Attention WPBA....How is this fair?

[Big Perm]

As has already been stated, the option to allow WPBA pro's to compete in a regional event is left up to the regional tours to decide, not the WPBA. With this being the case, it is up to the women playing in the regional tours to educate themselves on what the regional tour they play in, allows.

If a woman doesn't want to "risk" having to play a pro in one of these events, she needs to confirm with the director of the regional tour she's interested in, if pro's are allowed to play or not.

Yeah, I read that and have decent comprehension skills....

And as stated at the very beginning of my post, this is my opinion....qualifier, by definition, is an opportunity for those that would not normally be able to play to be granted an invitation via performance....pro's playing in a qualifier makes the draw an even larger advantage/disadvantage and can manipulate that outcome...

I disagree that this is a good practice....if it were the men doing it, I would disagree with them.....and if pro's on the LPGA went down to the Futures Tour, I'd have the same gripe.....IMHO, it's not the best way to develop talent....

Regardless, it doesn't effect me personally.....I can watch ladies play great pool on TV, or I can go to the local pool hall and watch them play great right in front of me.....you gals can do what you want :thumbup:

 

[CrisDeLaGarza]

I'll ask again. What is a pro.

I believe (for these regional tour purposes) a "Pro" is an EXEMPT WPBA player. I know that the top 40 at the end of the previous year are considered "Exempt" for the next year but I believe there are a few other ways to earn your exemption as well but I don't know many details about that. For instance, Jennifer Barretta did not finish in the top 40 last yr bc she didn't play events last year, but she is considered an Exempt Pro for 2009 because she had an exemption from the year before and deferred. So I think there are a few different cases, but in general, I think we are arguing about the TOP 40 in the rankings at the end of 2008 for any 2009 regional tours.

 

[Tbeaux]

I believe (for these regional tour purposes) a "Pro" is an EXEMPT WPBA player. I know that the top 40 at the end of the previous year are considered "Exempt" for the next year but I believe there are a few other ways to earn your exemption as well but I don't know many details about that. For instance, Jennifer Barretta did not finish in the top 40 last yr bc she didn't play events last year, but she is considered an Exempt Pro for 2009 because she had an exemption from the year before and deferred. So I think there are a few different cases, but in general, I think we are arguing about the TOP 40 in the rankings at the end of 2008 for any 2009 regional tours.

Thank you.

I think Big Perm has a point about pros in the qualifiers being an intimidating factor, however since the regional girls are competing to play these same pros on the WPBA tour maybe that should be considered an additional test.
If the issue is the "pros" playing on the regional tours anytime and "pros" means the top 40 WPBAers then everyone should understand that fewer than 24 women players earn more than $10,000 a year and that's ALL (not just WPBA) winnings. Fewer than 10 usually make more than $20,000.

Terry

 

[Johnnyt]

2008 Player Money List
Player Name 2008 Prize Money
Karen Corr $61,000
Kelly Fisher $54,500
Allison Fisher $45,350
Jasmin Ouschan $44,059
Xiao-Ting Pan $39,476
Ga-Young Kim $36,000
Monica Webb $33,290
Vivian Villarreal $28,790
Jeanette Lee $26,300
Gerda Hofstatter $23,050
Anna Kostanian $21,230
Helena Thornfeldt $21,130
Yuan-chun Lin $20,406
Iris Ranola $17,280
Yu Ram Cha $16,700
Sarah Rousey $16,650
Sarah Ellerby $13,550
Line Kjoersvik $13,460
Tiffany Nelson $12,470
Dawn Hopkins $12,180
Kim Shaw $11,600
Melissa Little $11,060
Melissa Herndon $10,850
Julie Kelly $10,280
Heather Lloyd $9,875

 

[1on1pooltournys]

It should be tough. The WPBA is the Women's Professional Billiards Assoc. Emphasis on the professional. Ideally...each event should be comprised of the best female players out there...which is not how it works right now. There is a lot of Asian and European talent out there who could really increase the overall level of play if they competed with us.

So, it should be so tough that you should have to face a number one ranked player in the world in a 12 player Regional event? Once you get an opportunity as a "pro", then I agree with you, it should be tough and you should have to win in order to stay on the tour. But you should not have to prove that you can beat Karen Corr in order to get an opportunity to play in an event. It is absurd, considering there may only be 3 or 4 girls that can compete with Karen on the actual "WPBA Classic Tour".

I cannot even comprehend why people suggest that we should open the field and make it easier for women to play.

I think they should allow more qualifying spots, not just allow anybody to put their money up and play. It is nothing to increase the field 25% to 70 players. This would allow for more qualifiers, and more spots. Plus, it would probably sweeten the prize money a little.


That isn't how you become a professional...at anything. Please...tell the PGA that they should lower their standards...because I know several decent golfers who would love the opportunity to play alongside Tiger Woods.

No...if a player is playing at the level she needs to be in order to succeed on the WPBA tour (succeed being the operative word...and success = winning matches consistently...climbing in the rankings...making a top 10 appearance every now and then)...then she will have no problem competing with pros in any event. Ask Iris Ranola and Yu Ram Cha...our newest rising stars. It wasn't "too hard" for them to break into the WPBA and stay there. Why? Because they play good enough. It's that simple.

I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone. Each and every single player who has qualified for a WPBA event should be proud because they have accomplished something. But that does not mean that they are ready to be full-time WPBA players. And it does not make sense to open/expand the WPBA to players that are not ready...simply because they want to be there.

Melissa

Thanks for your thoughts, good luck this year!

 

[sixpack]

That isn't how you become a professional...at anything. Please...tell the PGA that they should lower their standards...because I know several decent golfers who would love the opportunity to play alongside Tiger Woods.

Melissa

Melissa,

I agree with most of what you said. But as a golfer who once had aspirations...

If I was playing in my club championship and Tiger Woods stopped by. I would love it. If he stopped by the next year, I would be annoyed, especially if I got second again. If he showed up the third year, I would play and might even look forward to it because, hey, it's Tiger.

But, a totally different scenario...
Say I'm a top amateur golfer and I am trying to qualify for the US Open in a Match Play format. The first match, I'm put out of the tournament by Tiger Woods, who is qualified for the US Open for then next 50 years. I would be pissed. I paid my money, qualified for the qualifier, traveled to play and played someone first round who:
a) Was irrelevant because they already qualified
b) Represented the absolute best of the best. Not the standard required for entry to the field.
c) Was looking at this event as a 'tune up' while I had prepared for years to get here.

Now absolutely you need to be playing great to qualify for the US Open, but say that the top 4 players qualify. Well, Tiger takes the top spot, and he's already qualified. Then Phil Mickelson takes the next spot, and he's already qualified. So 2-6 qualify. The players who had the misfortune to get drawn in their bracket are SOL no matter how good they are. Basically the determining factor of who makes it to the US Open is determined more by the luck of the draw than skill. Basically it amounts to when you had to play them and get booted.

Same thing in the qualifier. If Karen Corr is playing, the person who will qualify will likely be the person who is the best AND WAS DRAWN TO START IN THE OTHER BRACKET. It actually sets up a scenario where it is better to lose and cross brackets than to win another match and play her.

I don't think pros playing in qualifiers is good for the integrity of the sport. But at the same time it is a sad commentary on the state of the sport that our top pros would have nothing better to do than play in a $200 qualifier for a little extra cash.

~rc

 

[stevelomako]

If any of the pro's want to make some pocket money and tune-up their game as some people have stated.


They can come here and WIN WHATEVER THEY WANT TO BET.







It's better and safer for their pocket book if they stick to robbing "B" player tournaments though.

 

[Ken_4fun]

If any of the pro's want to make some pocket money and tune-up their game as some people have stated.

They can come here and WIN WHATEVER THEY WANT TO BET.

It's better and safer for their pocket book if they stick to robbing "B" player tournaments though.

My thoughts too.

In another thread, JB Cases was making the point about if women having all the opportunities they would be winning mens tourneyment up to 50% of the time. While I think it is very naive, they too can bet all they want and get all the games, maybe more gambling opportunities for women than men.

Ken

 

[1on1pooltournys]

My thoughts too.

In another thread, JB Cases was making the point about if women having all the opportunities they would be winning mens tourneyment up to 50% of the time. While I think it is very naive, they too can bet all they want and get all the games, maybe more gambling opportunities for women than men.

Ken

There are plenty more gambling opportunities for women than men, imo. There are a few girls on the WPBA tour that have the heart of a lion and do not mind getting in the box whenever they get the chance. Once again, I will not name drop, but I know a couple that have been gambling quite a bit lately and they seem to think they are handling the tournament pressure a lot easier.

 

[watchez]

I bet it is also the women at the bottom of the wpba rankings encouraging the Karen Corrs and Kelly Fischers to enter these qualifiers. What better way to secure their spot on the wpba tour than if the competition is weaker or as JB stated, clubbed like baby seals.

 

[kath13]

Clarify?

I bet it is also the women at the bottom of the wpba rankings encouraging the Karen Corrs and Kelly Fischers to enter these qualifiers. What better way to secure their spot on the wpba tour than if the competition is weaker or as JB stated, clubbed like baby seals.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say here... Are you saying that the women of the WPBA that do not play at the same level of Karen or Kelly are suggesting to them to go out to the regional tours and take out the top amateurs and/or quash the spirits of those women who are just starting out to completely eradicate any potential competition for the future? I'm starting to think that there is some grander conspiracy that I'm unaware of...

Either way, I don't think your statement is fair to the women of the WPBA.

 

[JB Cases]

My thoughts too.

In another thread, JB Cases was making the point about if women having all the opportunities they would be winning mens tourneyment up to 50% of the time. While I think it is very naive, they too can bet all they want and get all the games, maybe more gambling opportunities for women than men.

Ken

Ken, please don't misquote me across threads. I made that statement in response to a HYPOTHETICAL scenario that someone else proposed which was that the top 16 men and the top 16 women would play each other every weekend in a tournament. I proposed that IF such a thing happened then my prediction is that in the third year the women would be winning about 50% of the time. And this is based on the assumption that the top men would not be getting better than they currently are but that women would then have all the opportunity to reach the level of the top men by virtue of constant competition with them.

Of course women NOW have all the opportunity they want to to bet as high as they want to.

Believe me if I were a retired multimillionaire then I would make a lot of people freeze up a lot of money IN ADVANCE with no chance to back out and then I would get Kelly Fisher in shape and take her on the road to play all these prearranged matches. She would lose some of them badly. She would win some closely, a few she would dominate. At the end of the tour though she would be playing better than ever before and I GUARANTEE YOU that some of her opponents who were eager to play the first time around wouldn't be so eager the second time around.

It's really easy to say that women can bet high as the sky now but JUST LIKE THE GUYS when they start winning the action will dry up and blow away.

Again though for the umpteenth time - gambling high with the men at this stage is all risk and no reward. Why should Kelly become a headhunter when she isn't allowed to play in tournaments with the men on a regular basis? She already dominates the women's tour so what is the incentive to getting better than she already is?

Right now Kelly can pick and choose who she wants to play, can negotiate spots based on her "inferior ability", and can stay comfortable. No need to go all out on an ego trip wasting money on what is a less than 50% chance to win anyway. If it were me and I had the money invest then I'd definitely do it just to see if my theory is right. But I don't so that point is moot.

So I don't really get it that you and others keep harping on the obvious. Men are better as a group. We all know that. The number one male player is much better than the number one female player. Great.

We have been down this road so many times - somebody PM a list of players that they will back against Kelly with the spots you are willing to give that are commensurate with her skill level in comparison to the person she is playing, i.e. FAIR spots that insure both players are GAMBLING and we can discuss it in private. But if you are going to crow about how weak the women are and then challenge them to gamble with no weight don't bother communicating with me.

 

[JB Cases]

Forget about the qualifier aspect of this discussion. It's pretty much a proven fact that tournament participation is lower whenenver pros show up to play. That's been the same way forever. Closed amateur events draw more players then open events where pros are allowed to play. That's simple math.

It seems to me that a tournament prospers based on the amount of participants - that being a tangible thing - rather than the hoped for intangible spectator draw of a well known pro or two stopping by to play.

Even at that there is no possible way that a room owner can advertise or count on the apearance of pros at his tour stop UNLESS that is somehow guaranteed in advance. So it's inconceivable to me that the random presence of a top pro is going to generate more spectators unless someone is burning up the phones when Karen walks through the door.

 

[Mr441]

I bet it is also the women at the bottom of the wpba rankings encouraging the Karen Corrs and Kelly Fischers to enter these qualifiers. What better way to secure their spot on the wpba tour than if the competition is weaker or as JB stated, clubbed like baby seals.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Rich R.]

Give lessons, clinics, House pro, Sell DVD's, books, and billiard supplies, give exabitions,part time job. Johnnyt

To give lessons, you need students willing to pay. To do clinics, you need students willing to pay. To be a house pro, you need a room willing to pay. To sell DVD's, you need players willing to buy, etc, etc, etc.
You get the idea. If it were so easy, everyone would be doing it.
Being a pro player is a very difficult way to make an easy living.

 

[akaTrigger]

forget about the qualifier aspect of this discussion. it's pretty much a proven fact that tournament participation is lower whenenver pros show up to play. That's been the same way forever. Closed amateur events draw more players then open events where pros are allowed to play. That's simple math.

it seems to me that a tournament prospers based on the amount of participants - that being a tangible thing - rather than the hoped for intangible spectator draw of a well known pro or two stopping by to play.

Even at that there is no possible way that a room owner can advertise or count on the apearance of pros at his tour stop unless that is somehow guaranteed in advance. So it's inconceivable to me that the random presence of a top pro is going to generate more spectators unless someone is burning up the phones when karen walks through the door.

For most tours, that is correct. Interesting observation.

 

[Melissa Herndon]

I bet it is also the women at the bottom of the wpba rankings encouraging the Karen Corrs and Kelly Fischers to enter these qualifiers. What better way to secure their spot on the wpba tour than if the competition is weaker or as JB stated, clubbed like baby seals.

Absolutely ridiculous statement.

 

[Pete]

I agree that it is unfair.

If they have "Pro Status" they don't need to qualify and they are just robbing the tournament.

My solution to this is for all they players that feel that way, show up to play, but don't sign up until the als t minute, when the Pros come in, just watch.

For one that is what is going to happen any way. And if they only have 2 or maybe three people entering the tournament, the will get the point.

People need to pull together to stop things. If one or two people whine, no one cares, but if the event is a flop because every one say no thanks, they will learn.

Pete

 

[Johnnyt]

I agree that it is unfair.

If they have "Pro Status" they don't need to qualify and they are just robbing the tournament.

My solution to this is for all they players that feel that way, show up to play, but don't sign up until the als t minute, when the Pros come in, just watch.

For one that is what is going to happen any way. And if they only have 2 or maybe three people entering the tournament, the will get the point.

People need to pull together to stop things. If one or two people whine, no one cares, but if the event is a flop because every one say no thanks, they will learn.

Pete

I agree. It's a shame to kill another regional tournament, but they need to learn what the players want to stay in business. Amatuer players are not so quick to spend their hard earned money on an event that the have NO chance of breaking even much less making a few dollars. Johnnyt

 

[akaTrigger]

I agree that it is unfair.

If they have "Pro Status" they don't need to qualify and they are just robbing the tournament.

My solution to this is for all they players that feel that way, show up to play, but don't sign up until the als t minute, when the Pros come in, just watch.

For one that is what is going to happen any way. And if they only have 2 or maybe three people entering the tournament, the will get the point.

People need to pull together to stop things. If one or two people whine, no one cares, but if the event is a flop because every one say no thanks, they will learn.

Pete

There are a few tours that pros are allowed to play in and there are no issues with it. While I think the OB Cues Tour does fine without the pros, I am glad the pros have other events to play in besides just the WPBA, so they can earn some extra money.