time focusing on
the game. Especially if there's a cute guy in the crowd and I'm in the
mood.
Consider this... occasionally we have a long "embrace the table with your
legs" kind of shot. Experience has shown what if we wear any kind of a
tight skirt that we risk giving a "canyon shot". So we have to wear pants
or a loose skirt, both of which bring us into intimate contact with the
table.
Frankly, the mind wanders as I bend over that table. And yes, I've made
some shots just so I could point my "invitation" to that cute guy in the
crowd or at the next table.
So there I am, balanced on one foot straddling the rail and sliding a
shaft through my fingers. The table is pushing into my sex and the slight
vibration of the balls hitting the rail...well..you know. What do you
think is going through my mind. Come on you guys, haven't you've noticed
your date lingers a little longer on those shots.
Once my mind crosses over that line, I'm lost. Every pocketed ball takes
on a new meaning. Finally it's all I can do to keep from sliding off my
chair. The sound of a break sends a shiver through my body that is only
given away by the white knuckle grip I have on my cue.
Perhaps it's the fact that we can hide the arousal that makes us more
susceptible than you guys. After all, It would look kind of funny if you
were to walk up and bump the rail with your hips, or appear shooting with
your buddies in an obvious state of "wood".
I've asked my girlfriends who shoot pool and they have all confirmed my
experience. We can start a game in all seriousness, be focused, centered,
and shoot good. But when that thought enters, and it will, if we loose
focus for just a minute, then our shoots take on a whole new meaning. More
leaning over the table, more chauking that cue tip. And all the time we
sit demurely watching your game. Just don't notice that we squeeze our
eyes shut and grip that shaft a little harder when you break. When you
win, I win.
Frederick Agnir
Innocuous wrote:
>
> Once my mind crosses over that line, I'm lost. Every pocketed ball takes
> on a new meaning. Finally it's all I can do to keep from sliding off my
> chair. The sound of a break sends a shiver through my body that is only
> given away by the white knuckle grip I have on my cue.
>
> Perhaps it's the fact that we can hide the arousal that makes us more
> susceptible than you guys. After all, It would look kind of funny if you
> were to walk up and bump the rail with your hips, or appear shooting with
> your buddies in an obvious state of "wood".
>
> I've asked my girlfriends who shoot pool and they have all confirmed my
> experience. We can start a game in all seriousness, be focused, centered,
> and shoot good. But when that thought enters, and it will, if we loose
> focus for just a minute, then our shoots take on a whole new meaning. More
> leaning over the table, more chauking that cue tip. And all the time we
> sit demurely watching your game. Just don't notice that we squeeze our
> eyes shut and grip that shaft a little harder when you break. When you
> win, I win.
Where did you say you live?
--
Freddie
P Street
Maybe you should try bowling. The women I know that visit this newsgroup
respect the game and concentrate on solids and stripes, not the other
kind of balls..........
Bill P.
On 19 Aug 1996 12:34:26 -0400, inno...@aol.com (Innocuous) wrote:
>Kris was brave enough to embrace some of questions about woman-ness and
>inherent pool skill. I think we women have a much harder time focusing on
>the game. Especially if there's a cute guy in the crowd and I'm in the
>mood.
>
>Consider this... occasionally we have a long "embrace the table with your
>legs" kind of shot. Experience has shown what if we wear any kind of a
>tight skirt that we risk giving a "canyon shot". So we have to wear pants
>or a loose skirt, both of which bring us into intimate contact with the
>table.
>
>Frankly, the mind wanders as I bend over that table. And yes, I've made
>some shots just so I could point my "invitation" to that cute guy in the
>crowd or at the next table.
>
>So there I am, balanced on one foot straddling the rail and sliding a
>shaft through my fingers. The table is pushing into my sex and the slight
>vibration of the balls hitting the rail...well..you know. What do you
>think is going through my mind. Come on you guys, haven't you've noticed
>your date lingers a little longer on those shots.
>
Will you marry me ?
We can honeymoon at the local Pool Hall.
LEON3MN
The original posting was so lyrical that it must have been written by a
literate person and not a Bimbo. So for more tongue-in-cheek prose about
the difference between men and women, I submit the following (the gist of
the story was from an e-mail from my wife, and the original original
source might be Matt Groenig, the author of "Women speak in estrogen and
men listen in testosterone." I have embellished it and modified it to be
relevant to this news group):
Let's say a guy named Carl is attracted to a woman named Ann he sees play
sometime in the local pool hall. He asks her to play a round of 8 ball;
she accepts; they have a pretty good time. A few nights later he asks her
out to dinner, and again they enjoy themselves. They still frequent the
pool hall where they first met, and now play each other and with other
friends, as well. They see each other regularly, and after a while
neither one of them is seeing anybody else.
And then, one evening when they' were playing 8 ball, a thought occurs to
Ann, and, without really thinking, she says it aloud: ''Do you realize
that,
as of tonight, we've been seeing each other for exactly six months?''
And then there is silence. To Ann, it seems like a very loud silence.
She thinks to herself: Geez, I wonder if it bothers him that I said that.
Maybe he's been feeling confined by our relationship; maybe he thinks I'm
trying to push him into some kind of obligation that he doesn't want, or
isn't sure of.
And Carl is thinking: Gosh. Six months.
And Ann is thinking: But, hey, I'm not so sure I want this kind of
relationship, either. Sometimes I wish I had a little more space, so I'd
have time to think about whether I really want us to keep going the way we
are, moving steadily toward . . . I mean, where are we going? Are we just
going to keep seeing each other at this level of intimacy? Are we
heading toward marriage? Toward children? Toward a lifetime together?
Am I ready for that level of commitment? Do I really even know this
person?
And Carl is thinking: . . . so that means it was . . . let's see . . .
February when we started going out, which was right after I had the tip of
my cue replaced at that cue store, which means . . . lemme check the tip .
. . Whoa! I am way down and due for a new tip here.
And Ann is thinking: He's upset. I can see it on his face. Maybe I'm
reading this completely wrong. Maybe he wants more from our relationship,
more intimacy, more commitment; maybe he has sensed -- even before I
sensed it -- that I was feeling some reservations. Yes, I bet that's it.
That's why he's so reluctant to say anything about his own feelings. He's
afraid of being rejected.
And Carl is thinking: And I'm gonna have them put on a new tip for free
this time. I don't care what those morons said, it's not lasting as it
should. And they better not try to blame it on the way I shoot this time.
What abuse? I shoot like a p****y, and this thing is slothing off like a
damn snake skin, and I paid those bastards $40.
And Ann is thinking: He's angry. And I don't blame him. I'd be angry,
too. God, I feel so guilty, putting him through this, but I can't help
the way I feel. I'm just not sure.
And Carl is thinking: They'll probably say it's only a 90-day warranty.
That's exactly what they're gonna say, the scumballs.
And Ann is thinking: Maybe I'm just too idealistic, waiting for a knight
to come riding up on his white horse, when I'm sitting right next to a
perfectly good person, a person I enjoy being with, playing pool with, a
person I truly do care about, a person who seems to truly care about me. A
person who is in pain because of my self-centered, schoolgirl romantic
fantasy.
And Carl is thinking: Out of Warranty? They're going to pull that shtick
on me? I'll give them their damn warranty. I'll take their warranty and
their tip and my cue and stick it all right up their .... . .
''Carl,'' Ann says aloud.
''What?'' says Carl, startled.
''Please don't torture yourself like this,'' she says, her eyes beginning
to brim with tears. ''Maybe I should never have . . Oh God, I feel so .
.... . '' (She breaks down, sobbing.)
''What?'' says Carl.
''I'm such a fool,'' Ann sobs. ''I mean, I know there's no knight. I
really know that. It's silly. There's no knight, and there's no horse.''
''There's no horse?'' says Carl.
''You think I'm a fool, don't you?'' Ann says.
''No!'' says Carl, glad to finally know the correct answer.
''It's just that . . . It's that I . . . I need some time,'' Ann says.
(There is a 15-second pause while Carl, thinking as fast as he can,
tries to come up with a safe response. It's not her turn at the table, so
why does she need time, he thought. Finally he comes up with one response
that he thinks might work.)
''Yes,'' he says.
(Ann, deeply moved, touches his hand.)
''Oh, Carl, do you really feel that way?'' she says.
''What way?'' says Carl.
''That way about time,'' says Ann.
''Oh,'' says Carl. ''Yes.''
(Ann turns to face him and gazes deeply into his eyes, causing him to
become very nervous about what she might say next, especially if it
involves a horse. At last she speaks.)
''Thank you, Carl,'' she says.
''Thank you,'' says Carl.
Then he takes her home, and she lies on her bed, a conflicted, tortured
soul, and weeps until dawn, whereas when Carl gets back to his place, he
opens a bag of Doritos, pulls out a tape for his VCR, and immediately
becomes deeply involved in a rerun of a finals 9-Ball match from the Sands
XIV Tournament. A tiny voice in the far recesses of his mind tells him
that something major was going on back there in the pool room with Ann,
but he is pretty sure there is no way he would ever understand what, and
so he figures it's better if he doesn't think about it. (This is also
Carl's policy regarding world hunger.)
The next day Ann will call her closest friend, or perhaps two of them, and
they will talk about this situation for six straight hours. In
painstaking detail, they will analyze everything she said and everything
he said, going over it time and time again, exploring every word,
expression, and gesture for nuances of meaning, considering every possible
ramification. They will continue to discuss this subject, off and on, for
weeks, maybe months, never reaching any definite conclusions, but never
getting bored with it, either.
Meanwhile, Carl, while playing pool one day with a mutual friend of his
and Ann's, will pause just before shooting, frown, and say: 'PoolWizard,
did Ann ever own a horse?''
LeonW
Carl M. Pearson
In article <4ve5uj$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, leo...@aol.com says...
>Let's say a guy named Carl is attracted to a woman ............
>LeonW
Listen, dammit, did I get the new tip?
I gotta know.
Carl
Innocuous
Some friends encouraged me to post my feelings here saying this was a
"serious [frank]" discussion of the issues women have to deal with about
the pool table. So I did. And what happened?
Carl called me every which way but loose and then said. ...Oh, in case you
are a girl..." Have trouble with **Warning guys, it's the "C" word**
Commitment do you you Carl?
Then Freddie (Kruger?) asked for my address. Like, dah, I'm going to give
that out. I'm sure he wasn't serious , but compare that to Bill's proposal
of marriage.
Get out your "how to talk to a woman" notebooks guys - to you, "Where do
you live?" and "Will you marry me?" may seem like the same joke. But not
to a girl. a girl will take a "Will you marry me?" over a "Hey baby..."
any day. Notice the Mr. Kruger was only asking for something from me while
Mr. Bill put himself on the line by offering marriage." He was giving
something to me. A girl notices these things. So thank you Bill for asking
- but no.
Leon gave me a compliment - Thank you - and parodies a story, often
abbreviated in the Cathy Comic strip. We do go on a bit. I try to remember
the advice of an Improv comedian. He said,"Women are always trying to
figure out their man. It's simple. We have four basic needs. The need for
sex. The need for food. The need for toys. And the need to be left alone.
If you are having problems with your man it's because you've run afoul of
one of those four needs. If you make it any more complex than that, you
are off the track." Judging from the applause of the males in the
audience, I figured there was some truth to it.
I wanted to comment on LFER98B's response last, then leave you boys alone.
He/She suggested I take up bowling. If I have trouble with the symbolism
and physicality of pool, how do you think I'd feel picking up a bowling
ball. Use your imagination....I do.
But LFER equates "serious" with lack of passion. I remember watching a
major Tennis tournament with Martina Navratilova and her partner. These
are very "serious" players. After the pair had won the tournament they
were interviewed coming off the court.
Interviewer: "You and your partner were laughing a bit when you changed
sides. What were you laughing about?"
Martina: "We were talking about sex."
Interviewer [stammering]: "No seriously, what where you discussing?"
Martina, "Sex is serious."
and she walked off.
The point is, she can play at top level and still enjoy her sexuality. She
can take that passion and channel it.
If you think being serious means turning off your sex drive or that "real"
pool players don't think about sex during the game, I feel sorry for you.
I sometimes get horny when I play and my girlfriends do too. We are in a
room overflowing with testosterone for goodness sake. And I've already
described some of the images I have to deal with. It's hard to concentrate
and times. But so what. It's fun to walk around with that little tingle
between my legs; to feel a little "squishy." But when it comes [yeah you
guys are gonna have fun with this, aren't you], I consider it a gift. I
play with a smile on my face. The situation becomes lighter. I'm sharing a
moment with friends rather that "trying to beat" somebody. As long as I
can keep somewhat focused it elevates the whole game for me.
What do you think is a more healthy persective: To welcome and celebrate a
human condition, enjoy the gestalt of the entire situation, or to deny
your sexuality and "annihilate" the other guy. I like to think of pool
like golf. I'm not out so much to beat the other guy as I am to respond to
the challenge the table gives me. If in the process I get turned
on...goodie!
You indicated that this newsgroup was about facts/truth and that my post
was contrary to that goal. I'll just quote from one of my favorite actors
(who is loaded with testosterone), Jack N..."Truth, you can't handle the
truth!"
So I'll leave your newsgroup alone so you can go back to being comfortable
in your passionless world.
Bob Jewett
Innocuous (inno...@aol.com) wrote:
...
: So I'll leave your newsgroup alone so you can go back to being
: comfortable in your passionless world.
You haven't noticed the passion here? Stick around, you might
catch some.
Bob Jewett
Frank Glenn
Carl M. Pearson <carl_p...@datamatic.com> wrote in article
<504csq$3...@news.onramp.net>...
> In article <503ido$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, inno...@aol.com says...
> >....
> >Carl called me every which way but loose and then said. ...Oh, in case
you
> >are a girl..." Have trouble with **Warning guys, it's the "C" word**
> >Commitment do you you Carl?
> >....
snip
I like sex, but this is a billiard group. I read this group for billiard
stuff. I'm trying to improve my billiard ability. I don't need advice on
sex, I do that quite well. I also enjoy a good joke, but I'm not sure if
the original post was a joke or some one trolling to get a flame contest
going. In either case, this group is about billiards.
Frank
Carl M. Pearson
In article <503ido$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, inno...@aol.com says...
>....
>Carl called me every which way but loose and then said. ...Oh, in case you
>are a girl..." Have trouble with **Warning guys, it's the "C" word**
>Commitment do you you Carl?
>....
>in your passionless world.
I,
Damsel d'Pool, I encourage you to
continue legitimate posts.
Your post was certainly out the ordinary,
and if you are the slightest bit skeptical,
(all pool players are) then a verbal bump
or two should not put you off your game,
regardless of the texture of the balls.
AND my world is far from passionless.
It's just that it would disturb my
concentration to work-a-woody during
tournament play.
Now afterwards...............
Carl
Nostiff
Innocuous wrote If you think real pool players don't think about sex
during the game......sometimes I get horny when I play......It's fun to
walk around with a little tingle between my legs, to feel a little
squishy.
..........................................................................
.............................................
I WAS thinking about this post the last time I was practicing and found
it very difficult bending over and shooting those reach shots, thought I
broke my "stick" OUCH!.....I do want to be a "real" player and I think
it's best to keep my mind on shooting.... for safety reasons if not for
any other. There are times to shoot balls and times to shoot your stick
and I don't think the two should be mixed....ahh....Does anybody know of
any salve,ointment or anything
Bud....learned to keep his Head... in the game
P Street
Innoucuous ad nauseum.................
Really, Why not post a note on one of the sex boards?
You won't have to leave your home to get squishy..
To bowl is to bend over
Use your head
And keep pumpin in those quarters
Passionless LFER
bb
On 29 Aug 1996 03:55:36 -0400, inno...@aol.com (Innocuous) wrote:
>Some friends encouraged me to post my feelings here saying this was a
>"serious [frank]" discussion of the issues women have to deal with about
>the pool table. So I did. And what happened?
>
>Carl called me every which way but loose and then said. ...Oh, in case you
>are a girl..." Have trouble with **Warning guys, it's the "C" word**
>Commitment do you you Carl?
>
>So I'll leave your newsgroup alone so you can go back to being comfortable
>in your passionless world.
I am only going to ask this one more time.
Will you marry me ???
Don't rush think it over I think our passion for pool and sex could
make a strong foundation for a long and happy life togethers.
Bill
Carl M. Pearson
In article <322677dc...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, he...@There.com says...>....
>>Carl called me every which way but loose and then said. ...Oh, in case you
>>are a girl..." Have trouble with **Warning guys, it's the "C" word**
>>Commitment do you you Carl?
>I am only going to ask this one more time.
>Will you marry me ???
>Don't rush think it over I think our passion for pool and sex could
>make a strong foundation for a long and happy life togethers.
>Bill
Bill, Dear.
Well, Bill, these ARE the 90's, with this kind of
thing going on all over and even in the legislature
where they want to legalize this kind of marriage.
But I am truly flattered that you feel moved to ask
my hand in marriage. But I have an admission to
make...................I'm hetero. There! I've
said it, and I feel good to have THAT off my chest.
If you can handle that, then there is hope for us.
It simply means that YOU are the one who is going
to wear the dress. I am Carl. Sometimes Carlo,
when I'm traveling incognito. NOT Carla.
Whazat you say? Oh, the message was NOT for me?
Sorry. Nevermind. I just gotta pay better attention.
Carl
ps: Glad you like pool.
pps: Glad you like sex.
ppps: Could you send me a picture of you in a dress, anyway?
;^)
Chuck Woo
In article <jewettDw...@netcom.com>, Bob Jewett <jew...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: So I'll leave your newsgroup alone so you can go back to being
>: comfortable in your passionless world.
>
>catch some.
ever see the movie "Altered States"? where the scientist guy is thinking
about science stuff while having sex? that's what passion is all about
in RSB. I think. maybe Bob's got other ideas...
personally, I don't take any post seriously if it's not signed with a real-
sounding name or tagged with an email address. not to say I don't like
the idea of cues and breasts... oh, strike that last part. no, wait, never
mind, keep the last part. uh huh huh, huh huh.
- Chuck
Innocuous
Frank, my post didn't gave any sex advice. The tread is called "
The Women.." after all, isn't it. And the question was about performance
at a pool table. I was explaining feelings that naturally occur, and the
concentration issues I have to deal with. You so easily missed my point.
Men...sheeech.
Let's pretend that you are naked in a room full of girls and have to shoot
a game of pool. Are you saying that you can be relaxed, poised, and shoot
your best game? We are constantly undressed by men when we play. We can
see it in your eyes. But you'd rather not admit that. Sounds like you are
more comfortable discussing angles, caulk tenacity, and wrap texture. I'm
sure those topics have their own thread in this newsgroup. Perhaps
someday you will be comfortable sharing the feelings/emotions/intentions
that occur in any human interaction, even pool.
If you want to know what I think is obscene, what puts my panties in a
bunch, watch an ESPN Billiards Couples tournament. The guys are always
showing the woman what to shoot and how to shoot it. That's about the most
degrading and demoralizing demonstration I've seen towards women in the
sport of pool.
Chuck, if you were a woman, your "net" experience would be very different
from what you know as a guy. We have to be far more protective.
I thought a newsgroup was a place for candid and open exchange of
information and ideas. I enjoy pool and thought I had chosen the
appropriate thread to share something that was true for me. Apparently I
was wrong. I'm outta here.
Oh, LFER love, it's not bending over to pick up the bowling ball that
would get me sweaty. It's inserting my fingers in the holes.
la...@psu.edu
In Article<507viq$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, <inno...@aol.com> writes:
> I thought a newsgroup was a place for candid and open exchange of
> information and ideas. I enjoy pool and thought I had chosen the
> appropriate thread to share something that was true for me. Apparently
I
> was wrong. I'm outta here.
>
Oops, sorry for the previous blank post. What's happening here? It
looks like this newsgroup is about to loose a valuable contributor. I
missed most of this thread, but I hope whatever lead to this person's
"outta here" can somehow be undone. It may be a little early to pass
judgement on this group. I hope you reconsider. No doubt, pool draws
out many archtypal feelings buried deep in our psyche. Pool certainly
could be viewed as a metaphore that challenges the strongest of egos in
restraint of the Id. A person could turn this to their advantage. Give
us another chance. Loren
la...@psu.edu
In Article<507viq$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, <inno...@aol.com> writes:
> I thought a newsgroup was a place for candid and open exchange of
> information and ideas. I enjoy pool and thought I had chosen the
> appropriate thread to share something that was true for me. Apparently
I
> was wrong. I'm outta here.
>
Bill Pierpont
On 30 Aug 1996 13:50:18 GMT, carl_p...@datamatic.com (Carl M.
Pearson) wrote:
>In article <322677dc...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, he...@There.com says...
>>
>>On 29 Aug 1996 03:55:36 -0400, inno...@aol.com (Innocuous) wrote:
>>....
>>>Carl called me every which way but loose and then said. ...Oh, in case you
>>>are a girl..." Have trouble with **Warning guys, it's the "C" word**
>>>Commitment do you you Carl?
>>>.....
>>I am only going to ask this one more time.
>>Will you marry me ???
>>Don't rush think it over I think our passion for pool and sex could
>>make a strong foundation for a long and happy life togethers.
>>Bill
>
>
>Bill, Dear.
>
>Well, Bill, these ARE the 90's, with this kind of
>thing going on all over and even in the legislature
>where they want to legalize this kind of marriage.
>
>But I am truly flattered that you feel moved to ask
>my hand in marriage. But I have an admission to
>make...................I'm hetero. There! I've
>said it, and I feel good to have THAT off my chest.
>
>If you can handle that, then there is hope for us.
>It simply means that YOU are the one who is going
>to wear the dress. I am Carl. Sometimes Carlo,
>when I'm traveling incognito. NOT Carla.
>
>Whazat you say? Oh, the message was NOT for me?
>
>Sorry. Nevermind. I just gotta pay better attention.
>
>Carl
>
>ps: Glad you like pool.
>pps: Glad you like sex.
>ppps: Could you send me a picture of you in a dress, anyway?
>;^)
>
>
Sorry I have no dresses and I'm hetero also
But if you like pool and sex weeeelllllll...... no never mind.
BTW it wasn't you I wanted to marry.
Bill
Carl M. Pearson
In article <3227d504...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
six...@worldnet.att.net says...
>BTW it wasn't you I wanted to marry.
>Bill
(BIG EXHALE)
Nice to know. I am sure to sleep better at night!
Carlo
Hustler
C'mon Bill, have some pride for God's sake.
la...@psu.edu
> > On 29 Aug 1996 03:55:36 -0400, inno...@aol.com (Innocuous) wrote:
> > >What do you think is a more healthy persective: To welcome and
celebrate a
> > >human condition, enjoy the gestalt of the entire situation, or to
deny
> > >your sexuality and "annihilate" the other guy.
I would rather capitalize on my sexuality *and* annihilate the other guy.
Now that is healthy! Does Kurt Koffka play pool? The sum of the parts
is greater than the hole. I just can't stand it.
Tom
inno...@aol.com (Innocuous) wrote:
Please refer to this clip of "Inno's" post
>If you think being serious means turning off your sex drive or that "real"
>pool players don't think about sex during the game, I feel sorry for you.
> Jack N..."Truth, you can't handle the
>truth!"
>
>So I'll leave your newsgroup alone so you can go back to being comfortable
>in your passionless world.
I've learned a few things about a pool hall and pool in general in the
last 30 some years;
1. Pool is "sex"
a. "Kiss" shots
B. something "long and Hard" in your hands while you are performing.
c. instant "gratification" for doing well (ball goes in pocket)
d. the corners on pockets are usually referred to a "Tits"
e. And if you play well you don't get screwed
2. When a real pretty woman walks into a pool hall, only the most focused
of players will NOT notice, but just until they miss, then they will
join the rest.
The Truth can be handled if you know what it actually is.
What ever Innocuous is, it sturred up emotions and comics in the rsb...
Keep it up
Carl M. Pearson
In article <50d0vm$n...@yamato.fuse.net>, suar...@fuse.net says...
>1. Pool is "sex"
> a. "Kiss" shots
> B. something "long and Hard" in your hands while you are performing.
> c. instant "gratification" for doing well (ball goes in pocket)
> d. the corners on pockets are usually referred to a "Tits"
> e. And if you play well you don't get screwed
>2. When a real pretty woman walks into a pool hall, only the most focused
> of players will NOT notice, but just until they miss, then they will
> join the rest.
OH GOD I LOVE IT WHEN YOU ALL TALK DIRTY TO ME!
I wonder if Inno is listening? And her orientation.
Just to cover all the bases.....hate to miss the boat.....
CARLA
A lebsian trapped in a man's body.
Yup, a lebsian who shoots stirps and solids.
(Aw, man, not another alter ego! I gotta find a shrink.)
Bill Pierpont
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996 22:11:42 -0400, Hustler <Hus...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>
>C'mon Bill, have some pride for God's sake.
What does that mean ?
I have pride in my game and my stroke. ;-)
Anyone want a picture of my stick ?
Nathan Webb
Dear Innocuous,
Up until this point, I have kept my keyboard still during this thread,
prefering not to pass judgment on someone that I don't yet know. But
unfortunately now it seems that the thread is about to lose the person
who made it what it was. Original, it was simply an unconsious attempt
by someone to put women in their place. Now, it has become one of the
most enjoyable threads that I have read in this newsgroup.
Thankyou for showing me this ills of my ways. I had for too long only
concerned myself with banging my balls around a table. I realise now
that while I was trying to improve my technique, I should have been
trying to improve my style. Never will I criticise a woman at the table
(not that I have!) now that I understand their problems. Now I feel
that I understand what my young female friend meant when she said that
her large breasts got in the way of a good game.
Don't leave us to flounder on our own.
Nathan Webb
xt...@airmail.net
inno...@aol.com (Innocuous) wrote:
>... You so easily missed my point.
>Men...sheeech.
Thank you for stopping by. I have thoroughly enjoyed all of your
posts, as have most of the rest of us. (As you know, we just aren't
capable of expressing this). We eagerly await the moment you again
desire to confess your inner pool feelings. (That is unless your
initials are S.B.)
David Christal
xt...@airmail.net