A blunt exchange of opinions on FB.
- Thread starter CreeDo
- Start date
What does it matter what they said if nobody heard it? Not condoning this kind of behaviour, but was the Mosconi Cup easy to find to watch? On T.V.?
It was televised. Just not in 'murca. I'm pretty sure a few forum members had posted links to the live streams.
Pool players have always needed "Stakehorses." That was either in tournament play or action games. The pool players who conducted themselves properly always got staked and stayed in action. It's no different today. Those pool players who conduct themselves properly get to play in sponsored events and those that don't get to sit and watch, and complain, and sit and watch, and complain and sit and watch.
Very well put!
This pool thread's a good typical example of the worldwide inter-communication power, efficiency and irresistible stimulation that makes Facebook so appealing. A brilliant concept and follow through. I'm personally sooo glad I loaded up on the stock when it was at 39. It'll be in triple digits before too long. Still an absolute bargain at 59 IMO. Similar pattern and time frame as Google's climb to a 4-digit valuation. Apples to oranges in one respect, because Google's search algorithm is sheer black magic.
Arnaldo
Arnaldo
First, let me note that I'm referring to men's pool in America only.
I'll respectfully disagree. Obviously, many share the blame in why pool has fallen on such times, but to me, the players themselves have done the greatest damage.
When there were tours to which you had to qualify, had to pay dues, and had to adhere to a code of conduct, the players tended to police themselves, and were, for the most part, in it for each other. Together, they kept the pro pool product tidy and respectable, one that they could sell to venue sponsors.
When that era was replaced by the "all you have to do is show up and you can play in most of the best events era," players should have continued to police themselves but didn't, and as a group, they showed less and less dignity in competition, devaluing the professional pool product. No longer official business partners of the promoters, investors, and would-be investors in pool, way too many players behaved with a sense of entitlement that defied logic, particularly when it came to matters involving either the WPBL or the ABP.
Some promoters washed their hands of dealing with the players, but we are all lucky that a few did not. Who can blame the promoters who sat the middle ground and said "I'll still do events but I'll limit field size and, if necessary, I'll decide which players will maximize the quality of my product?"
The players, through deplorable conduct, brought much of this upon themselves. In 2013, there were five major "show up and you get to play" events in rotation pool on the American pool calendar that had a first prize of at least $10,000: Derby City 9-Ball, Southern Classic 9-ball, Ultimate 10-ball, BCAPL 10-ball, and US Open 9-ball. This year, the promoter of the Ultimate 10-ball cut ties with professional pool, the Southern Classic is no longer on the American pool calendar, the BCAPL 10-ball event is an invitational, and the US Open 9-ball event has a limited field, leaving the Derby City 9-ball event as the only big purse unlimited field event in American pro pool.
The players, as a group, forced the hands of the promoters in many ways, and while some of the blame for the pro pool product's decline lies elsewhere, the players, as a group, must hold themselves accountable for much of what has transpired.
Last edited:
....................
Last edited:
Really? And how will they make a name for themselves if they don't try and take on the best. Everyone needs a chance to prove themselves and move up the ladder. Isn't that how the Pros turned Pro?
Besides, in many of the tournaments, I thougt that the pay outs were due to everyones entry fees.
The Pros would be playing for a couple of thousand if it weren't for the No Names and their money.
Pretty short sighted of you to think this way unless you can convince me otherwise.
Last edited:
I would first like to say I am not trying to argue with you, just voicing my views and opinions, as I see things. Most won't read this anyway as it's to long, but I kept thinking of something else I had wanted to say.
The Derby City 9-ball is still there., Southern Classic went south because of location and poor PR and BB stepping on it's toes.
The Ultimate 10-ball disappearing had nothing to do with the way the players acted if I recall from Badi's post tournament post, it was more that people in the industry didn't get on board.
Barry's U.S. Open 9-ball Championship certainly isn't a smaller field because of the players attitudes, it's because of the size of the location and wanting to set up in one room to make it nicer for the players and fans, also monetary considerations.
Marks decision I would say with the BCAPL10-ball, maybe is partially do to some players attitudes, but I think this is as much or more to do with trying to find something that works as far as trying to run a great tournament and trying to manage the expenses with bringing in all those tables in, with a down economy. I think this decision has been a long time coming and watching what a great tournament the Big Foot Invitational has become over the years from the beginning with the Fat Bot Challenge to the present.
The two Turning Stone, Joss Northeast 9-ball tournaments are still at 128 player fields and these were both point tournaments when points still counted for something. yes there is only one this year because work was being done in the venue, but hopefully they will be back to two again next year.
Just who were these "some promoters who washed their hands of the players" that you refer to ?
Are you including people who washed their hands of running tournaments, like Badi, who as I said before I don't recall him saying it had anything to do with the players attitudes ?
AS far as blaming promoters, I didn't blame Mark, I wished him success. Yes I have my opinion as to the Rodney situation, but it's just that ,my opinion, which I am entitled to.
I do not blame Mark for his decision, it's his tournament and of coarse he can do as he chooses, and I think in his heart he tries to do what is best with pool and also what he can live with.
In fact let me say right here, GO MARK, if he were to decide to pack up at this point there really wouldn't be much left.
That doesn't mean I like hearing we aren't going to say what Shane and Ko are playing for, I've never in my life seen a sporting event where the prize the two participants were vying for
was a secret, I also find that mentality offensive and a form of talking down to the very people you're trying to attract, the fans. Of coarse you may very well see this differently, I don't.
As far as this line in your post goes, "The players, through deplorable conduct, brought much of this upon themselves." well we'll just have to disagree on this.
As far as I see it, there were a hand full of players at the very most that were really out of line, and this doesn't shut down leagues or tournaments in other sports and neither should it in
professional pool. These players should be dealt with, that's how it's handled in other sports and pool should be no different in this aspect.
Let me bring up something or should I say some group that for some reason sits in the back ground and seams to escape getting any heat at all.
This group is the BCA. Which I observed was totally left out of your post. Unless this innocuous reference, " and while some of the blame for the pro pool product's decline lies elsewhere", in the last line of your post was referring to the BCA.
Little is mentioned of the BCA, is this a reflection of the fact that the BCA, really does little if anything any more, for professional pool. If any one who is far wiser than I thinks this statement is wrong, please do feel free to enlighten me of all the BCA has done for the betterment of Professional Pool, in say the last ten years. I follow pool closely, but I'm sure there are those much more in the know than I. As far as what I can recall, as to what the BCA has accomplished in the last ten years or so, well that is the problem, As I don't recall ANYTHING !
If they, the BCA, wants to be only a trade organization, that's find inform the World Pool Association (WPA) and let them go about the business of finding some one who wants to do the job,
as they aren't, and haven't been.
As far as vague statements such as this, "The players, as a group, forced the hands of the promoters in many ways," and this, "the players, as a group, must hold themselves accountable for much of what has transpired. I respect you and am not trying to argue with you, but when I read your post it is peppered with lines like the two just mentioned and the one I made reference to earlier, "The players, through deplorable conduct, brought much of this upon themselves" and even though I reread your post trying to find something to back up these statements, I could not.
What I did find, was a focusing in on the players and I'm not sure why, everyone else who's had a hand in the demise of Professional Pool was given relatively a free pass.
I am not saying the players have not made some bad choices, as they have. This happens more when times are tough, and players are struggling just to keep from going under.
Some will say this is making an excuse, I say this is just a fact, plane and simple, this puts much more stress on the individual players and their interactions between each other and tournament promoters and their decisions.
This also happens when their is no real tour to belong to, (which you did make reference to) and the policing of each other becomes much harder when the same players are not seeing each other week in and week out, and feel, as a member of a group. When only seeing each other when they both happen to both go to a random individual tournament, I would agree things would tend to, and did unravel more at this juncture. I think at this juncture is when the BCA, people from within the industry, or someone other than the players (as the players, in my opinion aren't well equipped to form an association) should have stepped in to try and insure that Professional Pool stayed on the right track.
Now maybe someone tried to do this as I'm not in the know of many things that go on as I'm only a pool player and a fan. But I am a fan who tries to pay close attention to what goes on and what doesn't. I also am sure it's not an easy endeavor to try and get the players on the same page about anything. I think the players themselves deep down inside know that they aren't the ones to handle forming such an organization and yet they have much pride and it's hard for them to admit that. That's why in lack of a tour and after the Mackey debacle, they jump toward
anything that looks like a ray of hope, such as the IPT, Bonus Ball, hoping that something would work out, because they knew they didn't know how to make something happen on their own.
I just hope I get to see a PROFESSIONAL POOL TOUR AGAIN, where the pros can make a living. I also would love for the BCA to just admit that all they are, or are interested in being is a trade organization and find three other letters than BCA to represent that organization. I personally think the WPA should step in and remove the BCA as it exists today as the North American arm of their organization.
That's all Folks !!!
Last edited:
This is a pretty wide and sweeping indictment. Can you put this in some sort of time frame, because I seem to have missed the lack of self-policing/professionalism which allegedly precipitated this transition. An example or two would help.
I think what killed televised pool was televised pool. Ham-handed "cut to the game winning shot" editing, and matches designed to fit in a commercial time frame is boring and doomed to failure. How different is one shot at the 9 ball from any other? I'd much rather watch an Accu-Stats DVD that I've seen multiple times. And when televised pool died, the sponsorship went away. Tobacco and alcohol advertising dollars and sponsorships were killed off by puritanical legislation. The hypnotic pull of smartphones, (anti) social media and other online pseudo-content ensure a difficult resurgence for pool, either as entertainment or as a leisure time activity.
I still don't believe that "dealing with the players" was the main problem. Every sports organization has to deal with players, and I think the good far outweigh the bad. You can't expect a bunch of tough-as-nails, high-level competitors to have the personality profile of symphony musicians.
I think part of the problem is when someone starts referring to their tournament as a "product". But it's fine, I guess; if it's a "product" you want, then it's a "product" you'll get. But call it something else, not a pool tournament.
"Good evening, sir. How is your pool-viewing experience today?"
Eh... I'll take a "real" tournament any day.
The main problem people seem to have with limited fields and invitational events is the method of selection. If it's truly a matter of showmanship, level of play and crowd appeal, then fine. However, when it comes down to "This guy gets the boot because he said something about me", then it starts to smell bad, and I feel it's time for some self-examination. If an organization wishes to promote an event featuring a talent-based field of high-level players, then qualifiers would be an equitable way to handle that.
I think it's more about the money and profit than anything else. The statement I saw from the Ultimate 10 Ball promoter didn't seem to blame the players. I don't know what happened to the Southern Classic, but having followed some of the threads here regarding the next US Open, it doesn't surprise me that event promoters are finding the going a little rough and monetarily unrewarding. It's a lot of work to put on an event, and it doesn't seem to be that financially rewarding. Even the most died-in-the-wool pool aficionado will tire of pouring money into a hole.
It's interesting to note that the DCC might have a reputation as one of the "grittier" events, and continues to survive.
If I'm not mistaken, the US Open 9 ball event, while limited, is first-come, first-serve with regard to registrations, and not based on favoritism.
Some of the organizational attempts by the players have been amateurish and less than enlightened, to be sure, however, I'd offer that most of the decline lies elsewhere, unless the economic climate in the US has somehow escaped everyone's notice. For those who still wish to debate whether the promoters or the players are responsible, that's a complex (and probably moot) chicken & egg question. When any industry finds itself in trouble, it seems to be human nature for infighting to occur. The goal should always be to minimize that infighting, in order to preserve what's left of the industry. Unfortunately, there will always be the vindictive finger-pointers who want to place blame upon some individual or group of individuals. Employees, unions, players, whatever; for some reason it's usually perceived as the fault of the little guy and not "the company" or "the government", which, ironically, is generally responsible for running things into the ground with short-sighted policies. To me, it's an indication of small-minded, big-business thinking.
And regarding the CSI/Morris issue, (which seems to be the fallback citation of everyone who wants to paint pool players in a negative light) A derogatory "F" book post? Really? In the real world, is that even "a thing"? If CSI really wants to be the premiere pool promoter & organization, it might want to comport itself as such and think twice before engaging in a pissing contest with one of the upper-level competitors in the sport. Yeah, it's true... I expect one level of behavior from an event organizer or sanctioning/governing body, and another from the competitors. Not being a devotee of "F" book, I have no idea what was said, but it seems that the response of CSI was an example of the pernicious reductionism that seems to run rampant in a culture conditioned to think that anti-social networks are more important than reality, and that "likes" really indicate some sort of approval. In "F" book-ese, a simple "un-friend" would have sufficed.
I prefer not to support an organization that censors its critics, and I encourage others to do the same. Where does that sort of behavior end?
Ken
An elephant who spends its time scratching and chewing at every little bug bite might starve to death.
I can't speak for Europe but the reason for the decline in pool in the U.S. is access to pool tables . Most teenagers do not have access to pool tables because pre-teens and teens aren't allowed in places where alcohol is served , and most bars have bar tables . A parent can accompany a child , but the logistics for a parent to do that would be tough.
As a kid i could wander by a pool room after school and play without the need for supervision because the town i lived in was dry , that was the late 60's early 70's . That is not possible now except in a few locations .You can't letter in pool at public schools which subsidize other things that kids become interested in .
Did pool actually enjoy glory days ? Has it ever payed the rent for anyone except a few players ? I'm talking tournament pool . Water finds its own level , and that is what pool will have to do .
as i recall, it was (some of) the Players' lack of respect for the GAME.
as well as their lack of respect for the promoters.
"ït's just not fun anymore"
.
In response to your three statements above, with responses in the same order:
Do you not have any idea how many people are fired from their jobs for what they post on facebook. Yes, it is a real thing. Happens ALL the time. Do you not watch the news, or read, or ever leave your house, or anything?
So you want to criticize and bash Mark for banning Rodney from his events, but yet you don't even know what happened or what Rodney did or said? Wow.
So if you had a company, and one of the people that worked for you was bashing you, bashing your company, trying to get other coworkers as well as your customers to be against your company, trying to harm your company, you would still want to work with them and have them working for your company? According to you, it would be unacceptable for you to do anything about that and if you did you would want the public to stop supporting your company.