Superior Darts

LEVELING THE FIELD
By: Darrin Barker

The idea behind most state and national dart tournaments is for players to compete against only those of similar ability. However, keeping averages and placing players in levels only works in a perfect world - the kind of world where players will not purposely screw off in one league to record an inaccurately low average - and then use that average to enter a dart tournament. The current system would only work in Utopia, and the operators/tournament organizers know it. Regardless, this problem remains far down their list of priorities, therefore, the sandbagging epidemic only spreads as the years go on.

In La Crosse at the 2004 MOMA (Minnesota Operators of Music and Amusements) I faced this phenomenon like never before. After four consecutive wins through the Level 3 singles 501 winners bracket I hit a road block. My next two matches were lost to superior players, in fact, they were so good that they belonged in Level 1. Mike Shaw knocked me in the losers bracket winning 3-2 in a hard fought match - with every game requiring a ton per round to win. I was happy with my play (Averaging about 33ppd for the match), and hoped to come back to meet Shaw again.

However, after a two hour wait my next opponent was possibly the greatest 501 player in the arena that day. Kevin Starks put on a show that made the Level 1 quarterfinals look like Friday night fun league. His first miss came in dart 9 of game two, after taking a 1-0 lead with a 10 dart out (Hat trick, hat trick, hat trick, trip-seventeen). Even that miss is suspect, since his 'miss' left him with a 100 out for round 4. He took the 2-game lead with his next two darts, and threw 15 darts to finish me off in game three, shooting a 41.75ppd average for the match. The tourney was over for me, finishing with a lousy 9th-12th place, but I stuck around to watch Starks play some more. In the next two matches he rang up three more 10-dart outs, and rarely went to round 5 to win.

Several people complained to the front table about Starks, wondering how he landed in Level 3, and especially, why he was in the losers bracket. What I knew for certain is; I would remember the name Kevin Starks and do some research of my own.

Sure enough, it took me two minutes of Internet access to find Starks name all over the Bullshooter website, and I also found his current league stats on a website of an operator based in Menasha, Wisconsin (Amusement Devices, Inc). Starks was carrying a 3.9mpr and a 31.5ppd. Those numbers place him among the best in Minnesota, and certainly, in Level 1. To my surprise I found Mike Shaw listed there as well, and oddly enough, he was a teammate of Starks in that league. Shaw had a 3.5mpr and 30ppd average going. Both of these numbers qualify Shaw for Level 1 as well. So now the question was - did they use false numbers or did they sandbag in another league?

I decided to bring my research to the attention of MOMA - sending an email to several MOMA board members. I also found a forum dedicated to darts in Wisconsin. I posted my complaint there as well. As good they are, I suspected some visitors to this dart forum would know Shaw and Starks. Then I would find out if this is a pattern. Little did I know it would get even better then that.

Here is the entire conversation including all of my posts, the responses, and some email I had received on the subject:

Posted on January 23, 2004 at 16:48:34 by Darrin

At the MOMA tournament in LaCrosse I met up with a couple guys playing out of Menasha, WI. Mike Shaw and Kevin Starks are both very impressive players, especially Starks who I observed nail 4 ten dart outs while sweeping three consecutive 501 matches, one of which was against me. Unfortunately, this spectacle took place in Level 3 – against competition of 23-26 PPD players.

You see, Shaw is carrying a 29.9 PPD while Starks shoots over 31. Meanwhile, everyone else shooting over 28 was pushed into Level 1. I wonder how Amusement Devices, Inc was able to make this special arrangement?

I heard they went on to win first and third – with Starks sweeping every match through the losers bracket. Oh, how did he get in the losers bracket? After winning a match 3-0 he ‘accidentally' circled the wrong name on top of the match card, landing him in the losers. Coincidently, this mistake bypassed an early match-up between Starks and his friend Shaw.

Should I be so cynical? Maybe I ought to be honored getting beat by players too gutless to play against competition of their own level. Instead, after paying $27 per event, $75 per night for a room, and sliding quarters in the boards by the pound – finally reaching the quarterfinals of the winners bracket – I am upset to go two matches and out by guys who have cheated the system . . . and in particular have cheated me. If I were not so mild mannered guys like this would learn a ‘Fast-Eddy' kind of lesson – sporting thumb-casts for the next event. But rather, I will call them out as the gutless, chicken-s*** impostors they are, and hope everyone they know will hang their head in shame at the sight of these pathetic thieves.

But hey, feel free to defend yourselves.

Comment: The first couple responses came from regulars on this particular forum. Without knowing me, they must discover if the information I offer is legitimate. They start out by asking specific questions - for the purpose of acquiring more information as well as testing my knowledge.

Posted on January 26, 2004 at 13:53:02 by Bossman

Darrin,
I don't know you nor the two gentlemen that you speak of. You certainly have the right to be upset given the circumstances you've layed out here and do not wish to dispute that.

I do however have a couple of questions for you (or anybody else that knows for that fact).

1. How many divisions of play were at MOMA?
2. What was the payout amount per division?

Posted on January 26, 2004 at 16:27:34 by Darrin

1) There were 6 Levels of '01 Singles at MOMA
2) The payout in every Level was similar (probably depending on the exact number of players) - $450 to $500 for first, paying down to 9-12th (where I finished) at $45.

Posted on January 26, 2004 at 19:04:00 by Bossman

As a division III shooter, would you be willing to shoot for less overall prize money in the division III purse compared to the division II and division I purse?
There are however two catches.

1. Your entree fee level ($27 per event) would remain the same.
2. The number of players in your division would not be taken into consideration when calculating out overall prize purse for a specific division.

Posted on January 27, 2004 at 19:17:40 by Darrin

If what you are leading at is; if higher levels paid off more it may eliminate some of the sandbagging that goes on - I would agree. I think that the best shooters should have an opportunity at more money then the Level 3 players. Some may still cheat to go after the easy money, but such a system may diminish the problem.

Posted on January 28, 2004 at 09:52:22 by reaper

Are the averages that you speak of here from two different leagues? As if they bagged it in one league to get low and are carring a higher average in another league that you happen to know of? Some would say that with the technology that is available today, a compulation average could be compiled from any players multiple sanctioned league averages.
Just a thought........

Reaper

Posted on January 28, 2004 at 12:24:24 by Darrin

This is part of the problem . . . I cannot answer your questions because MOMA will not respond to me. I sent an email to MOMA, and to a couple of its board members individually. It was not angry like my post on here - but just asking the questions you all are asking me. What league stats did they submit for MOMA qualification? Did it even come from Amusement Devices, or from another operator? Did they play in another league, other then the one published online, with much lower averages? Did Amusement Devices print out a sheet for them with falsified stats, or, did these two take it upon themselves to create such a league sheet? You would think that MOMA would be just as concerned as I am. Instead, I sense this, "We made our money, so screw the players!" attitude.

Posted on January 28, 2004 at 16:09:57 by Bossman

Well said Darrin.

The other half of coin is the fact MOMA, WAMO, and the NDA need to come up with little better set of guidelines in my opinion.

If dart players knew in August before any league ever started that players would fall into one four or possible five divisions (TOPS) of play based upon skill level (PPD or MPR) AND the higher skilled divisions would pay out larger sums of prize money, it would be a step in the right direction for the better of the game.

Posted on January 27, 2004 at 23:19:45 by wb

the problem isn't sandbagging. the problem is everyone over a 28 ppd was in division I except a select few. that's where the problem is. can someone explain that?

Posted on January 28, 2004 at 12:29:03 by Darrin

Either you have missed my sarcasm or I have misinterpreted yours. The actual league stats I found on line for those two could not have been the stats turned into MOMA . . . because they would have both played in Level 1 if that were the case. They either turned in lower stats from another league, or just completely made some up. If they sandbagged in another league for lower stats, they are pathetic human beings. If they just completely made up stats to send in - they should both be black flagged - or banned from MOMA, WAMO, and NDA events for a certain number of seasons.

Comment: So far all I am getting is a general conversation about sandbagging, which is interesting, but not quite what I was looking for. Finally I had better luck in my email box, receiving a response from MOMA:

Email received on Jan 28^th, 2004

darrin first off i would like to thank you for coming forward with this problem..as tournament director i receive all infor on players from their leaques..starks/shaw stats came from stansfield vending, which belongs to moma..i beleave that the players in question play two different operators..darrin it is hard enough to police our moma operators and not operators that do not belong to moma. we did move alot of players up in levels and some players we missed, refused to play for being in a lower level.. the problem is a on going problem and i will direct this at our summit meeting this summer..using the computer system we used at the tournament will help track and help me with this problem..i am also asking to continue as director to help police this problem..we also have the same problem with players around the twin cities, to many operators to play with,differant stats to play under..i have learned a few differant ways to find out about players---any ideas--i would like to hear about them. i sorry how this worked for you and the players around you in that level and other levels.. see ya,

thanks again for coming forward with this  dennis hovey

Comment: Does this email seem very professional to you? Trust me, I did not change a single letter - this is his exact response. Sometimes the repeated mistakes in league and tournament organizing cause me to question the intellect of the people and committees in charge. This email does nothing but reinforce my suspicions with the grammatical wasteland Mr. Hovey emailed to me. Maybe I endured too many years of school, but points for presentation is a system I have seen work true in the real world as well!

I would like to point out the sentence, "darrin it is hard enough to police our moma operators and not operators that do not belong to moma." In my response I suggested to Mr Hovey that policing your MOMA members, and specifically Stansfield Vending, is exactly what needs to be done. After all, it was not ADI that sent in a 25ppd average for a 31ppd shooter. MOMA should punish, reprimand, warn, or put on probation any Vender that fails to present realistic player averages. Stansfield should have been checking the ADI website before sending in stats for Shaw and Starks - and that is where I place the blame. However, I decided to leave this discussion between myself and Dennis, rather than smearing MOMA on this Wisconsin website.

Here is the problem with an organization like MOMA. How can they punish a member who is funding the organization to begin with? Cannot bite the hand that feeds you - so to speak. This organization is not willing to lose members over petty disputes about dart tournaments. After all, dart and pool tournaments are decoration, and not the core purpose of MOMA.

Posted on February 5, 2004 at 13:29:30 by Darrin

I now have received a response from MOMA, and they have essentially mirrored what we have discussed here. "Sandbagging is a problem . . . we are working on solutions."

The unfortunate truth is, sandbagging was a problem ten years ago, it was a problem this year, and it will continue to be a problem far into the future unless one critical improvement is made: a player database

Every MOMA member should be required to send in player stats at the completion of every season. MOMA could then scan for significant average dips considering all players signed up for the tournament. A simple formula can do it -such as: If (Players current average) x 120% < (Players last average) Print "RED FLAG", Else Print (Players current average)

Adjust that to the fomat necessary for the program being used, and like magic, we have red flagged all the potential sandbaggers. Problem solved!

Comment: I thought the subject would be over. After all, once I have defined the problem and the solution - what is left to discuss? However, the email I received from a friend of Starks got me worked up again:

Feb 10, 2004
Email sent from: G. to: Darrin

Hey Darin,

I just found the message board posted by Wisconsin Darts.com. I must say I disagree with some of your comments about 2 friends of mine, Shaw and Starks. First, they are not from Menasha. Starks is from New London and Shaw is from Waupaca. Second, the league they shoot in is not ADI, it is Stansfield. Third, with respect to your comment Starks circled the wrong player, as I understood, not only from Starks but others who were there, Starks circled his OWN name on the game in question. It was the incompetant chart keeper who screwed up and when Starks called him on it, he was told "there is nothing we can do". This in turn "pissed" Starks off and he proceeded to win Div 3.

I agree both of these gentlemen should have been in Div 1 and I have been giving them a hard time about this. However, Minnesota State seems to have a format which encourages sandbagging. For example, and correct me if I'm wrong....If your format for prize money is the same for every division....what incentive does a player have to put themselves in Div 1 or 2?? If the prize $$ was significantly more in Div 1, I GUARANTEE this problem is resolved.

With the exception of my first couple years throwing darts, I have always shot Div 1 at WI State. I consider it a special "club" to be in. I know Starks and Shaw or the rest of those guys will not return next year, even though they won a lot of $$$. I plan to be there with my team next year shooting for the Div 1 title.

Take care Darin,
G.

Comment: Okay, so he corrected some of the minor details. The exact location of their homes is not a critical issue. My charge of gutless sandbagging has only been confirmed.

Feb 10^th, 2004
Email sent from: Darrin to: G.

If you read all the posts on the MOMA thread you will see that I agree with much of what you have just written. I certainly do not wish to exalt MOMA. Does the WAMO pay upper levels more then the lower levels? I agree at that being one good solution. However, a player database will go even further toward solving such problems. That way, a player must sandbag every season in every league in attempt to play lower tournament levels, not just one 14-week season.

Three different guys that Starks smashed in the division 3 losers bracket complained to the tournament coordinator. Now, it took me 5 seconds on Google to find Starks name all over the Bullshooter and ADI websites – so MOMA could have easily done the same. They could have disqualified Starks from level 3, or at very least, boosted them up in the team events the following two days.

All I hope is that friends like you keep reminding them what a couple of dishonest sandbaggers they are. But hey, thank you for the email – and for the additional information.

Darrin

Feb 10^th, 2004
Email sent from: G. to: Darrin

Hey Darrin, Yes, WAMO pays more in the higher divisions and I will keep on teasing Starks and Shaw about their sandbagging. I shot with Kevin all last year and we won a couple pro events. He's a great shot and a pretty good guy overall. We both finished with 33 averages last year and over 4.0 in cricket. I don't throw much anymore so that is why I quit that team. They did indicate they will never go to Min State again even though they won all that money. They didn't like the way the tourney was run. (slow) I hope they do return so we can play against them in Div 1.

tt ya later, G.

Comment: Well, there is a little extra piece of information I had not know. Starks may even be better then his 31.2ppd and 3.9ppd averages. But now I know that they are certainly not a fluke – he is quite used to throwing at that level. Again, I figured this was all over. Suddenly, I hit the Jackpot with a response from Shaw himself!

Posted on February 13, 2004 at 17:32:04 by SHAW

I think it would be a good time to set some things straight! The averages you looked up were from a different league. You may think this doesn't make a difference. It does when the league we shot for to get sanctioned for the MOMA was a mixed league. The women that we shoot with carry about a 17 pt. average. this means we are getting locked more etc. I was wondering if you are the same Darrin who in L. 3 took 1st in doubles with Rick. Rick also took 2nd in L. 3 singles beating myself and almost beating Starks. (averaging about 38.75/dart) The same Rick whose team took 4th in L. 3. He took home twice as much money as I did yet nobody is complaining about him!!!!! I think maybe if you spent as much time practicing darts as you do on the web maybe you would be better at darts and wouldn't have to sit here crying!!!!

Comment: This is just what I was looking for – and right away he is going for the ‘Everybody sandbags' defense.

Posted on February 16, 2004 at 14:30:46 by Darrin

First of all, thank you for responding. You gain respect for that alone.

Again, which I have repeatedly written on this thread before – I have always known the averages you and Starks brought to MOMA were not from ADI. Those averages would have easily placed you both in Level 1 Cricket, and Starks in Level 1 '01 with you on the 1-2 borderline.

I have a database of 1000 local players over the past 8 dart seasons, I consider myself an authority on the effect lesser leagues have on a players average. Will playing mixed leagues lower your average? Certainly. An average of about 6% over the first thirty examples I have analyzed. Does this bring Starks 31.5, or your 30 down to the 23-27 area needed to qualify for Level 3? Not likely without a little intentional sandbagging.

I do not know the Darrin you refer to. In Level 3 doubles '01 I finished 7th/8th with my teammate Tom. We were eliminated by this small little blonde dude who threw amazing darts – I am not sure if this is the ‘Rick' you refer to. I did not have the luxury of playing Level 3 in team events. Our 30.5, 26, 25, 23.5 PPD's and our 3.7, 3.2. 3.1, 3.0 MPR's were enough to throw us into Level 1 in team events, with my average being the second lowest on the team for both. By the way, I have no complaints about that . . . at least, I had none before now. If you are going to tell me the two of you shot in Level 3 team I may be further upset.

I did play you in singles, and it was a great match. You took me in game 5 with a 109 out, after a blew a chance at a 94. After a two-hour wait my next match was against Starks. He smashed a 10, 11, and 15 dart out (in that order) to end my night with a lousy 9-12th finish.

You were both considerate players, sportsmanlike, and when I said ‘great match' and ‘good luck' to you I meant it. I have respect for the darts you throw. This is why, especially in Kevin Starks case, I would have enjoyed watching him play against Steve ‘Smitty' Smith, Bob Haft, and Charles Shaner . . . because I suspect he may have beat them all. Wouldn't it have felt better to watch him beat the best that Minnesota has to offer, rather then the Level 3 wannabe's like me?

Yes, I should be practicing instead of crying. Hey, good one Mike! Someday I hope to achieve your level, shooting 3.5 and 30. Of coarse, when I am as good as you we will never match-up again . . . because you will be shooting two Levels below me! By the way, my 3.1 already put me into Level 1 singles, what level did you shoot in Cricket? I thought so.

Any more facts you would like to clear up for me?

Comment: I was excited for Shaw's response, but what I received is even better.; a failed attempt by his wife to explain the low averages. Instead of helping him, what she ends up doing is pleading guilty to the charges!

Posted on February 16, 2004 at 16:08:58 by jen

Darrin,
I was not at the MOMA tourney. But I do shoot darts with the 2 guys you are refering to. One of them, Shaw, is my husband and yes, he and Starks are great shots. When you state playing in a mixed league should not lower stats that much, you may be mistaken. I shoot the mixed league with the guys and it, by far, is less competative than the ADI league they shoot in. I don't have to tell you, you shoot to your level of competition. We do have some excellent players on the mixed league, but Shaw, Starks and the team are the more solid players. Because of this, they use this league to practice different outs, doubling in, etc. They also spend a great deal of time helping me with my outs and my darts and mostly, being "social" (aka drinking) with the rest of the teams. There comes a time when people should play darts for fun and enjoy themselves without having to worry about averages and levels or divisions.

I practice with Shaw on a regular basis. When he practices with me I will occassionally beat him because he does spend time trying different ins/outs and things. I only have an average in the upper teens. Everyone is beatable.

If you just shoot your darts, it doesn't matter who you play.

Take it for what it's worth. A woman bitching or someone just sharing info, whatever turns your crank.

Comment: I am not sure which I like better; the admission to sandbagging or that fact that she does not realize her husband occasionally lets her win!

Posted on February 16, 2004 at 17:07:29 by Darrin

Thank you for your input, and thank you for admitting how your husband and friend landed themselves in Level 3. It sounds so noble with your description of Shaw and Starks "Helping me" and "Practicing different outs, double ins, ect."

Great idea. Next season I will play mixed league and practice my double-two ins and triple-one outs. Level 6, here I come!!

Dennis Hovey, the MOMA tournament coordinator, told me that several players had come up to him and requested to be in higher levels, or had requested a higher average be used then was on the league sheet. This would have been the real honorable thing for your husband to do.

Nevertheless, Having fun IS what it is all about. I think it is wonderful that these guys will play a league with their wives, help them out, and make it fun for themselves at the same time. They do sound like a couple good guys, and probably a great deal of fun to be around. I just wish they would not have used those screw-off stats to place themselves in a state tournament. That is the only place they had gone wrong.

Posted on February 16, 2004 at 18:39:42 by Jen

Darrin,
I am not trying to make my husband or Starks sound "NOBEL". The fact is, you lost to two good dart shooters and you are pissed. Grow up and take it like a man.

Your point has been made. Suck it up and move on.

Good luck in future tourneys.

Comment: She just does not seem to understand the purpose of Levels. However, she did admit that my point has been made, so I will let this one go.

Posted on February 13, 2004 at 18:45:20 by Longshaft

I know the Rick of which he speaks, a major sandbagger! There was alot of it going on from "up north"!

Posted on February 16, 2004 at 19:15:41 by Lew P.

What does this 'Rick' look like? A short guy with short blonde hair and tats?

Posted on February 17, 2004 at 21:12:28 by SHAW

I can't remember if he had tats or not, but he was blonde, skinny, and about 5'10" or 6' I really don't pay much attention, I just try to shoot my best and win if I can!!!!!!!!

Comment: Come on Mike, you should have known I would read the sarcasm in this statement. How could I not shove it back in his face?

Posted on February 23, 2004 at 11:41:08 by Darrin

"I just try to shoot my best and win if I can!!!!!!"

Good idea, Mike. If you did that on league nights we would not be having this conversation!

Posted on February 24, 2004 at 18:06:33 by SHAW

We do this on league night!!!!!!! That is why we are ahead by about 30 games!!!!!!!

Comment: I also had to set things straight about this ‘a lot of sandbagging going on up north' remark. That sounded like a direct insult of TPA, and could not let it go. I can jab at TPA all year long, but will not tolerate some Twin Cities player criticizing them!

Posted on February 16, 2004 at 14:49:42 by Darrin

Do you have a clue who or what you are talking about? I have no idea who this Rick you refer to is . . . but he is certainly not from 'up north'. Of all the players down from Northern Minnesota and Northwest Wisconsin, we all went home empty handed. I won a lousy $45, and Smitty took home $75. Otherwise, the tourney was a total loss.

In fact, players in our area cannot sandbag, because my website would have proof of their sudden average drop - and tournament organizers have been known to cross-reference Superior Darts.

However, there are no complaints by local players - because we prefer to earn our hardware!

Posted on February 16, 2004 at 17:26:55 by SHAW

Thank you Darrin for a few of the things you said!! The biggest ? I have is how do you know we weren't one of these people who tried to change levels. You are on this site calling people "guttless and chicken-shit , etc." without knowing all the facts!! My partner and I shot Level 1 in cricket and Starks and his partner shot L. 2. Neither team placed in the money. Please don't call people names when you don't know them!!! Don't blame the players for a problem in the system. As a team we played L.2. So it's your guess is as good as mine how we were in L. 3.Good Darts and Good Luck in the future!!!

Comment: "How do you know we weren't one of these people who tried to change levels?", Shaw asks. Easy. Because he would have mentioned that critical piece of information in his first response.

Posted on February 16, 2004 at 19:14:18 by Lew P.

I don't understand what all the commotion is.....

Darrin pointed out the fact that he suspected Starks and Shaw were sandbagging stats in order to play a lower level.

Jen admitted that both Starks and Shaw intentionally 'played down' in that mixed league.

You are both saying the same thing; Starks and Shaw sandbagged for MOMA.

Starks' average stats are better than Smitty's average stats and Smitty is currently classified as a Pro with Bullshooter!

Guys, keep up the good shooting but play your level.

Posted on February 17, 2004 at 21:05:43 by SHAW

Jen never admitted that we purposely shot lower!!! We mostly shoot at things we wouldn't shoot at when we are locked. I also said that my partner and I shot L. 1 for doubles and Starks and his partner shot L. 2 for doubles and as a team we shot L.2. Don't blame the player for a flaw in the system!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted on February 18, 2004 at 00:46:38 by king bagger

Instead of bitching commend these guys on abusing the worst handicapped sports out there. Maybe the dumb SOB'S at MOMA will try to relieve this problem (instead of sitting there counting their profits) before they start losing money at this tourney like they do at the pool tourney.
Get better or shut up
Retired bagger

Posted on February 23, 2004 at 15:49:04 by Darrin

Sure, the system needs to be improved. This is what I have written about on Superior Darts for years. I have the solutions, too. This area has three different operators. But for players in Duluth-Superior, their highest league average is recorded on my Rankings page every season. A player would have to sandbag in every league they play, season after season, to get by with it here. Minnesota tournament organizers know about my website, and will double-check any questionable player averages.

If every area recorded stats as I do – or if MOMA and WAMO set up statewide player databases – sandbagging would essentially disappear. MOMA tournament operators could have looked up ‘Starks' and ‘Shaw' in the WAMO database. When they see the 33ppd and 4.0ppd Starks would have been playing Level 1 all week long – as he should have. (Tom and I shot Level 1 Cricket with a combined 6.1 average; therefore, if Starks partner was better then 2.0 he belonged there as well.)

Regardless of all this, I still reserve the right to call a sandbagger a sandbagger. Intentional sandbagging signals a lack of character. Yes, I know we are now in the ‘character doesn't matter' era of the world – but I refuse to subscribe to the exact attitude that is destroying the moral fabric of this country. People like Shaw find it much easier to blame ‘The System' then take responsibility for his own actions. Don't give me this ‘everyone is doing it' defense either. It is not ‘everyone', but rather, a small percentage of money hungry individuals who could care less about fair competition. If 6% of the men in your town get by with cheating on their wives, does that mean it is okay for you to cheat as well? I am not drawing a moral equivalence between sandbagging and adultery, but simply making a point. The only reason the current system is not working is because of people like Starks and Shaw. Would you let your own children get by with the, “Everybody does it!” excuse?

If you really did ask the front table to move you up, and they simply refused to do so, then I commend your actions. Either way I retract my ‘Chicken-S***' insult – as that may be too insensitive for today's accepting society. Sandbagging is not gutless; it is simply a lack of character. Lucky for you, character does not seem to matter in Western civilization anymore.

Posted on February 24, 2004 at 18:20:19 by SHAW

I'm very impress with your little speach! If you ever go into politics, let me know. You got my vote!! The worst thing though is that your still crying here and not practicing your darts. Next time we shoot I will still beat you. Hope your glad to here that we took 1st in the Stansfield Tourney in LaCrosse this weekend in div. 1 shooting 301. To bad you couldn't be there to get your but kicked by us again. Have a wonderful life dreaming that some day you could be just like Shaw and Starks(and the guy that took 2nd,4th,5-6th,7-8th)

Posted on February 25, 2004 at 10:11:56 by darrin

Let's get something straight here . . . I do not dream of being as good as Shaw and Starks . . . I only dream of being as good as Starks. I like to set my goals high.

By the way, I do find time to practice between posts and political speeches.

Congratulations for the championship. I am not surprised you won. If you have noticed, your ability to throw darts has never been questioned here.

Posted on February 25, 2004 at 14:39:25 by Concerned Citizen

Shaw-

Your team wasn't touched on Saturday in LaX in round robin play and walked through the elimination play 7-0, 7-2, and 7-0 on Sunday. I even heard a few of your teammates were a little upset when Jeff stepped to line down 6-nil and tossed a bull and two fattie 17's to take the game out, even though he was froze, which gave you the 7th win and the title.

Holly confirmed the league stats with your team's entry was one of the last leagues that was not computerized....all paper, pencil and eraser. I realize this isn't your fault.

Personnaly, I could give a shit less if in fact you and/or commrades cheat the system, however, there were more than just a couple of players that questioned not only your ability but your commardes dart throwing ability as a result of what happened in LaX. Sure, we all have our "lucky" days and throw great darts, but you and your team was clearly a cut above DI. Play amongst the other 31 teams was very competitive. Your medicine is coming.

Posted on February 25, 2004 at 19:04:38 by SHAW

Your right they are not commputerized. Both teams keep stats and then compare them at the end of the night. We are in 1st place so there is no way that anyone would lie about our stats. This is the first year that this team has been together, We are a little surprised ourselves how well we mesh. We were not mad at all when he took the 7th game out, that got us home 10 min. sooner. I would be very surprised if we ended up lower than the top level after this year. Knowing how well we shoot together as a team I wouldn't want to shoot lower!! Anybody that knows ME knows that I am not afraid nor do I try to avoid shooting the best shooters!!!!! I will no longer try to defend myself on this subject. I would find that a waste of time like most of this whole discussion has been!!! You all can believe what you want, but I know that I did nothing intentionally wrong. If you knew ME you would know that this is the truth!!

Posted on February 25, 2004 at 20:00:13 by Concerned Citizen

Shaw.
I'll end by telling you flat out, if I see you & your same groupies shooting in anything less than D1 in GB in May, you'll be more than defending your honor in front of other state shooters on this thread. You won't be able to pick up a dart for a solid 3 months when we get through with ya!
What happened at MOMA....fine. I give you the benefit of the doubt. They screwed up. Put you in a lower division by mistake. I'll accept that. But to have it happen twice! There is fowl play involved. Do you think I was born yesterday? And don't give me some bullshit about your team meshing when the sun peaks over the horizon on the 6th day and it happens to be tournament day. With that, if you've submitted stats to WAMO and the are "incorrect", I suggest you get your ass on the phone and correct the "mistake". If you haven't submitted stats, you best be submitting the correct stats!

You're a good shot. So are your commrades. I take nothing away from your skill level nor the rest of your commrades. But the fact is, your team don't belong in a division of play that carries anything less than a team PPD of 110 to 11 4

Comment: Here we go. A month after MOMA Shaw and Starks league team smashes everybody in the Stansfield tournament. I do not know what to think of this 'Concerned Citizen'. It bothers me when people are unwilling to state who they really are. Also, his level of anger is something I do not wish to fuel. I decided to stay out of it, since the subject is getting repetitive anyhow.