Women at this year's U.S. Open...surprised.

[Jaden]

No not some people

Thanks justadub. For 34 years the US open was open to some people who had the dough that could play.

All people with a dangler between their legs...

It's funny to see people who are all for getting equal rights to people who continue to limit those rights in their own events.

Jaden

p.s. I don't mind letting the women play, but don't act like it's wrong when they aren't....

 

[Grilled Cheese]

When they first announced women in the U.S. Open, people here busted out their flame-throwers for the comments I made - which was simply stating the facts and observing reality.

I really don't think there's much of a debate, but some people insist there's still a question on the matter. I think various men vs. women match ups in the past were enough, and then the IPT tournament was the definitive answer to the question. At the IPT, all the top women pros were there. Gerda, Allison, Karen and more. How did they do? Not so well. And the IPT field was not at all the strongest due to the fact that Sigel/Trudeau intentionally put in a a couple dozen wannabes in order to incite massive demand and craze for qualifiers. They left out many great players in their "tour card" selection and put second stringers in so that every semi-pro and pro out there would say "why is THAT guy in there? Why is SHE there? - I can beat them playing one-arm, there's a tour card slot with my name on it" and it worked. Many of the women's wins were off of these wannabes and if you got lucky and were in a group with two of them, advancement to the next round wasn't too difficult. But I was there and watched the best lady players get crushed by medium to top men players.

But I digress. There have been many more fields at the U.S. Open that were stronger. Because some of the clowns that were picked for the IPT would NEVER put up their own money to play against real world class competition. And they don't because you don't see them at the U.S. Open.

I find is amusing how some are continuing to make excuses. Such as that the top ladies were at another tournament. Ok, I'll give you that. But then Gerda's getting into the money is hailed as some kind of proof of their arguments. Um...1 lady making it to the minimum cash isn't proof that the ladies can play with the men.

Hey, a lot of good male players were eliminated before Gerda. On the other hand, sometimes no so great players go a few rounds in and cash.

Since they couldn't fill the field anyway - I guess it don't matter. That was Jay's argument. What difference does it make. Better the ladies play than no one.


But keep one thing in mind. The fact that the ladies went to their own tournament is proof enough. Why slug it out against the men and hope to just cash in, when the same lady pros who may or may not even cash in at the minimum have a very high chance of winning their own event and making some real money?

 

[dorabelle]

When they first announced women in the U.S. Open, people here busted out their flame-throwers for the comments I made - which was simply stating the facts and observing reality.

I really don't think there's much of a debate, but some people insist there's still a question on the matter. I think various men vs. women match ups in the past were enough, and then the IPT tournament was the definitive answer to the question. At the IPT, all the top women pros were there. Gerda, Allison, Karen and more. How did they do? Not so well. And the IPT field was not at all the strongest due to the fact that Sigel/Trudeau intentionally put in a a couple dozen wannabes in order to incite massive demand and craze for qualifiers. They left out many great players in their "tour card" selection and put second stringers in so that every semi-pro and pro out there would say "why is THAT guy in there? Why is SHE there? - I can beat them playing one-arm, there's a tour card slot with my name on it" and it worked. Many of the women's wins were off of these wannabes and if you got lucky and were in a group with two of them, advancement to the next round wasn't too difficult. But I was there and watched the best lady players get crushed by medium to top men players.

But I digress. There have been many more fields at the U.S. Open that were stronger. Because some of the clowns that were picked for the IPT would NEVER put up their own money to play against real world class competition. And they don't because you don't see them at the U.S. Open.

I find is amusing how some are continuing to make excuses. Such as that the top ladies were at another tournament. Ok, I'll give you that. But then Gerda's getting into the money is hailed as some kind of proof of their arguments. Um...1 lady making it to the minimum cash isn't proof that the ladies can play with the men.

Hey, a lot of good male players were eliminated before Gerda. On the other hand, sometimes no so great players go a few rounds in and cash.

Since they couldn't fill the field anyway - I guess it don't matter. That was Jay's argument. What difference does it make. Better the ladies play than no one.


But keep one thing in mind. The fact that the ladies went to their own tournament is proof enough. Why slug it out against the men and hope to just cash in, when the same lady pros who may or may not even cash in at the minimum have a very high chance of winning their own event and making some real money?

The argument is that women should be able to play if they qualify. Its not just women that didnt make the money. A lot of men didnt either. Let the scores judge the players and not their gender.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

IMO it boils down to this;

All pool players are 'pool players'. Once you start labeling them as men or women, you become sexist with an opinion.

The only distinction I can really see for pool players is their skill level.
The Pros play for a living. Any of them are capable of running an open table.

In an open tournament;
As long as you can pay the entry fee, it only means you can afford the contest, it doesn't mean you will not go two and out.

 

[dorabelle]

OK, We'll get Barry and Brady Behrman to hand-write an apology to you on perfume-scented stationery, describing in great detail what chauvinistic sexist pigs they have been and how they will never, ever do it again.

I had a woman tell me a long time ago that for some of them, a man needs to apologize often, and not just once, for the same infraction!

Sounds like you're one of those people.

Sounds like you want them (Barry and Brady, and now Shannon) to hire a skywriting team stating, "We were sexist for 35 years. Sorry Dorabelle!"

Have a good weekend, will you?

You can save your money on the perfume scented stationary.

I don't know if a man or woman ran the us open 9-ball for the past 35 years. I'm not man bashing, I'm principal bashing.

They don't have to apologies to me but it maybe nice to apologies to the ladies that were not allowed to play in the US open for the past 35 years.

 

[Ashley]

Why slug it out against the men and hope to just cash in, when the same lady pros who may or may not even cash in at the minimum have a very high chance of winning their own event and making some real money?

By your argument, amateurs (or anyone for that matter), shouldn't enter a tournament they have no chance of winning for hopes that playing against better players will push them to get better.

I, and many others who strive to get better, enter tournaments on a weekly (even daily) basis where we know we have no chance of winning. If you play the same players (or player levels) constantly, there's nothing to push you to the upper echelon of play.

Some people care more about the love of the game and playing well than the money aspect. (Not that it isn't nice :smile

 

[dorabelle]

I am well aware that I "can do whatever I want".

My point to you is that you seem to have a huge gripe with sexist, or gender-based issues, specifically related to pool.

We all acknowledge that the U.S. Open has not allowed women to compete since its inception 35 years ago.

Was that right? Perhaps not.
Does it offend you? Clearly it does.
Do you want women to be able to compete in this particular tournament? Yes you do.

So, where are we now?

The past is just that, and we seem to be making progress regarding the inclusion of ladies.

Why complain about the past 35 years? Seems unproductive to me.

If you have an issue with how the tournament will be run going forward now that the ladies are allowed to compete I can see your legitimate beef, but your griping about sexism, and snide remarks about "big-strong men" etc., only serve to display to the forum that you have some kind of deep-seated resentment toward men, or maybe you are hyper-sensitive toward all gender-based issues, both of which have nothing to do with my thread.

Of course I could be wrong, it has been known to happen...

And yes, I know you can do and say what you want too.

I just hope this thread does not turn into a gender-bashing hate-fest because you won't let go of the past.

How does me saying --" I find the decision to not allow women to play in the US open for 35 years even if they would be able to qualify, disgusting"-- equal man bashing? You started a thread about women being able to play in the us open for the first time. My comments are not so far off from your thread.
Sorry forum for my "deep seated resentment (but its not true, i love men) to wards men and my hyper sensitivity to gender based issues (reminder only if the women could qualify and i also agree there shouldn't be a 1000.00 special top ladies prize) and for posting something that is totally off topic to this thread.

 

[spktur]

The bottom line here is that for the last 35 years there has only been one
(1) woman who was truly competitive at the men's level. Now there are several women who can be competitive and Barry (who I really don't like) has opened the tournament up to the women. There still won't be a woman champion for quite some time but they are now at a level to be competitive. This is not the only event where the men and women can compete on equal ground but in the past the WPBA has not allowed their players to compete in some events with the men because there might be some 'gambling', oooh it could corrupt them. By the way, the one was the great Jean Balukas the best woman player there has ever been and due to conflicts with the WPBA does not play in competition any longer.

 

[Grilled Cheese]

Ah yes, and enter the "equality" arguments.

Women should practice what they preach and lead the way by example and open up their events to the men. So that they aren't the sexists.

The cold hard reality (here comes the reality check) is that women are the ones that are the protected class. For those that don't know what I'm talking about, I'm referring to the fact that they are the ones that willfully choose to segregate themselves on the basis of sex. Presumably to keep men out so that the women can be more competitive. Not the other way around. Women's this and women's that in many sports was created for the primary purpose of creating a venue where women can enjoy a sport and be competitive against each other, again, implied and presumably because the entry of men would make the women noncompetitive.

It is outright hypocrisy of the highest order to go after a men's event on such a basis especially when those people themselves are the #1 practitioners of sexism and gender based segregation and classification. Yet, they do and do so as if they are entitled.

I then see the "it's on open tournament" ...yeah, open for men. This is merely a semantics argument that has no validity. That tournament didn't allow women in the past, now it does. That has nothing to do with the term "open" since women have women-only "open" tournaments in pool and in other sports. The word open means whatever the promoter wants it to mean. It has no inherent or implied meaning to include gender.

Why do men's events need to include women in order to satisfy some sort of standard of equality or fairness? Why not make the women's tour the place where equality and fairness is satisfied? Open those up to the men. Fair is fair. It's suppose to be a two way street. But it's not.

It's not because the very fact that the women have their own tour that prohibits men from play is the ultimate admission that the men play better period.

 

[Cuebuddy]

How does me saying --" I find the decision to not allow women to play in the US open for 35 years even if they would be able to qualify, disgusting"-- equal man bashing? You started a thread about women being able to play in the us open for the first time. My comments are not so far off from your thread.
Sorry forum for my "deep seated resentment (but its not true, i love men) to wards men and my hyper sensitivity to gender based issues (reminder only if the women could qualify and i also agree there shouldn't be a 1000.00 special top ladies prize) and for posting something that is totally off topic to this thread.

dorabelle I really try to stay away from the argument threads but I am high on pain pills right now (surgery) so what the heck. A lot of what you are saying makes sense, and i appreciate someone who stands up for what they believe. Change is happening for the gals and thats whats important, I would be more worried about your cat....it hasn't moved in awhile:frown:.

 

[dorabelle]

All the statements about women not being able to compete. Tell that to Jean Balukas in 1987 when she beat McCready 11-3. The Us open could have been won by a woman if allowed to play years ago. She had a cue in her hand as child the same as alot of the men with similar results. Tell that to Jasmin who just beat Stephen Cohen in the straight pool event. How about to Yu Ram Cha who beat SVB in a tournament. Not only are you sounding sexist, your just plain wrong.

 

[Cuebuddy]

All the statements about women not being able to compete. Tell that to Jean Balukas in 1987 when she beat McCready 11-3. The Us open could have been won by a woman if allowed to play years ago. She had a cue in her hand as child the same as alot of the men with similar results. Tell that to Jasmin who just beat Stephen Cohen in the straight pool event. How about to Yu Ram Cha who beat SVB in a tournament. Not only are you sounding sexist, your just plain wrong.

No really the cat is not moving and I don't know if it is male or female.

 

[spktur]

All the statements about women not being able to compete. Tell that to Jean Balukas in 1987 when she beat McCready 11-3. The Us open could have been won by a woman if allowed to play years ago. She had a cue in her hand as child the same as alot of the men with similar results. Tell that to Jasmin who just beat Stephen Cohen in the straight pool event. How about to Yu Ram Cha who beat SVB in a tournament. Not only are you sounding sexist, your just plain wrong.

As I stated there was one (1) woman who was competitive and that was Jean Balukas. But even queen Jean never won a mixed event. and she was the best there has ever been.

 

[dorabelle]

As I stated there was one (1) woman who was competitive and that was Jean Balukas. But even queen Jean never won a mixed event. and she was the best there has ever been.

She was not the best pool player then because she didn't win. I'm sure she didn't get knocked out 2 straight in those events either. There are many more men that have competed through out the years that have never won these events either. I'm done with this thread. I dont think there is anything else for me to say. Thanks for the discussion everyone.

 

[cuesmith]

So what you're saying is one form of prejudice is different from another?

No! I'm saying that having separate tournaments for the different genders is not prejudice. It's a way of leveling the playing field so that the ladies primarily compete with other ladies. I have no problem with ladies, who wish to, playing in mens events, but I would have a problem with men playing in Ladies tournaments. I don't feel that would truly be fair to the Ladies. If there were no Ladies only tournaments and the only venue they could compete in were those that were made up of mostly professional men, do you think they could really compete fairly? Some would do OK, but the vast majority would get tired of getting pounded on and soon quit. It's no different than Tennis, Golf, Basketball, bowling and most sports. For the ladies to compete on a level playing field they need to compete with other ladies. I really don't feel that is sexist, prejudiced or looking down on the ladies. It's just common sense!

 

[cuesmith]

As I stated there was one (1) woman who was competitive and that was Jean Balukas. But even queen Jean never won a mixed event. and she was the best there has ever been.

I watched Jeannie compete in several ladies tournaments and some men's events as well. She had some good matches in the men's events but she wasn't really competitive with the top men. And those of you who think she was

the best woman player ever are crazy! She was the best at the time she competed, but she couldn't come close to the top ladies of today. The bar has been raised! Jeanie looked better than she actually was, because she often

made some very difficult shots. The reason she made these difficult shots is because she often got out of line. There are probably at least 10 ladies today that play at least the 7 ball better than Jeannie ever did! You just don't

see them playing those really hard shots as often, because they get much better position and don't have to or they've learned to play good safeties when they got in a tough spot instead of taking the fliers that Jeannie used to.

I honestly doubt that Jeannie would have ever won a match against Allison when both were at the top of their games. Allison played like Mosconi and made everything look easy. She never had to shoot difficult shots! She played

perfect position and always had the right angle to get to the next ball. Jeannie often had to make super shots because she got out of line and got bad angles which compounded themselves as the rack went on. That made her

look like she was playing great when everything worked for her, but if she played position like Allison she wouldn't have had to shoot those "trick shots". Don't get me wrong, she was the best of her time for sure and dominated

the ladies tour for many years, but the level of competition was much lower than today!

 

[alstl]

I thought Gerda did her thing, she gave Adam Smith a good run for his money, me thinks she cashed in the tourney which is awesome for her. As a whole the women will never be able to win against the men, at least while I am alive. Unless some monster is somewhere getting her game up I just don't see it happening. So with that said, if the women are taking spots away from Men I think they should not be allowed to play.

I don't want to sound sexist I just don't think lightweights should have to fight the heavyweights. Plus if women want equality then they don't need their own league also. Take all the money in women's pool and put it with the money in men's pool then and let them earn it. Oh wait then we would have exactly no women earning money from pool.

Women have their own events, men dont belong there, I feel the same way about the Men's events. If this were basketball though I'd have an argument for women cause they shoot significantly better than men as a whole. That's a fact women can shoot the rock. Might be too physical for them in the old NBA but this NBA doesn't play defense.

So in pool tourneys, sorry ladies just don't think you belong with the men especially without allowing the men to come play in your events.

Ouschan took 3rd in the world 14.1 a couple years ago. What's your highest finish?

 

[jay helfert]

I watched Jeannie compete in several ladies tournaments and some men's events as well. She had some good matches in the men's events but she wasn't really competitive with the top men. And those of you who think she was

the best woman player ever are crazy! She was the best at the time she competed, but she couldn't come close to the top ladies of today. The bar has been raised! Jeanie looked better than she actually was, because she often

made some very difficult shots. The reason she made these difficult shots is because she often got out of line. There are probably at least 10 ladies today that play at least the 7 ball better than Jeannie ever did! You just don't

see them playing those really hard shots as often, because they get much better position and don't have to or they've learned to play good safeties when they got in a tough spot instead of taking the fliers that Jeannie used to.

I honestly doubt that Jeannie would have ever won a match against Allison when both were at the top of their games. Allison played like Mosconi and made everything look easy. She never had to shoot difficult shots! She played

perfect position and always had the right angle to get to the next ball. Jeannie often had to make super shots because she got out of line and got bad angles which compounded themselves as the rack went on. That made her

look like she was playing great when everything worked for her, but if she played position like Allison she wouldn't have had to shoot those "trick shots". Don't get me wrong, she was the best of her time for sure and dominated

the ladies tour for many years, but the level of competition was much lower than today!

Sherm, did you know that Jeannie had many runs over a 100 balls and a high run of 152! She beat a lot of top Straight Pool players in 14.1 events. I think she played as well as she needed to win against the other women. If she had to pick her game up a notch she could and did. In the few open events she played in she defeated guys named Mizerak, Hall, McCready, Lebron and David Howard. This is when these guys were at the top of their game!

I watched Jeannie play quite a bit and she was the real deal, the equal of the top women players today imo. She wouldn't be able to dominate women's pool like she did in the 80's, but at her best she would still be capable of winning a tournament. She had a big game, a big stroke and most importantly a lot of heart. Jeannie was a winner! She didn't get weak under pressure, she got better!

 

[spktur]

She was not the best pool player then because she didn't win. I'm sure she didn't get knocked out 2 straight in those events either. There are many more men that have competed through out the years that have never won these events either. I'm done with this thread. I dont think there is anything else for me to say. Thanks for the discussion everyone.

When I said Jean was the best there was, I meant the best woman player and among the women she did win. In fact a year or so before she dropped out, after having been off for most of a year, she came back and strung 12 WPBA tournaments in a row. I'd say that's a pretty good indication of how she compared with the other women players.

 

[Johnnyt]

Sherm, did you know that Jeannie had many runs over a 100 balls and a high run of 152! She beat a lot of top Straight Pool players in 14.1 events. I think she played as well as she needed to win against the other women. If she had to pick her game up a notch she could and did. In the few open events she played in she defeated guys named Mizerak, Hall, McCready, Lebron and David Howard. This is when these guys were at the top of their game!

I watched Jeannie play quite a bit and she was the real deal, the equal of the top women players today imo. She wouldn't be able to dominate women's pool like she did in the 80's, but at her best she would still be capable of winning a tournament. She had a big game, a big stroke and most importantly a lot of heart. Jeannie was a winner! She didn't get weak under pressure, she got better!

I too saw Jean play many times and was equel to the women players today. Like Jay said she wouldn't run over today's top women players but she would be at least their equel. She really hated to lose. Johnnyt