Should women be allowed to compete in US Open 9 Ball Championship?

Should women be allowed to compete in US Open 9 Ball?

  • Yes, Open means open. Anyone should be able to play.

    Votes: 253 74.9%
  • No, US Open 9 Ball should be men only.

    Votes: 82 24.3%
  • What is US Open 9 Ball?

    Votes: 3 0.9%

  • Total voters
    338
  • Poll closed .
For guys that said they shouldn't be allowed to play because they have their own Open. If the women closed their Open down then more than 50% of the ones on here that voted no because of that would allow them to play? I bet not. It's mostly "I don't want to get beat by a women thing". If the women play soooo bad then there should be nothing to worry about as they wouldn't be cashing like the other 100 men that have no chance. As far as the points go, I hope some day that a women or two can get enough points to play on the Mosconi Cup :eek:. Johnnyt
 
for the record, I voted yes they should be able to, but only because it would pad the purses. If they want to pay the entry with a shot at cashing low and getting their money back then more power to them. God knows I've spent far more on things that made far less sense.
 
Hell, my buddy Bruce in Athens who never plays and sits at the bar and drinks 5 nights a week could play any of them even on my money and most of you have never even heard of him.

Is his last name Berrong? If so, then most of us have heard of him.

I agree with most of your list of 50, though.

-Andrew
 
Is his last name Berrong? If so, then most of us have heard of him.

I agree with most of your list of 50, though.

-Andrew

yes, most of the people that really know pool or have been around will know him, but all that think the women can really compete with the men probably don't know him.

I didn't even put Putnam, Bartram, Hennessee, Dechaine. There are literally hundreds of people that would rob the WPBA blind if they were allowed to play on it. Not that they should be, but I get tired of people being unrealistic about the speed of the women. Yes, they can play but they are no where near as good as the men.
 
Last edited:
If there was a waiting list a mile long, then I could see a reason for exclusions.

But when it was 216 out of 256 possible - Why not let more in? A great event, but why would you settle for less than a full field?

Also take into account former champions that Barry has to put into the field himself.

Then when you have 256 spots and 340 applicants, you can start to be picky.

FWIW
 
The game needs all the players it can get, right now. The women, that enter, would create a lot more interest. They didn't sell out the field. All who want to play should be allowed to play.

They could also run qualifiers and let the women in. If they won a qualifier, they are certainly good enough to compete.
 
I think, there are certain qualifications in respect to an individual sport. Within that sport, there are factors involved that go beyond that single event. There are rankings, and those rankings effect the overall stats for each player throughout the year. There are team competitions, and historical stats in place and things like that aren't easily neglected.

Within competition, there are categories. There is no shame in separating a man and a woman in competition. Just as there is nothing wrong with separating handicapped players within their respective category. It gives more opportunity for growth within that level of playing field.

It is really very simple and very fundamental that the best within each group compete within each other. It is about organization and the reason we separate into categories is to keep things from getting too out of hand or the fact that it may add liability. There are a whole lot of other things to consider than to just ask, 'why?'

I personally think women can do very well in the U.S. Open. It would be a great accomplishment to see a female player win a world class event. There was a time when Annika, and Michelle Wie was allowed to play with the men, but think about it. They just don't belong in that group. The belong with other women in the LPGA. They compete among their own category. Within that category, there lies room for growth and that is what is most important is the future of that sport. I understand pool is different, and many female players can hang with the men, but that's not all there is to it.

Another thing to look at is who's club are you wanting to be a part of? Augusta National has a committee of men. They want their tournament to be males of certain qualification. To fit in that category that excludes others makes it all the more special. It also raises questions like the original question that started this thread. It is the same for Berry Behrman. He can invite whomever he wants no one can do a thing about it. If I have people over to my house, and your not invited, don't knock on my front door and ask why I didn't invite you, cause life doesn't work like that.

I am all for having a completely separate combined tournament for men, women, handicapped and whomever else wanted to get in providing they qualify, but I am a firm believer in tradition. Tradition carries weight and a sense of depth that is irreplaceable. We should respect tradition, and cherish it, cause once it's gone, it's gone.

So hypothetically, if there were a woman that could spot Efren the 7 you would be prepared to deny her entry to the US Open and restrict her earnings potential as a professional pool player simply because of her gender? For tradition?

Actually Barry Behrman cannot just invite whomever he chooses. The fact is that Mr. Behrman has not been challenged in court over his exclusion of women in a tournament he bills as the US Open.

As previously stated though the thought is that he and the WPBA have a contract or some sort of agreement that WPBA players may not play in the US Open in order to be allowed to use the US Open title for their own event. In any case however the WPBA cannot trade away the rights of women who are not WPBA members.

I am not an attorney so I have zero qualification to comment with any sort of authority on whether Mr. Behrman is acting in accordance with state or federal law regarding discrimination. Certainly since he pays out a prize fund and his tournament is sanctioned as a professional event then it seems as if he is possibly denying women the opportunity to work in their profession, which is illegal I believe.

I tend to believe that Mr. Behrman is possibly not on entirely solid legal ground with the stance that women are not allowed to play simply based on the grounds of equal opportunity laws against discrimination that currently exist.

But at the end of the day how do you feel about Mr. Behrman taking a $600 entry fee from some guy off the street who cannot even hold a cue while not allowing women who dedicate their lives to the profession to play?

It was an affront to invite Allison Fisher to accept her Hall of Fame induction at a tournament she is barred from just because she is a woman.
 
If pool is to really grow, to get on TV, to get real big sponsors, this gender discrimantion that is happening in pool has to stop.

There are very few sports that women and men can complete on equal grounds together and pool is one of them.

I agree its mostly men not wanting to get beat by a woman. True champions don't like losing to anyone regradless to gender.

The ever lasting Good Ole Boys club, to which, I have never been a memeber of, is alive and well in pool.
 
US 9 Ball Championship

The top 8 finishers of the women's US Open against the top 8 finishers of the men's US Open... that should settle it... once and for all... who would sponsor and provide the $$$ for these top 16 players????
 
In most things, not only pool I have competed in, OPEN means anyone.
I think they should be able to play. But, then there is the Women only tournaments. So, women should be able to play if they stop saying men can't play in a Womens open, unless they was to call it the US Mens Open.
Also, why call it the US Open, when any country can participate?
 
The top 8 finishers of the women's US Open against the top 8 finishers of the men's US Open... that should settle it... once and for all... who would sponsor and provide the $$$ for these top 16 players????

Great idea for a t.v. tournament, but I don't see what it would "settle," exactly.
 
Settle the need to have the top women play against the top men.

Because the women and men have their separate OPEN events... this event would include both the men and women to see who is the best.



Great idea for a t.v. tournament, but I don't see what it would "settle," exactly.
 
They should be allowed to play, but get last spots.

Limit is 256... this year they had only 216.... so that would leave 40 spots for women.

If the had 240.... then 16 women get in.... etc.
 
Settle the need to have the top women play against the top men.

Because the women and men have their separate OPEN events... this event would include both the men and women to see who is the best.

Yeahh... I don't think ANY one is even trying to argue that women play better than men. Really, I haven't seen anything like that argument here. So gratuitously, for all your male ego satisfaction, and since you really need to hear it, I will say:

We all know that the very best men play better than the very best women, both historically and currently.

Okay? Now that's all the stroking I'm going to do, because I also think that those are two bell curves riding each other, and that the means will continue to approach each other over time.

So I think this discussion is mainly over the definition of "Open," whether one or both "Open's" really fit that definition, and whether any change is wanted or needed.

For my own part, I don't think either tournament fits the definition of "Open." The women have to go through a lot of hoops to get to play in theirs, and the men have to cough up $600 to play in theirs- which definitely makes the men's more "open" than the women's, but it still excludes women.

So I think the women's ought to be truly open because it would bring more money, more players, and gain some seasoning and exposure for the weaker women who can afford to buy the experience. Just like the weak men who get into the Men's Open for the thrill and the chance to say they played Johnny Archer once in a tournament.

It would totally be nice if the Men's Open would say, "Hey- we know you ladies aren't going to take first any time soon and that your presence, money, and possible higher finishes will bring exposure, interest, and excitement to the Men's Open, AND we are strong enough to handle a little distraction, fear, and few losses to women along your path of progress; so okay, we'll let you play in ours and we won't try to play in yours. Best of luck." But I agree that that's asking a whole lot.
 
They should be allowed to play, but get last spots.

Limit is 256... this year they had only 216.... so that would leave 40 spots for women.

If the had 240.... then 16 women get in.... etc.

If there were more than 256 players who wanted in, I can imagine two fair ways to narrow down the field, and neither of them is based on gender. You could make the tournament open to the first 256 players to get their entry fee submitted, or you could hold qualifiers. It wouldn't be right to give ANY man who wanted to compete precedence over the top women, when I know of at least a few guys who were in this year's field who can't even beat the better female players in my pool hall, much less the best female players in the world.

-Andrew
 
well let me see if I can name 50 off the top of my head

Thats just 50 off the top of my head and doesn't take into account the scores of other Asians and Pinoys that could snap them off that way.

There are probably 200 more or so that would be favored over them even.


Vette,

I know usually you're right on the money, but of your list, players I've never seen at US Open 9 Ball are marked with (??) and who were not there, to my knowledge, this year are marked with (**)

I maybe off by few but I'm trying to prove a point, so bare with me, OK:wink:

1) Yang (??)
2) Wu (??)
3) Orcullo (**)
4) Van Corteza
5) Pagulayan (**)
6) De Luna (**)
7) Alcano
8) Kiamco
9) Souquet
10) Immonen
11) Hohmann
12) Engert (**)
13) Drago (**)
14) Appleton
15) Peach
16) Melling
17) Boyes
18) Parica
19) Reyes (**)
20) Fiejen
21) Van Den Berg (**)
22) Ricky Yang (??)
23) Archer
24) Van Boening
25) Schmidt
26) Nevel (**)
27) Jones
28) Moore
29) Deuel
30) Chamat
31) Mills
32) Dominguez
33) Martinez
34) Strickland
35) Bustamante (**)
36) Chao (??)
37) Chavez (**)
38) Hatch (**)
39) Frost (**)
40) Luat (**)
41) Sambajon (**)
42) Walden (**)
43) Townsend (**)
44) Wiseman
45) Owen
46) Watson (**)
47) Williams
48) Davis (**)
49) Ortmann
50) Kirkwood (**)

So out of 50, there are 23 players who had a chance to win the US Open 9 Ball didn't even come... That's about 1/2 the field...

Maybe with women added =
1) More CASH to take home; may entice these pinoys never come to US stage to come out and play.
2) Drawing women should be a "by" = easier money mentality; may bring some US Pros to come back and play.

I just think it's a win - win situation.

S.
 
Back
Top