Professional level according to Fargo

F

FastManners

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The great debate around calling yourself a “pro”, is far less subjective now that Fargo is in place.
I am interested in hearing was Fargo level people think players should be at in order to legitimately call themselves a professional pool player.
i personally would guess 730+ for men and 660+ for women.
Alternatively does playing ability have nothing to do with calling yourself a pro player.
 
In Golf, players have to achieve certain metrics to become PGA Pros. Fargo could be the beginning of that for pool at a professional level it seems? Rather than "anyone who has the money can join the tournament" it would require working up through the ranks to achieve that title. That will likely never happen of course, but it seems it would be a reasonable way to go in making Pool an organized, recognized, and higher paying sport at the pro level.
 
FastManners said:
The great debate around calling yourself a “pro”, is far less subjective now that Fargo is in place.
I am interested in hearing was Fargo level people think players should be at in order to legitimately call themselves a professional pool player.
i personally would guess 730+ for men and 660+ for women.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between being a pro and playing at a level the masses would consider "pro speed".

A pro would just be an individual: "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime"

A player's fargo rating is moot.

FastManners said:
Alternatively does playing ability have nothing to do with calling yourself a pro player.
Click to expand...
Consider that a player could earn their revenue from sponsorship rather than results from competition. So you can be a "professional" by definition and be a terrible player. On the flip side you could play pool as a pastime activity and play what the masses would consider "pro speed".

My point... We need to come to terms with player ability not being a matrix to dictate whether or not that player is a "pro".
 
The_JV said:
There's a difference between being a pro and playing at a level the masses would consider "pro speed".

A pro would just be an individual: "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime"

A player's fargo rating is moot.


Consider that a player could earn their revenue from sponsorship rather than results from competition. So you can be a "professional" by definition and be a terrible player. On the flip side you could play pool as a pastime activity and play what the masses would consider "pro speed".

My point... We need to come to terms with player ability not being a matrix to dictate whether or not that player is a "pro".
Click to expand...
Agreed. The only thing that tends to make me chuckle is when a bad player considers themselves a "pro" because they have enough money to never have a real job. The 500 speed player that will travel to events all over the world and go two and out at nearly every tournament. Not talking about anyone specific.
 
The_JV said:
There's a difference between being a pro and playing at a level the masses would consider "pro speed".

A pro would just be an individual: "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime"

A player's fargo rating is moot.


Consider that a player could earn their revenue from sponsorship rather than results from competition. So you can be a "professional" by definition and be a terrible player. On the flip side you could play pool as a pastime activity and play what the masses would consider "pro speed".

My point... We need to come to terms with player ability not being a matrix to dictate whether or not that player is a "pro".
Click to expand...
That makes sense. There are certainly a number of bang average players who consider themselves pro, but as you say in some cases it is their main source of income, so by definition could correctly call themselves a pro.
I would say that certain areas of the US, have more of those "pro's" who play at a pretty average level than other parts of the country.
Conversely other parts of the country that have those undercover monsters (looking at you Illinois, Texas and Kentucky!), who don't like to peacock and call themselves a pro, but shoot like hero's.
 
FastManners said:
That makes sense. There are certainly a number of bang average players who consider themselves pro, but as you say in some cases it is their main source of income, so by definition could correctly call themselves a pro.
I would say that certain areas of the US, have more of those "pro's" who play at a pretty average level than other parts of the country.
Conversely other parts of the country that have those undercover monsters (looking at you Illinois, Texas and Kentucky!), who don't like to peacock and call themselves a pro, but shoot like hero's.
Click to expand...
Yep, another element of the game I'm not a fan of. How many budding baseball players would hide their skill to avoid the majors...?

The sub-culture of pool will always be the driving force toward who's considered a pro in NA.
 
The_JV said:
There's a difference between being a pro and playing at a level the masses would consider "pro speed".

A pro would just be an individual: "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime"

A player's fargo rating is moot.


Consider that a player could earn their revenue from sponsorship rather than results from competition. So you can be a "professional" by definition and be a terrible player. On the flip side you could play pool as a pastime activity and play what the masses would consider "pro speed".

My point... We need to come to terms with player ability not being a matrix to dictate whether or not that player is a "pro".
Click to expand...

Golf has long ago come to the realization that there are two different types of "pro".

The club/teaching pro and the playing pro.

The club pro is an industry professional who manages golf courses, runs tournaments, and may or may not give lessons. They're knowledgeable and skilled at management and have at least a minimum ability to play the game, but some of them struggle to break 80 on a consistent basis.

The playing pro does just that. They play for a living. The best of the best we watch play on Sunday afternoon on TV, but there are thousands more playing in small tours around the country. As a population they tend to get around the golf course pretty well but they aren't in the same universe as the guys who play for real money on the big tours. The difference between a true touring pro and a casual pro.

I'd argue that pool is similar. There are full-time league operators, tournament directors, room managers, and even instructors that are industry professionals in that that's how they make their living. Some play at a high level while others define the term banger.

They're completely different from what most of us think when we think about those pros that play "pro speed" and earn their living playing the game. The SVB's, Fillers, and Gorsts of the world. For that group I think that it's reasonable to recognize that a certain playing ability has to be there in order to be recognized as such. If you can't crack the top 100 in the United States, let alone in the world, you probably aren't at that level, no matter how many tournaments you play.

A quick look at Fargo puts that number at 725 for men, and honestly, once you get much outside of the top 100 in the world, 775ish, you're probably more of that "casual pro" who makes a little bit of money regionally, but isn't earning a living off his play.

The rest of us are just spending money to do something we enjoy doing, even if once in a blue moon we get a few crumbs thrown back at us when we cash in a tournament.
 
Last edited:
I think we are talking about "pro level" players but who don't make a living at pool.

The easy defination of professional is someone who makes a living at. I know of 650 men making a living at pool. And i know of guys with fargo's way above 700's who have day jobs.

Years ago before fargo we had the letter system. I was like an A level, I really didn't think and still don't think i can compete with the men players. Today with Fargo i'm in the 725 area and still not good enough for the men.

I've done my time on the road and really don't wanna live like that anymore.
 
David in FL said:
Golf has long ago come to the realization that there are two different types of "pro".

The club/teaching pro and the playing pro.

The club pro is an industry professional who managers golf courses, runs tournaments, and may or may not give lessons. They're knowledgeable and skilled at management and have at least a minimum ability to play a game, but some of them struggle to break 80 on a consistent basis.

The playing pro does just that. They play for a living. The best of the best we watch play on Sunday afternoon on TV, but there are thousands more playing in small tours around the country. As a population they tend to get around the golf course pretty well but they aren't in the same universe as the guys who play for real money on the big tours. The difference between a true touring pro and a casual pro.

I'd argue that pool is similar. There are full-time league operators, tournament directors, room managers, and even instructors that are industry professionals in that that's how they make their living. Some play at a high level while others define the term banger.

They're completely different from what most of us think when we think about those pros that play "pro speed" and earn their living playing the game. The SVB's, Fillers, and Gorsts of the world. For that group I think that it's reasonable to recognize that a certain playing ability has to be there in order to be recognized as such. If you can't crack the top 100 in the United States, let alone in the world, you probably aren't at that level, no matter how many tournaments you play.

A quick look at Fargo puts that number at 725 for men, and honestly, once you get much outside of the top 100 in the world, 775ish, you're probably more of that "casual pro" who makes a little bit of money regionally, but isn't earning a living off his play.

The rest of us are just spending money to do something we enjoy doing, even if once in a blue moon we get a few crumbs thrown back at us when we cash in a tournament.
Click to expand...
Great post.
I think you are spot on.
725 seems to be a reasonable level to be considered as playing at least a regional pro level. 775 at a level where you are competitive enough to have aspirations of consistently making somewhat of a living from playing pro level tournaments and sponsorship.

The womens side is much trickier to define, as the gulf between the US players and Asian/European players is pretty wide.
 
The AZB Money Leaderboard shows there are barely two dozen players who can claim to 'make a living' from pool tournament winnings. Over halfway through the year Number 24 has won just $33,062. If the player keeps to that average winnings he or she would gross about $57,000 for the year. But that is the gross income, not the net. Real expenses draw this amount way down - things like entry fees, transportation, meals, and hotels. Another expense is practice time, which will either be the amortized cost of a home pro-quality 9' table, or several hours table time at a pool hall every week. If a real pro lives in the US they have to account to the IRS, and possibly pay SSDI tax. AZ's own reporting of winnings makes a case that there isn't enough money in 'pro' pool for more than a few to make a living on tournament winnings.

Of course a few players will get comp time on almost any house table anywhere. Another few will have sponsor's logos on their apparel, which will likely net them as much or more than their tournament winnings. Some will get sponsors to buy equipment - cues, cases, gloves, gadgets, etc., and maybe even underwrite tournament expenses.

There will always be the winnings from gambling, often using backer's money. But one does not need to play pool well to gamble on it.

Pool is hardly a sport, yet. Calling it a hobby with tournaments might be more accurate.
 
It just depends how big you consider the pond. A 730 will win many regional open events over their lifetimes. A 780 will win many national events. An 810 will win international events.

Me personally I'd put the cutoff at about 750. Below that is more "Open" speed. 750 and above is "touring speed". IMO:)
 
This subject is something of an embarrassment for me as I've changed my mind so many times over the years, but I've normally found myself suggesting that pro speed starts somewhere in the 725-740 Fargo range. Of course, if one expects to earn most of their income from competing, with a few exceptions, one probably needs to be 780 or higher.

For women, I'd put pro speed at about 625 or higher, but if one expects to earn most of their living from competition, one probably needs to be 720 or higher.

While there are dozens of players who play pro speed, there aren't many pros as measured by the competitive level required to earn a living.

As I've noted before, I consider teaching pros that derive most of their income from instruction to be pros, too, but that's a different kind of pro.
 
It has been a long time since the term "pro" actually had a definition in pro pool. Up to about 20 years ago, the WPBA had a definition and it was this:

to become a WPBA pro, you had to have four top half of the field finishes in any eight-tournament string.

Only pros were assured invitations to all WPBA events. Countless players that competed in some WPBA events never reached WPBA pro status.
 
sjm said:
This subject is something of an embarrassment for me as I've changed my mind so many times over the years, but I've normally found myself suggesting that pro speed starts somewhere in the 725-740 Fargo range. Of course, if one expects to earn most of their income from competing, with a few exceptions, one probably needs to be 780 or higher.

For women, I'd put pro speed at about 625 or higher, but if one expects to earn most of their living from competition, one probably needs to be 720 or higher.

While there are dozens of players who play pro speed, there aren't many pros as measured by the competitive level required to earn a living.

As I've noted before, I consider teaching pros that derive most of their income from instruction to be pros, too, but that's a different kind of pro.
Click to expand...
It is healthy to have opinions evolve with additional information and experience. I think that is a pretty balanced view, I think that 625 may be a little on the low side, but I find it tough to gage the level for women.
I can only see the bar for men and women rising, with all of the great young talent that is emerging.
 
sjm said:
It has been a long time since the term "pro" actually had a definition in pro pool. Up to about 20 years ago, the WPBA had a definition and it was this:

to become a WPBA pro, you had to have four top half of the field finishes in any eight-tournament string.

Only pros were assured invitations to all WPBA events. Countless players that competed in some WPBA events never reached WPBA pro status.
Click to expand...
The women players are horrible reguarding Fargo. The highest rated player in the USA is 680 and only the top 7 would cap out in the APA. One of the local woman "pros" wouldn't even the best player in her own APA league she runs.
 
easy-e said:
Agreed. The only thing that tends to make me chuckle is when a bad player considers themselves a "pro" because they have enough money to never have a real job. The 500 speed player that will travel to events all over the world and go two and out at nearly every tournament. Not talking about anyone specific.
Click to expand...
I aspire to this. 😜. I joke that I have something in common with many pool “pros”- I can’t make a living at pool. Someday I’ll enter a big event that I want to go and spectate, but I’d never call myself a pro. Dead money is nothing to scoff at😎
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top