Definition of Professional Pool Player
- Thread starter watchez
- Start date
The only players I have mentioned in this thread isJAM said:Spoken by someone in the know!
It is a shame that some of the forum members go out of their way to rip apart professional pool players. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why this thread was started by Watchez.
JAM
Mike Sigel - sorry if he is offended that he is no longer considered a Professional Pool Player by me or others. I don't think I ripped him apart, as you inferred. He has enough $$$ that he shouldn't worry about it.
Bobby McGrath - he should feel proud of his $50K accomplishment & entrance into the world of Professional Pool
Barry Bonds - not sure if he can draw his ball, but he is not a professional baseball player or professional pool player either.
I believe AZBilliards lists all Professional Pool events under a player's winnings. If there is a Professional Pool event that someone has won that is not listed, I would suggest an email to Mike H or the AZBilliard staff to update their records. I agree with CigarDave that regional events do not count as Pro Events. Most are listed as 'Open' or even 'Amateur'. If Mike Sigel has played in one of these regional events the past year that was not listed on the AZBilliards website, he should be free to list himself as "Former Professional Pool Player, Current Open Player Mike Sigel" on his business cards.
I differentiate between being able to play at a professional level vs. being a pro player.
Being a pro player implies an active degree of participation in the nationally/internationally staged events I mentioned above.
Having a pro game... or being able to play at a professional level weakly implies the person is not currently active in competing.
I've got no axe to grind... fwiw... it's just an opinion.
Being a pro player implies an active degree of participation in the nationally/internationally staged events I mentioned above.
Having a pro game... or being able to play at a professional level weakly implies the person is not currently active in competing.
I've got no axe to grind... fwiw... it's just an opinion.
watchez said:
If you think that the AzBilliards player winnings is inclusive, you need to get a reality check.
Personally, I don't care if it is updated or not because it is inaccurate.
As well, I don't think it is anybody's business the earnings a pool player makes, on or off the tournament trail.
JAM
lodini said:
I believe that amateur status was being defined and discussed well prior to the first modern Olympic games (1896) (assuming this the the "Olympics" that you are refering to, not the ancient games). As one example this is an exerpt from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_Rowing_Association
-----
In 1882 the Metropolitan Rowing Association changed its name to the Amateur Rowing Association, having gained additional member clubs from outside London, and began its evolution into the governing body of rowing.
In 1886 the ARA issued General Rules for Regattas. The ARA adopted Henley Royal Regatta's restrictive definition of amateur which not only excluded those who made their living as profession oarsmen but also anyone "who is or has been by trade or employment for wages a mechanic, artisan or labourer."
-----
Note that the Henley Royal Regatta started in 1839, I believe as an "amateur" event (no fishermen please).
The modern Olympic Games are likely the best known definers of amateurs.
Dave
I'm gonna go with:thepavlos said:
Pro: Someone who supports himself solely with pool. Known everywhere.
Player: Someone who gives himself additional income with pool. Possible job involved, whether or not it's part-time. Somewhat known anywhere, at least by the poolplayers and pool community.
Shortstop/A player/Scuffler: Takes the occasional road trip to a tourney or gambling. Work is optional, but almost a must unless he or she is starving. Well known in his immediate 200 mile radius.
Then, there's everyone who would like to be at the top level. 99.999% of the rest of the world.
Last edited:
If you gross more than $13,624.00 USD you are considered a professional pool player.
That is minimum wage. Anything less is just a hobby or part time job.
I mean, c'mon. If you can make more working at McDonald's?
How is that for a determining factor? Discuss...
That is minimum wage. Anything less is just a hobby or part time job.
I mean, c'mon. If you can make more working at McDonald's?
How is that for a determining factor? Discuss...
lodini said:I didn't say they weren't.
No you didn't, you said "...you know, Greece?" , which of course does not help in the distinction between the ancient games and the first modern games
BTW, I do think we're on the same page, the discussion is way-old and deserves to be in the hands of a sports governing body rather than anecdotally defined by participants.
Dave
Keith McCready
Pro Player
This thread was brought to my attention, and I felt like saying what I had to say.
First of all, there are a lot of players that are considered pros that are not.
Just for your information, I consider myself a pro because I'm subject to beat anyone or anybody at any given time. I beat Ralf Souquet the last time we played, Mika Immonen, Alex Pagulayan, Niels Feijen, Ronnie Alcano, just to name a few, and let's not forget about Francisco Bustamante. So I consider that a pretty good line-up. If anybody wants to try to knock that, then God bless you.
Every tournament I play in, I seem to do okay. Believe me, they're more worried about me than I'm worried about them because if I do get up and play good, 98 percent of the time, I'm gonna get that money. And it don't matter who their name is or how well they play because what good are they if they're a statue in the chair.
So you can label me, Sigel, and whoever else anything you want, but the ones who know what time of day it is are the pro players themselves.
First of all, there are a lot of players that are considered pros that are not.
Just for your information, I consider myself a pro because I'm subject to beat anyone or anybody at any given time. I beat Ralf Souquet the last time we played, Mika Immonen, Alex Pagulayan, Niels Feijen, Ronnie Alcano, just to name a few, and let's not forget about Francisco Bustamante. So I consider that a pretty good line-up. If anybody wants to try to knock that, then God bless you.
Every tournament I play in, I seem to do okay. Believe me, they're more worried about me than I'm worried about them because if I do get up and play good, 98 percent of the time, I'm gonna get that money. And it don't matter who their name is or how well they play because what good are they if they're a statue in the chair.
So you can label me, Sigel, and whoever else anything you want, but the ones who know what time of day it is are the pro players themselves.
My humble opinion:
I think pro has LITTLE to do with current money won, and has everything to do with past-performance (tournaments / money) and playing ability. Semi-pro makes no sense. It's like being semi-pregnant. You can either compete at the highest level over a long period of time or you don't.
Whoever doesn't think these guys are all-out professionals need to log-off the internet and send someone in against them for the cash and find out first-hand. These guys are NOT "former pros" when they can rape many of the middle-range guys (and many top 10 players) I read about in magazines every so often. Don't get me wrong, they're not beating everyone at any level at any game every time---- but they're gonna win MORE than their fair share at nearly any game. If there are round things on flat surfaces with holes nearby, and they have a few days to loosen up, you better be wearing boxers or your nuts will shrivel up backing the wrong end of any match against the below players.
- Mike Sigel
- George Breedlove
- Nick Varner
- Allen Hopkins
- Buddy Hall
- Earl Strickland
- George San Souci
- Keither with the Ether (that's for you JAM)
They may not be in magazines this month, or on the top 10 money list ---- but they are PROS.
I think pro has LITTLE to do with current money won, and has everything to do with past-performance (tournaments / money) and playing ability. Semi-pro makes no sense. It's like being semi-pregnant. You can either compete at the highest level over a long period of time or you don't.
Whoever doesn't think these guys are all-out professionals need to log-off the internet and send someone in against them for the cash and find out first-hand. These guys are NOT "former pros" when they can rape many of the middle-range guys (and many top 10 players) I read about in magazines every so often. Don't get me wrong, they're not beating everyone at any level at any game every time---- but they're gonna win MORE than their fair share at nearly any game. If there are round things on flat surfaces with holes nearby, and they have a few days to loosen up, you better be wearing boxers or your nuts will shrivel up backing the wrong end of any match against the below players.
- Mike Sigel
- George Breedlove
- Nick Varner
- Allen Hopkins
- Buddy Hall
- Earl Strickland
- George San Souci
- Keither with the Ether (that's for you JAM)
They may not be in magazines this month, or on the top 10 money list ---- but they are PROS.
Last edited:
