How many players should a pro organization represent? The PBTA once seriously considered having an entire tour with only 16 players.
A pro organization should represent how many?
- Thread starter unknownpro
- Start date
Great answer!
Bump for more votes...
I think any pro org should have a major pro level (say 200 top pros) and a lower level (minor league) which could have any number. As you have so many top 10 finishes in the minors you must move up to the majors. If you stay in the bottom 25 or so in the majors you must move back down to the minors. Or something along those lines. Maybe the top 20 or so in the minors could also play in the major tournaments if they wanted to with NO handicap. Johnnyt
Last edited:
For practical purposes of a player's organization I would recommend that anyone competing in open added money tournaments that wishes to be included in pro rankings should be considered a professional.
Since no one is guaranteed more than their entry fee back even in the biggest tournaments today it could be said there are actually zero pros.
If they meet the qualifications of the tour then let them join. If you want more players make the qualifications easier. If you want less make them more extensive.
Anyone who has registered for at least three tournaments in the last two years that have some ($5,000.00 or more?) added money would be eligible to apply for membership in a professional organization. A membership committee elected by the members would screen all applicants and then propose for membership those found to be acceptable to the organization as determined by the organization’s goals. A general vote of the members at the next annual meeting could be held for all proposed members.
While pool players use the term professional only a few understand what it means to be a professional. The term is bastardized and used in other sports which are more players’ unions than professional organizations.
Professionals are self organizing and police themselves. They tend to further the goals of the profession, not the person, and they set the standards for their chosen area of expertise. Any group seeking to form a professional organization should review the work of other truly professional organizations such as physicians, law, and similar licensed and self regulating groups.
Until such time as there is a professional organization the term “professional” is more of a description of an attitude than it is a description of one’s vocation. A professional pizza maker has an attitude that says you can’t have it your way. "Try my pizza as it should be made. If you don’t like it don’t come back." He has an attitude that says he will make the best pizza. Money, fame, and your particular concerns are not his problem.
Perhaps the first distinction to be made is between a players' union and a professional organization. These two types of organizations have distinctly different goals.
While professions are not organized to make money (they are organized to further the profession) ironically they are among the best paid members of society because of the quality of their work. Other groups try to earn the income without the dedication to a life style and some unions succeed for different reasons.
While pool players use the term professional only a few understand what it means to be a professional. The term is bastardized and used in other sports which are more players’ unions than professional organizations.
Professionals are self organizing and police themselves. They tend to further the goals of the profession, not the person, and they set the standards for their chosen area of expertise. Any group seeking to form a professional organization should review the work of other truly professional organizations such as physicians, law, and similar licensed and self regulating groups.
Until such time as there is a professional organization the term “professional” is more of a description of an attitude than it is a description of one’s vocation. A professional pizza maker has an attitude that says you can’t have it your way. "Try my pizza as it should be made. If you don’t like it don’t come back." He has an attitude that says he will make the best pizza. Money, fame, and your particular concerns are not his problem.
Perhaps the first distinction to be made is between a players' union and a professional organization. These two types of organizations have distinctly different goals.
While professions are not organized to make money (they are organized to further the profession) ironically they are among the best paid members of society because of the quality of their work. Other groups try to earn the income without the dedication to a life style and some unions succeed for different reasons.
Last edited:
From the perspective of a players’ union one could say that with a sufficient amount of apprenticeship experience the potential member is eligible for membership. Then it is only a matter of defining the type and amount of experience required. All who meet those requirements and pay their monetary dues become a member. In this type of organization the primary concern is with benefits that accrue to the lowest common denominator of the membership. I forget who but one of the union organizers when asked what it was he really wanted for his members had a simple one word answer, “more.”
The first question then is what is it that is needed, a player's union or a professional organization? When this has been decided there are many models from which to choose.
From what I have seen of the people who play pool in national tournaments, there are many players and very few professionals. Perhaps that is the place to start.
Note that membership in one type of organization does not preclude membership in the other type of organization. School teachers, nurses and in some places physicians are members of professional groups and unions simultaneously and for different reasons.
The first question then is what is it that is needed, a player's union or a professional organization? When this has been decided there are many models from which to choose.
From what I have seen of the people who play pool in national tournaments, there are many players and very few professionals. Perhaps that is the place to start.
Note that membership in one type of organization does not preclude membership in the other type of organization. School teachers, nurses and in some places physicians are members of professional groups and unions simultaneously and for different reasons.
Last edited:
Thanks for replying to my thread, but I disagree 100% with your post.
Government licensing of doctors and lawyers did not exist when this country was founded, and is expressly forbidden by the US Constitution which forbids titles of nobility granted by the state.
Players deciding who may compete with them would be a conflict of interest.
Professionals are professionals if they are paid for their services.
Last edited:
I think that you misunderstood the intent of my post. It was not about elitism, degrees, licensing or anything like that. Physicians evolved from barbers and nurses were simply women wanting to help.
My attempt at clarification was meant as one way to see the world. Throughout history there have been ways to approach life. One way is to view ones self as a member of a group whose intent is to improve the specialty. In this approach the reason for joining an organization is to improve the human condition. One’s own needs are subservient to the needs of the area of interest. This model, often thought of as the professional model, has been used by many groups such as engineers, scientists and others. It has been quite successful and has contributed much to civilization.
The second predominant model of organizing people is based on one’s personal needs or the needs of the individual. This model allows a mass of people to negotiate with an economically powerful employer. The production line union worker cares little (as evidenced by his behavior) for the development of the automotive industry. The grape picker cares little for what happens to the grapes. In sports the ball player (in whatever sport) is primarily concerned with their own welfare and how much of the gate is paid to himself and his colleagues. These unions are based on the idea of self interest and they too have had some success improving the living conditions of their members.
Over time the word professional has taken on new meaning as anyone who makes a living at a type of work that requires some skill. Thus we can refer to a professional brick layer, etc.
The term professional originally meant a primary allegiance to one’s field of interest with little regard for self aggrandizement. The term has come to include the idea that self interest and the development of the field of choice are the same things. They are not.
In the mature professions these distinctions are recognized and there are often two (or more) associations created, one to further professional concerns and one to further individual needs.
In some instances, such as elementary and secondary teachers unions there has been an attempt to address professional development and individual needs in one organization. However, I think, that many people see these groups for what they are, unions with some concern for professional development as these issues can be used to further the members’ needs. In general, such organizations have a difficult time with public relations as their words often have a hollow ring due to the mixed motives that cannot be disentangled.
Certainly one can use the word “professional” to refer to anyone who makes a living in some occupation. Such use waters down the meaning of the word as in "Professional Environmental Consultant" or trash collector.
My intent was to assist with clarifying what it is that is formed. Is it to be a union with primary interest in player needs or is it to be an organization where the primary interest is to further the development of the sport? Creating such an organization with clear well defined intent would go far to the development of the organization and furthering its true aims and goals. Use whatever words you choose. Mixing the two interests has not historically worked well over time.
I think that for young people early in their career such as when contemplating a field of study at the university this is an important distinction for one’s life orientation. Probation and parole officers have neither unions (of any consequence) nor well populated professional groups. Why should one take up a low paying occupation that none-the-less requires considerable education? If one’s primary concern is with how much money they can make then such a nascent field is not worth pursuing and the individual is well advised to seek another occupation. If one’s concerns are primarily altruistic and it is accepted that the good one can do is more important than the money one can make the criminal justice system may be appropriate. There are many highly professional people in the field, though they are only now forming an all encompassing professional organization. The person looking to make a good living is in the wrong field and their highly professional colleagues will soon force them out. So you see, in my opinion, the distinction is quite important in many ways and for many fields of endeavor.
The type of organization you form will attract some but not other people. A mix and match approach has not worked well in the past though one has evolved from the other. It is better to be clear at the outset in order to have as much success as possible. The barbers' guild evolved into a profession for some people and anything is possible.
(On a more personal note I might add that I am far from being an elitist. While I have earned a few of the titles to which you refer, my students have always been required to call me "Joe." You become my colleague when you act like my colleague has been my traditional statemt to those I taught. In the sciences we have no respect for titles. Respect is reserved for the facts and empirical results.)
My attempt at clarification was meant as one way to see the world. Throughout history there have been ways to approach life. One way is to view ones self as a member of a group whose intent is to improve the specialty. In this approach the reason for joining an organization is to improve the human condition. One’s own needs are subservient to the needs of the area of interest. This model, often thought of as the professional model, has been used by many groups such as engineers, scientists and others. It has been quite successful and has contributed much to civilization.
The second predominant model of organizing people is based on one’s personal needs or the needs of the individual. This model allows a mass of people to negotiate with an economically powerful employer. The production line union worker cares little (as evidenced by his behavior) for the development of the automotive industry. The grape picker cares little for what happens to the grapes. In sports the ball player (in whatever sport) is primarily concerned with their own welfare and how much of the gate is paid to himself and his colleagues. These unions are based on the idea of self interest and they too have had some success improving the living conditions of their members.
Over time the word professional has taken on new meaning as anyone who makes a living at a type of work that requires some skill. Thus we can refer to a professional brick layer, etc.
The term professional originally meant a primary allegiance to one’s field of interest with little regard for self aggrandizement. The term has come to include the idea that self interest and the development of the field of choice are the same things. They are not.
In the mature professions these distinctions are recognized and there are often two (or more) associations created, one to further professional concerns and one to further individual needs.
In some instances, such as elementary and secondary teachers unions there has been an attempt to address professional development and individual needs in one organization. However, I think, that many people see these groups for what they are, unions with some concern for professional development as these issues can be used to further the members’ needs. In general, such organizations have a difficult time with public relations as their words often have a hollow ring due to the mixed motives that cannot be disentangled.
Certainly one can use the word “professional” to refer to anyone who makes a living in some occupation. Such use waters down the meaning of the word as in "Professional Environmental Consultant" or trash collector.
My intent was to assist with clarifying what it is that is formed. Is it to be a union with primary interest in player needs or is it to be an organization where the primary interest is to further the development of the sport? Creating such an organization with clear well defined intent would go far to the development of the organization and furthering its true aims and goals. Use whatever words you choose. Mixing the two interests has not historically worked well over time.
I think that for young people early in their career such as when contemplating a field of study at the university this is an important distinction for one’s life orientation. Probation and parole officers have neither unions (of any consequence) nor well populated professional groups. Why should one take up a low paying occupation that none-the-less requires considerable education? If one’s primary concern is with how much money they can make then such a nascent field is not worth pursuing and the individual is well advised to seek another occupation. If one’s concerns are primarily altruistic and it is accepted that the good one can do is more important than the money one can make the criminal justice system may be appropriate. There are many highly professional people in the field, though they are only now forming an all encompassing professional organization. The person looking to make a good living is in the wrong field and their highly professional colleagues will soon force them out. So you see, in my opinion, the distinction is quite important in many ways and for many fields of endeavor.
The type of organization you form will attract some but not other people. A mix and match approach has not worked well in the past though one has evolved from the other. It is better to be clear at the outset in order to have as much success as possible. The barbers' guild evolved into a profession for some people and anything is possible.
(On a more personal note I might add that I am far from being an elitist. While I have earned a few of the titles to which you refer, my students have always been required to call me "Joe." You become my colleague when you act like my colleague has been my traditional statemt to those I taught. In the sciences we have no respect for titles. Respect is reserved for the facts and empirical results.)
Last edited:
This is exactly right. A professional (fill in the blank) is someone who makes a majority or at least a very significant amount of their income doing (fill in the blank).
Here is an interesting link that has much to say about professions and professionalism. The person who wrote this goes into much more depth but does, I think, agree with much of what I have posted though it is by (and possibly about) library science as related to any profession.
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/professionalism/IC.html
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/professionalism/IC.html
Last edited:
Being a professional and professionalism are two different things to me. A professional to me is what I mentioned in the above post. Professionalism on the other hand (to me) is the act of ethical conduct expected from a model professional. The primary difference is you don't have to be a pro to act in a professional manner. Unfortunatley there are alot of professional athletes that don't have this.
Take everyone who has won money on tourneyments and is currently playing and add them up (P). Then take all of the professional organizations and add up their unique members (M). The sum of the members of professional organizations should consist of the super majority of the professionals. That is M is greater than 2/3 times P.
Thus if you have a profession with lots of organizations, each individual organization does not have to represent very many of the professionals en-the-large. However, if you have only one organization, it has to represent the vast majority of the professionals.
Before worrying about how many to represent, wouldn't it be better to come up with how and in what ways to represent them first? In addition, to help grow the sport of pool?
I think the players should decide how they want to be represented. So my first question was who are the players? Whatever the number, if it is limited, one of the decisions would need to be who is included. If it is not limited, we can save that step, lol.
all players deserve it
All players of all levels should be represented. A true players organization is for the players benefit and things are done in the best interest of pool and the players. To limit the number of players represented is not only a bad business decision it would be horrible for pool and players. The elite would be the only ones represented and that's not the bulk of the players. There are different needs depending on skill levels and notariety but a good organization knows this and will apply what's best and what works for each player
All players of all levels should be represented. A true players organization is for the players benefit and things are done in the best interest of pool and the players. To limit the number of players represented is not only a bad business decision it would be horrible for pool and players. The elite would be the only ones represented and that's not the bulk of the players. There are different needs depending on skill levels and notariety but a good organization knows this and will apply what's best and what works for each player