|
September 1-2, 2007 State Doubles Championship Single Elimination Each Match is best two out of three You can sign up that morning, just be there by 9 am. It’s $10 for a KCA membership, plus $10 per person to play in the tournament. If you don’t have a partner, we can pair you with someone. |
|
Thanks to our benefactors…
It is with my utmost sincerity thank I say “thank you” to Roger “Buck” Wilhoite, our head “groundskeeper” and commissioner, and to his assistant, Mr. Tim Stewart, for getting our courts in good shape, and keeping them that way throughout the year. They are both there just about every day Monday – Friday during croquet season, working the courts, and, at tournament time, feeding our players. Also, to the owner, Mr. Fred Burch, owner of Burch Appliances, without whom our courts would not even exist. He has allowed us to play there for many, many years rent-free. We take these things for granted sometimes, but we shouldn’t. Finally, to the city of Frankfort, for paying for the electric, water, and maintenance of the courts. It is generally recognized that these things could disappear at any time for us. Without the courts in Frankfort, we would not, in all likelihood, have a state organization. When clay croquet no longer exists, I often wonder what I will have to look forward to so much. Please take the time to say a kind “thank you” to these folks when you see them. New Officers: President: Steve Shackelford; VP: Charlie Shackelford; Treasurer: Buck Wilhoite; Secretary: Frank Harris E-mail: If you have an e-mail address, please let me know so that I can send you links to the online version of the newsletter instead of sending a paper copy. My e-mail address is [email protected]. Thanks! Frank Harris |
|
Joe Hainey wins 2007 KCA State Singles Title 7th overall singles title – 5th in this decade – 9th Finals appearance
July 8, 2007 – Joe Hainey continues to add to his list of state singles titles with his latest win, beating J. C. “Curley” Giles in the finals of this year’s double-elimination tourney. Joe lost only one game in the tournament, losing to Curley in the winners’ bracket finals in a very hard-fought game, beating Frank Harris in the finals of the losers’ bracket to meet Curley again in the overall finals. Curley, after losing the first game of the overall finals, forfeited the second game to Joe, with the 90+ degree heat being a large factor. In the semi-finals of the losers’ bracket, Steve Shackelford and Frank swapped leads several times in a game that neither player could put away. Each player had one rover and numerous chances to cement a win, but with Steve’s non-rover ball dead on partner, and both non-rover balls coming back for the basket, Frank used his rover ball to get the non-rover ball into position and, with 25 seconds to go, took the lead for a 27-26 win. In the winners’ bracket finals, Joe and Frank battled until the end, with Joe in taking control to get both balls rover, with Frank having one rover ball and the other ball for the basket coming back. Joe had about a four foot shot to post out but accidently shot the lead ball out of bounds, giving Frank a chance to come back. Frank tried to use his rover ball to set up his partner for the basket, but shot out of bounds, too, giving Joe the win, 32-26. Joe has appeared in every finals in this decade except for 2005, an era of dominance unmatched by anyone in the 38 years of singles croquet play, has won four titles in a row from 2001-2004, and was in the finals eight years out of nine from 1999-2007. Archie Burchfield, with nine state singles titles and four second place finishes spanning over 30 years, is the only other player who has surpassed Joe in career totals. I’d say that the only barrier to Joe breaking Archie’s totals is whether or not the KCA as an organization will survive enough years to allow Joe to do it. (continued on next page) |
|
As for doubles, going back to 1937, Archie and Joe are both two of the most dominant players over the past 70 years. From his first appearance in the finals back in 1965 to his last appearance in 2005, Archie appeared in twelve finals games, winning seven of them with three different partners, in four different decades. Joe made his first of twelve finals appearances in 1994, winning seven of them with two partners. Joe has appeared in every finals since 1994 except for 2005, a streak which has never been approached. Joe and Scott Stewart won three in a row from 1995-1997, with a runner-up in 1998, and then Joe and Curley were in the finals six years in a row from 1999-2004, winning three of them, and then winning again in 2006. In head-to-head competition, Archie’s doubles teams beat Joe’s 3-0. And in the one time that Archie played Joe in the singles finals, in 2000, Archie won. Marshall Sasser, a player that from stories I’ve heard could be considered the Ty Cobb of croquet, certainly put up some numbers back in the late 1940’s – late-1960’s. (It’s a shame that there were no state singles then.) In doubles, he played in twelve doubles finals, winning eight of them with four different partners. It helps, of course to have a good partner, and Curley is certainly a good partner and a darn good player in his own right. Curley has been in the singles finals five times, winning twice, and in the state doubles finals twelve times all the way back from 1971 through 2006, winning seven of them with four different partners in three different decades (he had a drought in the 1980’s). How many sports can you think of where a player can win a title at age 78, or win over a 40 year period? |
|
Can anyone tell me when this became a rule? You know, in the great scheme of things, croquet is probably not the most important thing on the planet to worry about, but this really gripes me for some reason. Also, as the precedent has now been established, although I doubt that it would ever be called this way again, I want a ruling for next time so that, in the remaining time that we have left to play clay croquet, I never have to worry about this again. Here’s the situation: in a game in the past tournament, player 1, let’s call him Rover, had one ball rover and another ball alive on the field coming back for the basket. Player 2, let’s call him Partnerdead, was about to become dead on partner with both balls due to either force play if he didn’t hit, or, if he did hit, by hitting. Now Rover, sensing that Partnerdead couldn’t do anything bad to him if he had both balls on the line, which he did, and if both balls were together, which they were, did this: he hit non-rover ball with the rover ball, put them together, then passed. Partnerdead then came up with this rule, seemingly from out of the blue. Partnerdead asked the ruling authority, let’s call him Commissioner B (ComB, for short), if Rover would then be automatically dead on the rover ball without even shooting during the next turn by virtue of the fact that the balls were touching already. Anyway, what ComB ruled was that, as long as Rover shot away from the ball that it was touching, it would not be declared dead on that ball. Rover’s contention was that he could pass and not be dead on that ball. In looking through the Baker rule book, the only somewhat official set of rules in existence for clay croquet, it talks about (in Rule 13a) how, “when a person roquets a ball, the player must tight-ball or croquet it”. Unfortunately, our rules don’t say, officially, what a roquet is. (And, no, I don’t want to open up the “roquet vs croquet” terminology debate.) But, there is nothing in the Baker book about “two balls being in contact” constituting a roquet. So….. any opinions on this? In the meantime…. the new rule is there, waiting to be selectively used. In asking around after it was called, I could find no one, including the person who made the official judgement, who had ever heard of the rule being called this way before – kind of like Dick Cheney deciding he wasn’t in the Executive Branch of the government (Republicans can certainly be creative when things aren’t going their way). And, of course, no one could show me the rule in the rulebook. |