Pro pool player's vs transgender athlete's
- Thread starter Welder84
- Start date
I personally like pro's around local events. However there is a parallel to the trans/pro pool argument. If a player wins 88% of their games in a tournament, that's not a competition.
And the argument could be made that the amateur player was cheated out of their title chance.
If they are allowed to enter why not? Just because it's a State or a Regional tournament does not make it an "amateur" one. Was there a skill level limit? There are plenty of weekly events that have pro players go play in it. Mike Dechaine and a few other very strong players (in the 700 Fargo range) played in a weekly tournament in RI.
I have seen 30-60 yr olds complain that kids under 18 are winning events and should be barred because they have their own junior events. Maybe the real reason is why are those under 18 yr old kids beating those grownups that had so much extra time to learn to play? And these are handicapped events even where those kids were giving up games to most players.
Tkatch is one badass dudette.
No bout a doubt it.
No bout a doubt it.
I didn't say it was "shady". I am just raising a question (is there a parallel)?
John Higgins won 87.5% of his frames (games) in the Player's Snooker Championship this past week. He defeated world's best Ronnie O'Sullivan in the final. I wouldn't say that wasn't a competition.
Ronnie has been getting it handed to him in the finals lately. He can’t quite get over the hump.
To answer the OP question- it’s a big difference. Tkach entered an open event and won it. I assume there were no restrictions on who could play the event, because I’m sure most knew she is a pro. And a good one to boot.
When a transgender male enters a woman’s only event there’s a chance he/she has an unfair advantage. I’m sure if pool paid better the pro’s wouldn’t have to play small regional events, but a woman has to eat, right?
Right (and I agree). However... the amateur players are losing out on titles that they have work towards. Just conversation
I get what you’re saying, but that’s just life. If they allow anyone to compete in a tournament you’re going to get some pro’s. So the local amateur better step their game up! They may not win as many titles, but the ones they do win mean a hell of a lot more.
I think about Donny Mills. He’s good enough to be considered a pro but he doesn’t make his living playing pool. Would he be allowed to play in your tournament?
It's not an amateur tournament!!!
In Europe, England, Russia or other countries can anyone to enter local events? I do not know, just asking? What about snooker, can I enter a pro event?
So (just my opinion) no. Not a State title. If to the tournament says Virginia state champion then the player should...
- Be living in the state of the title Championship.
- Should not be a professional player. (Fargo above 725 my opinion)
- If the tournament director wanted to run a pro-am that's different. (Not a State title)
Last edited:
DieselPete
Active member
The OP conflates two wildly different issues, I'll assume in an attempt to be provocative. There is probably a more suitable forum for the debate about trans rights/trans participation in sports.
As for the pool-related question; I believe this event was an "open" and therefore it was appropriate for a professional player to enter.*
Perhaps a post that suggests what rules should be in place to guide which events pro players should and should not enter would be a place to start a debate? Such as, they can enter "opens" but they cannot enter "amateurs"? But that also begs the question; when has a player officially crossed a line that definitively, irrefutably makes them a card-carry professional who would not be eligible for the non-pro events?
*Edit: I could be wrong here. There was an Open event running concurrent to the event in question. I'd like to read any materials that were published before the event to get a sense of the intent, and I would like to know how many players were in-state/out-of-state, and whether there were other professional players.
As for the pool-related question; I believe this event was an "open" and therefore it was appropriate for a professional player to enter.*
Perhaps a post that suggests what rules should be in place to guide which events pro players should and should not enter would be a place to start a debate? Such as, they can enter "opens" but they cannot enter "amateurs"? But that also begs the question; when has a player officially crossed a line that definitively, irrefutably makes them a card-carry professional who would not be eligible for the non-pro events?
*Edit: I could be wrong here. There was an Open event running concurrent to the event in question. I'd like to read any materials that were published before the event to get a sense of the intent, and I would like to know how many players were in-state/out-of-state, and whether there were other professional players.
Last edited:
DieselPete
Active member
I like this post because it gives us a jumping-off point for a conversation. We were posting at the same time. For a state title, I definitely agree with point #1. Point #2... I like the intent, but to what extent does Fargo change and would someone be a pro today, not next week, and a pro again a month after that if they are very close to your number?
So no. If a player (example) qualified once a year by having above 725 Fargo they would be a pro (one calendar year)
And after two exclamation marks (I consider you to be screaming at me) not necessary.
