No restrictions for the ladies amateur at SBE?

[inside_english]

I was checking the results and saw that Briana Miller won the Women's Division for the 3rd. consecutive year.

The men are only allowed to win the amateur open once and they are restricted from future events permanently.

This seems unfair. Perhaps someone can explain it to me?

There are all kinds of restrictions for the men (high finishes in other tournaments etc.) but not for the ladies, so what gives?

 

[trob]

That does seem strange.. The only think I can think is while the men's 10 ball is kind of an after thought they don't have the women's every year, They also don't have a women's pro am for them to play in so maybe thats part of the issue also.

 

[d0ser]

Could also be that she is still on a college team. Since so many other sports consider college the amateur level maybe that let players specifically on college teams slide? She's playing in ACUI nationals again this year I know.

 

[trob]

I spoke to a friend who is I guess you could say 2nd charge at the tournament desk and apparently the rule that once you win the amature you can't play it in any more hasn't been in effect for 3 years. It doesn't matter any more.

 

[deadnutz]

I spoke to a friend who is I guess you could say 2nd charge at the tournament desk and apparently the rule that once you win the amature you can't play it in any more hasn't been in effect for 3 years. It doesn't matter any more.

If that's the case they didn't let anyone who has won in the past know that. I can assure you if Josh Brothers is allowed to play he would have. I'm sure some other previous winners as well. It was the Norm Wines invitational until Allen put the win once and done rule in affect. Think he won it 3 times..... twice for sure. The guy was about unbeatable on a bar box in those days. Wonder what he's up to?

 

[cardiac kid]

When are we going to strongly suggest the rest of the women GET BETTER? Stop barring people because they put the time in practicing and their opponents do not. Brianna should be playing with the pros but why should she? This is easy money. JMHO.

Lyn

 

[inside_english]

I spoke to a friend who is I guess you could say 2nd charge at the tournament desk and apparently the rule that once you win the amature you can't play it in any more hasn't been in effect for 3 years. It doesn't matter any more.

That's not entirely accurate. I spoke with Matt Clatterbuck recently and he said he is not allowed to play anymore. Neither is Shane Winters, who won it last year. This would mean Chris Byers, the latest champion, is no longer eligible.

Kevin West barely made it in as he had high finishes in Turning Stone and some other events. Tom Zippler cut it close as well.

Tony Long came in second a few years ago and he was allowed to play, which is the way it should be.

Anyway, not my tournament, not my rules...was just curious as to the differences between the open and the Ladies' Open.

 

[trob]

If that's the case they didn't let anyone who has won in the past know that. I can assure you if Josh Brothers is allowed to play he would have. I'm sure some other previous winners as well. It was the Norm Wines invitational until Allen put the win once and done rule in affect. Think he won it 3 times..... twice for sure. The guy was about unbeatable on a bar box in those days. Wonder what he's up to?

I'm just telling you what a person who is in charge of setting the rules had to say. He's already working on adjustments to the rules for next year.

 

[trob]

That's not entirely accurate. I spoke with Matt Clatterbuck recently and he said he is not allowed to play anymore. Neither is Shane Winters, who won it last year. This would mean Chris Byers, the latest champion, is no longer eligible.

Kevin West barely made it in as he had high finishes in Turning Stone and some other events. Tom Zippler cut it close as well.

Tony Long came in second a few years ago and he was allowed to play, which is the way it should be.

Anyway, not my tournament, not my rules...was just curious as to the differences between the open and the Ladies' Open.

I didn't say you couldn't be bared from playing because of your skill level I said they don't base it solely on you won last year so you can't play anymore..There is a difference.

 

[trob]

I just received a message from the tournament director telling me Matt claterbuck can play. Your misinformed and misinforming lol He makes the list and Matt is not on it.

That's not entirely accurate. I spoke with Matt Clatterbuck recently and he said he is not allowed to play anymore. Neither is Shane Winters, who won it last year. This would mean Chris Byers, the latest champion, is no longer eligible.

Kevin West barely made it in as he had high finishes in Turning Stone and some other events. Tom Zippler cut it close as well.

Tony Long came in second a few years ago and he was allowed to play, which is the way it should be.

Anyway, not my tournament, not my rules...was just curious as to the differences between the open and the Ladies' Open.

 

[inside_english]

I just received a message from the tournament director telling me Matt Clatterbuck can play. You're misinformed and misinforming lol He makes the list and Matt is not on it.

Well, I am only telling you what Matt told me himself at the PA State Bar Box Championship recently, and what Kevin West told me at SBE. So I guess they were "misinformed and misinforming" too.

If they have relaxed the rules that would be great.

Now all they have to do is communicate that.

No hard feelings, thanks.

 

[alstl]

They are probably trying to attract some women players.

 

[hang-the-9]

If that's the case they didn't let anyone who has won in the past know that. I can assure you if Josh Brothers is allowed to play he would have. I'm sure some other previous winners as well. It was the Norm Wines invitational until Allen put the win once and done rule in affect. Think he won it 3 times..... twice for sure. The guy was about unbeatable on a bar box in those days. Wonder what he's up to?

I don't think Josh Brothers would be allowed to play due to winning before, but due to his known skill level. His Fargo rating is right about where Scott Frost is.

If they want to limit the event to real Amateur skill levels, not just if you are not a pro, then maybe just say "under 700 Fargo rating".

700 or up, go play in the Pro/Am or the Pro events.

Then they can say "if you won twice, go play in the Pro/Am or Pro".

One win is a bit too picky to be banned from playing in the event. Two shows you are a step over the other guys and need to move up.

For the women event, the cutoff looks to be about 600 for Amateurs. Maybe 620/630.

 

[ctyhntr]

Is this the consensus for all amateur events at SBX, or just the Open?

I don't think Josh Brothers would be allowed to play due to winning before, but due to his known skill level. His Fargo rating is right about where Scott Frost is.

If they want to limit the event to real Amateur skill levels, not just if you are not a pro, then maybe just say "under 700 Fargo rating".

700 or up, go play in the Pro/Am or the Pro events.

Then they can say "if you won twice, go play in the Pro/Am or Pro".

One win is a bit too picky to be banned from playing in the event. Two shows you are a step over the other guys and need to move up.

 

[Cornerman]

Let's play this out. If Briana was barred, who wins? Stacie Bourbeau does. Many times national champion and runner up, and now two times runner up at this event. She's got oodles of wins on the womens New England tour, and probably would have JPNewt titles if she lived closer to those tournaments. And I don't think Stacie would be barred as a non-amateur today, even if her game is well above the amateurs not named Briana Miller.

And let's say Stacie is barred, who wins? National Junior champ from Massachusetts, Michele Jiang probably. The World Juniors participant outclassed every player not named Stacie or Briana and in the future will be a professional. But not today, and not next year. If Stacie and Briana are barred, Michele might win three years in a row, IMO.

There's no end here. Someone will always be favored to win the ladies event, given whatever cut off rule is in place.

Freddie <~~~ can't hang with those ladies

 

[ctyhntr]

How about increasing the entry fee for the previous year's winner if he/she chooses to re-enter the same tournament. You still get rewarded for winning, but increase the entry fee for someone who keeps winning.

1st time winning, no change in next entry fee

2nd time winning in 3 tournaments, 2x entry fee on the next tournament.

3rd time winning in 5 tournament, 3x or double (4x) entry fee

When are we going to strongly suggest the rest of the women GET BETTER? Stop barring people because they put the time in practicing and their opponents do not. Brianna should be playing with the pros but why should she? This is easy money. JMHO.

Lyn

 

[deadnutz]

In my opinion I wouldn't ban a previous winner. The format evens the field. Alternate break on a bar box..... I heard a lot of noise about Kevin West but am fairly certain he didn't even cash more or less come close to winning. 25 years of the expo and I can only think of 2 repeat winners. Norm Wines and Pat McNally. Could they win it today? Doubt it. The field was much smaller when McNally won it. 256 I believe. Also, this is drawing talent from all over the country. Early on I don't think it was. I'd like to see those guys try though. If Brothers won it years ago and can win again today then why not? If he's not cashing in turning stone or other pro events then let him play. That's my .02

 

[cookie man]

In my opinion I wouldn't ban a previous winner. The format evens the field. Alternate break on a bar box..... I heard a lot of noise about Kevin West but am fairly certain he didn't even cash more or less come close to winning. 25 years of the expo and I can only think of 2 repeat winners. Norm Wines and Pat McNally. Could they win it today? Doubt it. The field was much smaller when McNally won it. 256 I believe. Also, this is drawing talent from all over the country. Early on I don't think it was. I'd like to see those guys try though. If Brothers won it years ago and can win again today then why not? If he's not cashing in turning stone or other pro events then let him play. That's my .02

Jason Kirkwood won it 3 times i believe

 

[trob]

I can tell you the guy making the list of who can't play puts very little faith in a Fargo rating and I don't blame him.

I don't think Josh Brothers would be allowed to play due to winning before, but due to his known skill level. His Fargo rating is right about where Scott Frost is.

If they want to limit the event to real Amateur skill levels, not just if you are not a pro, then maybe just say "under 700 Fargo rating".

700 or up, go play in the Pro/Am or the Pro events.

Then they can say "if you won twice, go play in the Pro/Am or Pro".

One win is a bit too picky to be banned from playing in the event. Two shows you are a step over the other guys and need to move up.

For the women event, the cutoff looks to be about 600 for Amateurs. Maybe 620/630.

 

[hang-the-9]

I can tell you the guy making the list of who can't play puts very little faith in a Fargo rating and I don't blame him.

What's wrong with the Fargo ratings? They have predicted winners in many matches, by pretty much the exact prediction. And if you look at the players ratings, they match up with how they play very well. And it's the best world wide ratings system in place now with hard numbers. APA? Too limited, and no pro players. Same thing for every other league except maybe the USAPL 30-125 rating where you can actually have Pro players that are 125. But even then you can have an A or A+ player be a 125 and a pro be a 125 since that is the max. Fargo goes up and down enough that you can have a clear distinction between an A, A+, Pro.

I was skeptical of the ratings also in Fargo, till I looked at them a bit and notices that they capture a whole lot of information from many events.