 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calgary & Edmonton & Vancouver & TSAC
| Topic: Ongoing COFC Results |
| ||
|
DYP - 22 teams 1st place: Matt Botros & Jay Gardiner - $200 2nd place: Paul Gee & Ang Karmis - $100 3rd place: Quinn Beale & Kory Cherepuschak - $50 4th place: Jeff Schneider & Scott Ziegler - $36 Novice Doubles 1st place: Brendan Lett & Brett Clavelle 2nd place: Chris Tucker & Matt weenie 3rd place: Jordan Frensel & Dylan Phuong Open Doubles- 15 teams 1st place: Ang Karmis & Tony Lubis - $600 2nd place: Jeff Schneider & Paul Gee - $300 3rd place: Darrel Popowich & Matt Botros - $160 4th place: Quinn Beale & Christian Dunn - $100 Amateur Doubles - 7 teams 1st place: Seamus Mcfaul & Matt Strawson - $200 2nd place: Tom Hanna & Ted Archibald - $100 3rd place: Scott Ziegler & Jay Gardiner - $80 Also posted on Regina Foos Message Board @ http://www.reginafoos.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1463 |
Posted: Nov 12 2006 12:26AM
| ||
|
See link for Sundays results http://www.reginafoos.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1463 |
| ||
|
Good playing Matt B, welcome to the pro ranks. |
| ||
|
What constitues someone moving to the "PRO" ranking? I know Matt has done well at the past two tournaments in Saskatoon, but so has Jack Hoood. Can anyone explain? |
| ||
|
Another one is Todd Ross. He has won semi pro a couple times and even open doubles I think. |
| ||
|
Semi pro singles once, Open doubles once (Tony L carried my ass). I don't really know what my ranking is and really don't care, I don't take it seriously enough outside of tournaments. Having said that playing once a week (or so) won't help much trying to compete in open. Some tell me I'm pro, some semi. I'm just going to play when I can in the tournaments I can whatever my ranking is. Mike you had some pretty good results in open as well, top 5 in singles a couple of times and top 3 in doubles with Jason if I remember correctly. Tim W as won semi doubles, Matt as won semi doubles I think twice and had a number of good finishes in Open & Semi doubles along with his win in Singles this year. Tuan as well as had great results. Some got bumped some didn't, who knows how it works? It is a good question. The feeling that I get from some is that you win Semi, your out. Others say that you should win or dominate a ranking before you get bumped to prove you consistantly win in that ranking. If I'm a Semi, maybe they are just making up for my long and storied rookie career :) |
| ||
|
Good question Owen. A lot of this is subjective and at the mercy of the promoters. This is why I suggested that the results of the tournaments are turned into Mury for ranking. This way it would take the guess work out of it. Matt has won the last 3 semi doubles in a row (Saskatoon twice and Foosapoloosa). He also placed in open doubles 2nd and 3rd the last 2 tournaments. I addition he won semi singles this last tournament. placed 2nd at Foosapoloosa and in the top 4 in in a number of tournaments before that. I my opinion Mike Silvestor should have been moved to pro already. I don't think he has been playing as much lately but his game is a pro level when he is on. He is also the only semi ranked (USTSA)player in canada who is not playing pro. Todd were you not moved to pro already? In the past the barometer was winning semi singles which you accomplished last Foosapoloosa. There are a number of players on he bubble. Paul Gee,likes to fly under the radar but he had great results in doubles and looks like this last tourny finished 4th in open singles. Eric Goodman, probably not quite there but has won the last 2 semi doubles in a row. Others could include Fred Quan, Tim Wilson, Jack Hood, Jeff Schneider and a few others which I can not remember now. |
| ||
|
"Todd were you not moved to pro already? In the past the barometer was winning semi singles which you accomplished last Foosapoloosa." Brian read my post, I get conflicting arguements (I'll play whatever). You say pro, Popowich, Ljubas say semi. It still says Semi on the Calgaryfoos sight which is probably why Mike was wondering why I'm still semi (I think). What is the criteriea to go pro? You win Semi singles? So Doubles does not carry the same weight? If you move all of the above to pro will more players move up to Semi to fill the void? Anyhow it really comes down to having some kind of proper ranking system. |
| ||
|
"Matt has won the last 3 semi doubles in a row (Saskatoon twice and Foosapoloosa)" Matt didn't win Semi-Doubles last year at Foosapalooza, Tim Wilson and I did. He did win Semi-Singles there though, and with his win in Semi-Singles in Saskatoon and our Semi-Doubles title there as well, a strong case can be made that Matt is now Pro. |
| ||
|
http://www.saskfoos.com/view_topic.asp?ParentID=4086&x=65&domain=EDM&searchterm=todd+ross the good ol days! |
| ||
|
I would like to know how I ended up as semi-pro on the calgary web site. Even when I was playing I didn't feel that I had reached that level. Prior to the COFC this year I hadn't played in so much as a local DYP since 2003 so it's clear that I'm not playing at that level today. Clearly we need a change... To quote Todd "Anyhow it really comes down to having some kind of proper ranking system." |
| ||
|
Just to clearify my past record. Playing goal for brian L we won semi pro doubles at Foosapalooza 3 (2005) and I placed 4th in semi-pro singles. I did nothing in the open events. At the 2005 COFC again (was a goalie) brian and i finshed first in semi doubles and i finished 3rd in semi singles. I did nothing in the open events At the Utah state championships me and brian L won rookie doubles and i took second in rookie singles losing to Brian L. This year at foozapalooza 4(2006) taco and I placed 3rd in semi pro doubles and i finished 2nd to Todd Ross in semi pro singles. Playing defence for darrel we finished 2nd in open. Again this year at COFC we won semi doubles me playing forward and i won semi singles. Me and Darrel finished 3rd in open. So for myself there it has only been this year that i have really come into my game as the forward. I believe that alot of people maybe think of me as a higher ranked player player because of my 5 row but its only recently that i have had a competitive 3 row (had to give in to the roller). Does this make me a local pro maybe but don't you think if we bump all the border line people to pro we will lose the semi division locally? I say keep me, todd, tim, jake, paul, jazzy, etc all in semi it would make it really competitive. Hell put Christian dunn back in till he gets a head game ;) |
| ||
|
"Hell put Christian dunn back in till he gets a head game ;) " What's a timeout again??? I never thought I'd say this but part of me agrees with Matt on this one.  I think with the rookie division it is much simpler and correct that if you win you get bumped because winning is more directly related to physical skill level. Whereas in semi the mental side begins to play a larger role and for some that aspect takes longer to develop. Sure you might be able to run over people in semi with raw skill on a given day but as soon as you hit the pro level it just dosn't work. At that level I beleive that two pros will hit their shots where they want to (majority of the time lol) so the mental side can definately become the deciding factor. Also whats the rush to move to pro from semi. A longer stay would benefit all I think. A top end semi will get to see more different styles of play from more people to help his mental side while a lower end semi will have more opportunity to play against players with a higher skill level and improve their game. Sure Matt has done well in semi these last few times but if you have jazzy, todd, paul, jack, tim and the other top end semi's all playing would 1 person dominate and be a lock to win? I don't think so. If thats the case you have to either bump all or none until one person is clearly better. I would also support a demotion for myself. Not because I want an easier tournament but becasue I went from a rookie to a pro in a 1 year span and missed out on any mental maturation. Now for a quick comparison to Matt. In my brief time as a semi-pro I had ONE top 3 singles finishes (1st) and ZERO top 3 doubles finishes. Looking purely at results Matt has clearly proven himself at the semi level more than I have. Especially in doubles where the mental side plays a bigger part I think. So why is there even a controversy if he should move up when one win for me meant I got the axe with no questions asked. So to conclude. Either bump them all to pro or put me back in semi. I'm not bitter or anything  lolP.S. This is the first time I could post in over a year which is why I didn't shut up (darn computereres) P.P.S. At least the good thing about this discussion is that we have players who are improving their skills and challenging the next level which hadn't really happened the last couple years. |
| ||
|
well to be another person to add a note, i believe that if you place in the top 3/4 consistantly and win in either event as a sp you should move up, not just in one year but 2 consistant years. 2 yrs at top standings regardless of partners means you should move up. Some players have had made SP their safe haven by playing goalie and thinking that a forward is the position to be bumped, but if you can prove to be a pro level goalie and win every year in both divisions hell you are a pro, no buts.I have won 3rd in open singles,2nd in Sp doubles and 3,4,5. in other years. but not in one year. I'm a Sp for this reason(I never get mad)no multi trophy year for me. Others have and still play in sp. |
| ||
|
I would agree with some the statement that a person should not be moved on 1 result OTHER THAN CHRISTIAN lol- it should be consistent results or 2 wins in semi singles or doubles. Matt- Fred- Mike should all be pro- I understand that there is different levels of pros- just like semis- but they have had consistent results and have the DEMONSTRATED SKILL Todd should not be Jack ???- Christian- tough luck- you are a pro now baby- and with a 3rd in singles and a 4th in doubles without any team strategy, it proves that your skill level is a pro- regardless of if you got bumped too fast- demonstrated skill is one of the contributing factors- and when your game is on it is scary to compete against- mental game or not( this comes with time, and I am still searching for it myself) just my 2 cents |
| ||
|
Wow, same ol sh^% eh? this issue about who should be bumped to pro just to populate the pro division will never end  . p.s. The kid (Christian) and I are takin a run at rookie dubs at next foosapalooza |
| ||
|
you guys are funny. having the ability and using the ability. that's what we're talking about. foosball is about you and a little red ball. it's all mental. it's like poker, which is 30% theory and the rest is instinct with some luck thrown in. Todd, Christian, Matt, i think you guys should all be pro. When you play the game (this means not once every few months or once a month but maybe once/twice a week) you are all more than competive and skilled enough to compete with anyone in Western Canada. Jack, Paul, Jeff, Fred, Mike, are all good players and are on the verge / cusp of moving up. You just have to will yourself to want to do it. Your ranking SHOULDN'T be an indication of how much you've been playing lately or leading up to a tournament. Excuses are lame and we all know it. The only way we can keep the tournament attendances high is if we're open and honest about where we fit in our already ###### ranking system. see you in the new year. my 2 cents. |
| ||
|
Is that BILL LEE????? Same old for us doesn't mean the same old for retirees...lol We should not have classes- just one big pot with everyone in competing or quiting- oops sorry that's someone else's statement. Bill- show up once in a while eh???? |
| ||
|
Come on Tony that is a load of crap "You just have to will yourself to want to do it." Give me a break! Consistancy is the key, if you place more than not you move up. It can not be any simpler than that. Skill and some luck granted; but skill and proven finishes is the determining factor. Will yourself has nothing but "ego" written all over it. |
| ||
|
Dale, Will to win is huge. If you don't think so you're nuts. Willing yourself to practice. Willing yourself to pump yourself up against a player who should beat you consistently and not letting him. There are tons of players with lots of talent and experience. They seem to have no WILL. Not willing to grind it out? No results i guess. As for ego, like i've always said, don't teach your father how to have sex. That's my two cents. |
| ||
|
Tony, first off lets look at this in another light. If you WILL your way to pump yourself to beat the "players that you should not beat" does that not lead to frustration when you do not execute? hence the exact opposite of what you say? lets say you pump your self to beat joe shmoe. Joe shmoe walks in not caring if he wins and beats you, what does it show when you get mad and kick the table and say all the negatives instead of good game? just curious. |
| ||
|
i tell you what.. we won't have this conversation. we'll just let it out on the table how's that? |
| ||
|
Shall we make it interesting? Odds? |
| ||
|
Like i always like to say, "You're only as good as your last showing".... and we know what happened there. |
| ||
|
well lindsey rupertus.. what do you think is fair? |
| ||
|
Dale I seriously hope you're joking. You have no idea how retarded what you wrote looks from my seat. |
| ||
|
wow... first and last name. Feels like a lecture from my mom. I would say $100 straight up would make a good bet though I would probably want to take you to win on that bet and you're not likely to bet against yourself so I guess we'll have to leave it alone. Don't automatically assume that I would bet against you. Just because I think everyone is out to get me doesn't mean they aren't. |
| ||
|
i'd love it if more people would bet against me. and would put their money on it too. diapers are expensive. |
| ||
|
I'll bet against you, but I'm going to want odds... probably 2-1. Hell I'll even play you for $100 but I think I'll need 5-1 on that one. |
| ||
|
I thought you said...humm what was it...Oh Yes..i tell you what.. we won't have this conversation. we'll just let it out on the table how's that? Geez that did not take long to forget! Joking, no not really i believe.. to preech you must practice ie: "practice what you preech" and it seems not to apply to you, so i must say somethinig it is just too funny to pass up!! |
| ||
|
Tony i do appologize though as i have made you and others mis-interpret my "last showing...." comment. I was referring to last time i played you(singles) not this COFC. sorry for the confusion. |
| ||
|
lindsay, i like you so i won't do that to you. i don't want your money. you could make it 100-1 and i don't think it'd make a difference. dale, it's fine. you played well that day. but one day does not make a career. |
| ||
|
That's cool. I appreciate the thought. Let's play at foosapalooza for $1 5-1. |
| ||
|
Lindsey, I wont take that bet, but i will play you for a beer or two at foosapalooza with no odds... Hell, Ill give you 3-1 odds if it happens to be the night before rookie singles and im slated to play ya  ->  -> . That way, I should surely get the 'bye' due to you defaulting on your match...  , Buddy.PS We should get together this weekend for some games if you arent too busy. Ill see what christian is up too. Later |
| ||
|
Nice use of emoticons! Call me about this weekend. |
| ||
|
Cool buddy, ill give the shout-a-rama tomorrow evening. Circa 8-9pm. Catch ya later man |
| ||
|
As mentioned by Dale your finishes should form the base of ranking. In the last 4 tournaments Matt has finished in semi doubles, 3-1sts and a 3rd, semi singles 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th. He has performed a a high level for a number of years and has also placed 2nd and 3rd in open doubles in the last 2 events. To me this is a no brainer. Mosts players have moved up with far less credentials than this. Paul Gee since 2002 has had a 1st, 3-2nds, a 3rd and 4th in semi doubles, a 2nd in open doubles, and a 4th in open singles and semi singles. Jack Hood has placed the top 5 of semi-singles in the last 5 tournaments. Fred Quan has 4- 2nds in semi, 2 in doubles and 2 in singles. I could go on with other players Todd, Jeff S,Mike,Tim etc.. Bottom line we need a better ranking system. I also think we should have potentialy different rankings for singles and doubles. Some players are pro levels goalies but do not have the singles game. Rank them pro for doubles and semi for singles. I also suggest that we look at turning the results from the major tournies in the ranking body for the US. Oh Todd, if we listened to Darryl and Tony L the only players in Calgary who would be pro would be Darryl, Tony, Ang and maybe Kent. There definition of pro is basically a USTSA pro. Again, another subjective opinion. We should try to remove this subjectivity as much as possible. |
| ||
|
A points ranking system with rewards for placing in the charts or gaining points in winning matches is the only way to really gauge where a player is at. Maybe have regional tournaments weighted more lightly and national (yeah right) tournaments weighted more heavily based on where a person finishes in the charts for Am, Semi, and Open events, each division having a certain or similar weighting. For example, 1st place in Open = 75-100 points, 2nd=60-75, 3rd=50-60 and so on and so forth. The USTSA has been using a system like this for a while, and it takes the guesswork out of where a player fits. However this does not eliminate the problem of sandbagging, but really, Canadian tournaments to date haven't really been that prestiguous enough to cause issues like that. There was talk of implementing an ELO type system way back in the CTSF days, so possibly the new TSAC can start conceptualizing a points/ranking system that could work Nationally. For what it's worth, I don't think I'm ready to be bumped to Pro. I only played one tournament as a rookie/amateur in Western Canada before being bumped to semi-pro, with no top three finishes in any events, and have consistenly showed my ability to "choke" under pressure in subsequent tournaments. That being said, I doubt I'm a Pro-Level player and I'm sure most would agree. Points/ranking system is the best way to determine a players level in these localized and regional competitions. |
| ||
|
Hi All Long time no see I think the issue with moving up to Pro is that players go to a tournament and do not have enough events to go in. We are so spread apart that to travel 5 plus hours and risk 2 and out both for singles and doubles is daunting for players who are use to playing 15 or more matches over the weekend. Perhaps more Pro related events would help those borderliners to move up willingly- I have few ideas on types of events but Pro-Rookie events might be an example (no Semi's allowed?) Anyways...just my thoughts |
| ||
|
Great idea Doug! That is definitely something that should be looked at. US tournies have lots of events outside of the open, semi, rookie ones. The only downside to that is the conficts which seem to be never ending with rookies playing in usually 6 events and do we have enough tables at the event to support it. |
| ||
|
Doug, I have to agree. This year that was part of my decision for not going. I had to decide where to dedicate my time and funds so this year SASK was out for me. I will be going to some events in the USA in 2007 where I get to play a lot of matches and really test my game against new players. It would be great to find a way for Pro's to have more events here at our local tourneys. |
| ||
|
nice to see you mr mac pro singles.. winner take all.. just like the qualifier we had at that shitty hotel last year when the village idiot from montreal was here. do it on 2 tables. no two pros dyp, like we used to have. $5 entry for rookies, $10 entry for semi's, $20 entry for pro's. or we could do a cash challenge table like in the old days. pro's would just have to score 7 against rookies or 6 against semi's to hold the table and the cash - it doesn't have to be a lot of cash. maybe a $5 TABLE? some ideas to float around.. |
The last post to this thread is more than 30 days old.