Definition of a "PRO"

HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The Wikipedia definition of a "professional" in sports is:

"In sports, a professional is someone who receives monetary compensation for participating. The opposite is an amateur, meaning a person who does not receive monetary compensation. The term "professional" is commonly used incorrectly when referring to sports, as the distinction simply refers to how the athlete is funded, and not necessarily competitions or achievements."

So, with that in mind, if the "pro" players boycott the tournaments and, therefore, DON'T receive monetary compensation are they still "pros"? Are the winners of the tournaments who weren't "pros" all of a sudden the new "pros" now?

I have played pool since the 60s and watch it on TV if it happens to be on, but I have mixed feelings about the current state of affairs concerning the promoters and the "pro" players. If pool ISN'T commercially viable as sports entertainment, then the players can't put all the blame on the promoters. If they think they can do a better job, then have at it.

I have NO PROBLEM with ANYONE making a living at their "profession", but I will say right up front that I think the "pros" of all the major sports (which pool isn't currently one...unless you play snooker in UK) get paid WAY MORE than what they should. For that matter, I'd say the same of movie stars and the like.

I think promoters should state up front what the prizes are and if they can't come up with the money before they advertise it then they shouldn't be running tournaments. The only way they can do this is by "ensuring" that the event is profitable or at least a "break even" venture. The money should be in escrow long before the event takes place and that would mean that "pros" would have to commit to the event before it was even advertised. Any "added" money would come later, when all the collecting and calculating was done. If they aren't willing to accept these conditions, then I guess the "pros" will be the players who win the smaller, commercially viable tournaments.
 
HawaiianEye said:
The Wikipedia definition of a "professional" in sports is:

"In sports, a professional is someone who receives monetary compensation for participating. The opposite is an amateur, meaning a person who does not receive monetary compensation. The term "professional" is commonly used incorrectly when referring to sports, as the distinction simply refers to how the athlete is funded, and not necessarily competitions or achievements."

So, with that in mind, if the "pro" players boycott the tournaments and, therefore, DON'T receive monetary compensation are they still "pros"? Are the winners of the tournaments who weren't "pros" all of a sudden the new "pros" now?

I have played pool since the 60s and watch it on TV if it happens to be on, but I have mixed feelings about the current state of affairs concerning the promoters and the "pro" players. If pool ISN'T commercially viable as sports entertainment, then the players can't put all the blame on the promoters. If they think they can do a better job, then have at it.

I have NO PROBLEM with ANYONE making a living at their "profession", but I will say right up front that I think the "pros" of all the major sports (which pool isn't currently one...unless you play snooker in UK) get paid WAY MORE than what they should. For that matter, I'd say the same of movie stars and the like.

I think promoters should state up front what the prizes are and if they can't come up with the money before they advertise it then they shouldn't be running tournaments. The only way they can do this is by "ensuring" that the event is profitable or at least a "break even" venture. The money should be in escrow long before the event takes place and that would mean that "pros" would have to commit to the event before it was even advertised. Any "added" money would come later, when all the collecting and calculating was done. If they aren't willing to accept these conditions, then I guess the "pros" will be the players who win the smaller, commercially viable tournaments.
Click to expand...




Is a doctor still a doctor if he treats a patient for free ? What constitutes a pro pool player is if they make a living playing pool , same with a poker player . I recently saw someone who i thought was a pro who won or was in the finals of an amateur event , so the tournament director was the person who determined his status for this event . He might not make a living at it , but he plays events with pro level players.
 
HawaiianEye said:
The Wikipedia definition of a "professional" in sports is:

"In sports, a professional is someone who receives monetary compensation for participating. The opposite is an amateur, meaning a person who does not receive monetary compensation. The term "professional" is commonly used incorrectly when referring to sports, as the distinction simply refers to how the athlete is funded, and not necessarily competitions or achievements."

So, with that in mind, if the "pro" players boycott the tournaments and, therefore, DON'T receive monetary compensation are they still "pros"? Are the winners of the tournaments who weren't "pros" all of a sudden the new "pros" now?

I have played pool since the 60s and watch it on TV if it happens to be on, but I have mixed feelings about the current state of affairs concerning the promoters and the "pro" players. If pool ISN'T commercially viable as sports entertainment, then the players can't put all the blame on the promoters. If they think they can do a better job, then have at it.

I have NO PROBLEM with ANYONE making a living at their "profession", but I will say right up front that I think the "pros" of all the major sports (which pool isn't currently one...unless you play snooker in UK) get paid WAY MORE than what they should. For that matter, I'd say the same of movie stars and the like.

I think promoters should state up front what the prizes are and if they can't come up with the money before they advertise it then they shouldn't be running tournaments. The only way they can do this is by "ensuring" that the event is profitable or at least a "break even" venture. The money should be in escrow long before the event takes place and that would mean that "pros" would have to commit to the event before it was even advertised. Any "added" money would come later, when all the collecting and calculating was done. If they aren't willing to accept these conditions, then I guess the "pros" will be the players who win the smaller, commercially viable tournaments.
Click to expand...

pro actors and athletes actually get paid pretty much exactly what they are worth. this is determined by their ability to sell tickets and get advertising dollars. all this considered, i do think pro pool players do get paid pretty close to what they are worth from a business perspective. the only difference being actors and big athletes can hire negotiators and get the best possible salaries. so, youre probably right, they do get paid at least a little too much. but, by and large, everyone does get paid pretty much what they are worth.

golf used to be a smaller sport, monetarily. arnold palmer with his great personaluty almost single handedly catipulted golf into the status you see today. point being, the pros really can have a large effect on a sport.... and we just dont see that in pool, unfortunately.

for what its worth though, i feel the pool pros should be making a few million evewry year just like other athletes.
 
Maybe one pro pool player in the US

The competitors are just one part of what makes a competition a viable professional occupation. However, one way of looking at things is that if the competitors can't bring enough added value that everyone involved profits then the entire operation is a hobby and not a professional occupation.

All successful "sports" and I use that term very loosely to include golf, tennis, pro team sports, eating contests, on and on, have one thing in common. The competitors generate profits for the other people in the "food chain" by competing. Very few put on events for the love of the sport, big buck profits are involved.

Then we look at pool, particularly US pool. How many large events are there that reliably turn a profit for the people producing them? What are the total purses of these events? How many "professional" pool players that don't have significant other sources of income are there that are trying to make a living off of these events? The brutal truth is that the numbers don't add up for pool to be a professional sport. No professional sport, there can be no professional players. The one possible exception in the US is Jeanette Lee and that isn't because of her pool playing ability as much as the fact that she has promoted her brand to the point that she reliably brings added value to events she competes in if they are advertised properly.

For "pro players" to have leverage they have to bring value to the table. Can they produce a big time sponsor for their association, Coca-Cola, Pepsi big, or at least a million plus a year sponsor as thousands of racing teams in the US have? Can they produce significantly larger attendence and television numbers or will their absence result in much smaller numbers? Most significantly of all, as discussed earlier in this post, can the participation of the "pro's" guarantee the financial viability of an event?

The brutal truth is that the pro players have a many year history of not giving enough added value to an event that the people putting on the event can reliably profit. The fact that the US Nine Ball Open struggles every year is as much a reflection on the marketability of pool and pool players as it is a reflection on the abilities and business savvy of the person(s) putting on the event.

For there to be pro players there has to be a pro sport. By any commercial yardstick pool isn't a pro sport in the US. The real professional pool players are the road men and gamblers but what they are doing to survive isn't a sport.

Hu
 
HawaiianEye said:
The Wikipedia definition of a "professional" in sports is:

"In sports, a professional is someone who receives monetary compensation for participating. The opposite is an amateur, meaning a person who does not receive monetary compensation. The term "professional" is commonly used incorrectly when referring to sports, as the distinction simply refers to how the athlete is funded, and not necessarily competitions or achievements."
Click to expand...

I'm actually gonna disagree with that, based on the golfers' definition of "professional". If more than half of your yearly income is from the sport, be it playing, teaching, writing, or anything other than merchandise, you're a professional. Less than half, you're an amateur. Amateur tournaments have limits to the cash value of the prizes they give out, but they can still have cash prizes without turning the winner "pro". Anyway that's how I understand the difference from the PGA handbook.

If I win $60 at a local tournament on a 5$ buy in, am I a professional {pool player, poker player, golfer, bowler, pick one}? Of course not. The question is not whether you are monetarily compensated, the question is how much of your livelihood depends on that compensation. If your mortgage comes out of your tournament winnings because you have no other income, you're probably a professional pool player. If you're a professional pool player with a mortgage, chances are you're a really freaking good professional pool player. If your life savings are your stake money when you go on the road, you're a professional pool player. If you bus tables for pocket money while you're on the road because your game is off, you're still a professional pool player.

That being said, there's a wide range of "professionals" in pool. You've got the guys who travel from bar to bar, tourney to tourney, pool room to pool room, and then you've got the association professionals who, really, do the same thing. The only salient difference is that you might get an ABP pro endorsing a new cue or chalk or powder, but nobody's going to ask a road player to do that because 99% of the amateur community (which buys 99% of the billiards equipment sold in the US) has never heard of him.

The ABP professionals who are boycotting the Open aren't doing it because they want money, or because they want cash on the last day of the tournament, they're doing it because there is no sense of trust between their association and Behriman. People talk about how insane it is that they want cash before they leave the tourney, guys, they at least want a signed check, and there's not even a guarantee they'll get that. There has to be some kind of legal document guaranteeing the prize money will be paid, or there really is no point in playing the tournament.

Kind of off topic there. Anyway, yeah. Making money at a competition doesn't make you a pro. Needing that money does.
 
A pro stopped going to there day job. An depends on his or her winnings from pool, to survive. By the way what can a large pizza do that a pool hustler can't do? Feed a family of four. LOL :D
 
Neil said:
The pros HAVE demanded that they be paid on the spot. Barry has stated that that just can't happen short of someone with deep pockets stepping in. BOTH sides have to give a little. The pros have to be willing to accept some late payments, and Barry has to be willing to have some kind of guarantee worth something.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, though. I've never seen anybody leave a tournament without at least a signed check, even if it's the big cardboard one (which is actually legal if you brought it to the bank). To tell anyone at any event that their check will be in the mail is ridiculous.
 
skip said:
A pro stopped going to there day job. An depends on his or her winnings from pool, to survive. By the way what can a large pizza do that a pool hustler can't do? Feed a family of four. LOL :D
Click to expand...

1) not all pros quit their day jobs . They just find jobs with enough flexibility to allow them to play .And may NEED that day job to survive !

2) A pro may not be able to feed a family of four , but a good hustler can . . .:cool:
 
Originally Posted by david(tx)
Is a doctor still a doctor if he treats a patient for free ?

beav99_4life said:
Yes, because they spent 7-8 years in college and received a degree certifying their title.
Click to expand...

i.e., less time than it takes to become a top level pool player. Fortunately for physicians, healthcare is reliably non-discretionary.
 
walrus_3d said:
That's the thing, though. I've never seen anybody leave a tournament without at least a signed check, even if it's the big cardboard one (which is actually legal if you brought it to the bank). To tell anyone at any event that their check will be in the mail is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

In the WPBSA, in Britain, the check would take sometimes 2 months
to arrive.

I like to go to the word origins for definitions.
A professional is one who 'professes'..eg. to a certain discipline.
There are a lot of professional pool players...and there were even more
when the 'road' existed.Whether they make a living or not is not the
deciding factor.
Many are like 'club fighters' in boxing...you might never have heard of
them, but they get the worst of it legally in an assault case because
their hands are considered 'dangerous weapons'.

Lotta good players out there who don't have the need to be recognized
as a star.
 
What is a profession?

According to Wiki

The list of characteristics that follows is extensive, but does not claim to include every characteristic that has ever been attributed to professions, nor do all of these features apply to every profession:

Skill based on theoretical knowledge: Professionals are assumed to have extensive theoretical knowledge (e.g. architecture, medicine, law, scripture) and to possess skills based on that knowledge that they are able to apply in practice.
Professional association: Professions usually have professional bodies organized by their members, which are intended to enhance the status of their members and have carefully controlled entrance requirements.
Extensive period of education: The most prestigious professions usually require at least three years[dated info] at university. Undertaking doctoral research can add a further 4–5 years to this period of education (for example, architecture generally requires 5 years of study, 2 years work experience and a further year of work related study before one can apply to become a chartered member. Architects generally become chartered in their late 20s early 30s and earn between 22 - 24k before tax in the United Kingdom).
Testing of competence: Before being admitted to membership of a professional body, there is a requirement to pass prescribed examinations that are based on mainly theoretical knowledge.
Institutional training: In addition to examinations, there is usually a requirement for a long period of institutionalized training where aspiring professionals acquire specified practical experience in some sort of trainee role before being recognized as a full member of a professional body. Continuous upgrading of skills through professional development is also mandatory these days.
Licensed practitioners: Professions seek to establish a register or membership so that only those individuals so licensed are recognized as bona fide.
Work autonomy: Professionals tend to retain control over their work, even when they are employed outside the profession in commercial or public organizations. They have also gained control over their own theoretical knowledge.
Code of professional conduct or ethics: Professional bodies usually have codes of conduct or ethics for their members and disciplinary procedures for those who infringe the rules.
Self-regulation: Professional bodies tend to insist that they should be self-regulating and independent from government. Professions tend to be policed and regulated by senior, respected practitioners and the most highly qualified members of the profession,
Public service and altruism: The earning of fees for services rendered can be defended because they are provided in the public interest, e.g. the work of doctors contributes to public health.
Exclusion, monopoly and legal recognition: Professions tend to exclude those who have not met their requirements and joined the appropriate professional body. This is often termed professional closure, and seeks to bar entry for the unqualified and to sanction or expel incompetent members.
Control of remuneration and advertising: Where levels of remuneration are determined by government, professional bodies are active in negotiating (usually advantageous unless where the RIBA is concerned) remuneration packages for their members. Though this is sometimes done in good intention but can be proven good when the partner, family or mentor recommend something contrary to the general norms. This was further buttressed in the world bank essay paper written by Idiaro AbdulazeezPaper Challenges and associated solutions for companies working together in collective action to fight corruption. This has caused for global audience and even the worldbank launched an international competition in it people are used to Some professions set standard scale fees, but government advocacy of competition means that these are no longer generally enforced.[citation needed]
High status and rewards: The most successful professions achieve high status, public prestige and rewards for their members.[citation needed] Some of the factors included in this list contribute to such success.
Individual clients: Many professions have individual fee-paying clients.[dubious – discuss] For example, in accountancy, "the profession" usually refers to accountants who have individual and corporate clients, rather than accountants who are employees of organizations.
Middle-class occupations: Traditionally, many professions have been viewed as 'respectable' occupations for middle and upper classes.[19]
Male-dominated: The highest status professions have tended to be male dominated although females are closing this gender gap[dated info] Women are now being admitted to the priesthood while its status has declined relative to other professions.[citation needed] Similar arguments apply to race and class: ethnic groups and working-class people are no less disadvantaged in most professions than they are in society generally.[20][dated info]
Ritual: Church ritual and the Court procedure are obviously ritualistic.[who?][citation needed]
Legitimacy: Professions have clear legal authority over some activities (e.g. certifying the insane) but are also seen as adding legitimacy to a wide range of related activities.[citation needed]
Inaccessible body of knowledge: In some professions, the body of knowledge is relatively inaccessible to the uninitiated. Medicine and law are typically not school subjects and have separate faculties and even separate libraries at universities.[dated info]
Indeterminacy of knowledge: Professional knowledge contains elements that escape being mastered and communicated in the form of rules and can only be acquired through experience.[citation needed]
Mobility: The skill knowledge and authority of professionals belongs to the professionals as individuals, not the organizations for which they work. Professionals are therefore relatively mobile in employment opportunities as they can move to other employers and take their talents with them. Standardization of professional training and procedures enhances this mobility.[21]

You can be a professional and never get paid for it. Being a professional really has nothing to do with getting money for what you do, but more in attitude, education, training, actions, behavior and so on.
 
IMHO if you have the GREEN BACKS to play in a Pro Level Pool Tournament you are, and can be know as a Professional Pool Player. Get some business cards printed up.:smile:

Unlike the PGA (for those is Rio Linda, CA:cool:) aka PGA is Professional Golfers Association/Organization, and before you can call yourself a Pro golfer be it a Tour Player or Instructor you have to go to the PGA School, and study, and pass tests before you are allowed to Play in a Pro PGA EVENT.

Think the PGA could be on the right track, as most PGA Tour Player average more income then Pro Pool Players!;):thumbup:


JMHO.
 
Are you sure?

CocoboloCowboy said:
IMHO if you have the GREEN BACKS to play in a Pro Level Pool Tournament you are, and can be know as a Professional Pool Player. Get some business cards printed up.:smile:

Unlike the PGA (for those is Rio Linda, CA:cool:) aka PGA is Professional Golfers Association/Organization, and before you can call yourself a Pro golfer be it a Tour Player or Instructor you have to go to the PGA School, and study, and pass tests before you are allowed to Play in a Pro PGA EVENT.

Think the PGA could be on the right track, as most PGA Tour Player average more income then Pro Pool Players!;):thumbup:


Are you sure that Pro golfers make more than Pro Pool players? I think that the average PGA event only pays the winner about $700,000. Pool players gotta be making more than that, don't you think? How else could they afford to boycott the US Open?

And Duckie, my friend. What a post. I was only about 10 lines in when I realized that I would have to turn Pro as a reader in order to finish.


Note: I'm pretty sure I counted more than 10 characters in this post but I'm having to add this to get it to submit. Anyone else having this problem?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top