I may be wrong, but wasn't BJ Ussery in the APA event in Vegas last year? He's in the 750s if I'm not mistaken.
Professional level according to Fargo
- Thread starter FastManners
- Start date
So here is a question, why would a US player who has a 746 Fargo and active not show up in the top 100 US players when #100 has a Fargo of 725?
You have a different definition of “active” than FargoRate does?
I know people who have played him at Derby this year, and another tournament in Texas. His name is Gary Abood.
Here’s an older post. Their criteria may have changed but at that time it was you need 250 games in the last two years. Gary has 315 games total. So he very likely didn’t get 250 of those in the last two years. So he’s not “active” enough to make the list.
Hmm, a lot of pro golfers couldn't make that cut because they have W2 jobs on the side. In many sports/games "going pro" used to mean you were throwing your hat in the ring against other pro players and giving up your amateur status. The Olympics used to work that way.
IMO, if somebody pays to sponsor you or you have pro tournament winnings, you're a pro.
If anyone who has ever cashed in a pro event is a pro, there are probably ten thousand pros in America.
Last year when I was chomping at the bit to get on the Canadian Top 100, I was told that the threshold was 300 racks in the system. To their word, once I broke that barrier. I showed up on the list.
Unfortunately my results have has me fall back off
Yes you can still play in the apa if you cash in a pro event. There are some restrictions though
He was in the Masters division
Yes, cashing in a pro event doesn't mean you can't play amateur events. In fact, APA players probably cash in a pro event almost every week of the year. There is a threshold, however. Somebody has said in this thread that for the BCA (pool's governing body in America), the cutoff is 720 Fargo. I have no idea whether that's correct.
Right, but what's the cutoff for that? We tried to include a 775 on our Master's team and were told he couldn't play.
I think their different lists have different criteria. Smaller slices have lighter criteria. The world list seems the strictest. And it seems to change a bit over time too
Without looking up any formal definitions, I've always understood a sport being a competitive activity where control of one's body is paramount. Pool would definitely fall in that definition. Chess would not. How popular they are or how much money one can make at it, is not really relevant. IMO.
To change the subject slightly, let's pretend pool became a major sport, with international monthly events of 128 players. Each event had a top prize of 1MM, and a 32nd place prize of 50K, and the top players were endorsed by the shoe companies to boot
Do we think there would be a lot more Shane/Filler/Ghorst's that arrive on the scene? So that we had 32 players all 830 and higher? Or would the number of players that high remain similar, and the lower fargos would become more populous?
Do we think there would be a lot more Shane/Filler/Ghorst's that arrive on the scene? So that we had 32 players all 830 and higher? Or would the number of players that high remain similar, and the lower fargos would become more populous?
That is a great question to ponder.To change the subject slightly, let's pretend pool became a major sport, with international monthly events of 128 players. Each event had a top prize of 1MM, and a 32nd place prize of 50K, and the top players were endorsed by the shoe companies to boot
I think we will have pool players from other galaxies before that ever becomes reality.To change the subject slightly, let's pretend pool became a major sport, with international monthly events of 128 players. Each event had a top prize of 1MM, and a 32nd place prize of 50K, and the top players were endorsed by the shoe companies to boot
That is something to ponder.
I think more than the top 7 would cap out in APA. There are about 40 women in the US that are over 600. I know players around 550 that have capped out in APA.