Support an AzB player at the US Open?

Would you be interested in supporting an AzB player at the US Open?

  • YES

    Votes: 34 73.9%
  • NO

    Votes: 5 10.9%
  • Rick, you're an idiot

    Votes: 7 15.2%

  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
U.S. Open

sjm said:
Well, I know this will be controversial and that I'm risking finding disfavor with some professionals, but why are there professionals on our list? Since when was this idea anything to do with paying the expenses of professionals that would play in the US Open anyway?

As far as I'm concerned, sending a player is about rewarding one of the regular posters who has enriched our forum experience by regularly sharing things about their current life in pool with us, to live out the dream of playing in a US Open. What we'd all get in return is that the person, whose habit of sharing their experiences in pool is already well-established and whose posts we already admire, would post regularly during the US Open and tell us what it's like to live the dream. Rude Dog played the part well last year, living the dream and relating his experiences, thoughts and reactions to playing in the event. All the amateur players nominated are worthy of our consideration.

Am I opposed to sponsoring professionals? Actually, I sponsored a player on the PBT for over three years and was at personal risk for well over $20,000. I urge all (having the means) to consider sponsoring a professional as I did.

Nonetheless, this AZB initiative, at least in my opinion, is not about covering the expenses of established professionals already planning to play in the US Open, but about bringing one of our frequent posters in contact with their dreams, and sharing the experience with them through the forum.

I will support whichever player we choose, but I feel it should be an amateur.

That is my feeling as well. I thought the original purpose was to give a person the chance that wouldn't ordinarily have the opportunity to participate in such an event. Like the Olympics, it's not about winning or finishing near the top, it's about participating IMHO and sharing that experience with rest of the Az members.
#1. Jimmy M - for not being able to go last year.
#2 How about Shorty. That should be an experience.
#3 Fill in blank._______________________________________

no-sho
 
sjm said:
Well, I know this will be controversial and that I'm risking finding disfavor with some professionals, but why are there professionals on our list? Since when was this idea anything to do with paying the expenses of professionals that would play in the US Open anyway?...I will support whichever player we choose, but I feel it should be an amateur.

SJM, I too will support whoever is selected to go to the U.S. Open.

Keith McCready is not a "professional" in the eyes of the UPA. He starts from the bottom of the charts, without the benefit of a seed and a bye, just like everybody else. As a matter of fact, last year at the U.S. Open, UPA Representative Frankie Alvarez told me personally that Keith would not be allowed to compete at the UPA-sanctioned World Summit of Pool unless he was a UPA member, even though when the World Summit of Pool was held at Grand Central Station several weeks later, Earl Strickland, who was not a UPA member, was allowed to play. The UPA rules are changed whenever the UPA deems it appropriate to suit their needs. Ironically, the UPA rules were changed to accommodate Earl's participation, but Keith's opportunities were thwarted.

When Keith came in third place at the 2003 U.S. Open, he was originally going to be seeded in the 2004 U.S. Open for his fine third-place finish, or so we thought. A disgruntled pool player came up to Scott Smith and Barry Behrman while they were making up the chart and complained bitterly that the "senior players" should get a seed. Keith's seed was then eliminated at that time, thanks to the disgruntled pool player. Charlie Brinson and David Bollman enjoyed seeds and byes. Barry Behrman apologized to Keith for the oversight and PROMISED him he'd be seeded this year. Do you want to make a small wager on whether he is seeded or not? ;)

Last year, several of our European comrades were competing in Europe at the beginning of the U.S. Open. To allow them time to get to Virginia, these players were thereby granted seeds with byes and didn't arrive until Tuesday, although the rest of us schmucks were there Sunday night for the players meeting, incurring all of the associated expenses and starting from the bottom of the charts, without the benefit of the seeds and byes. Keith beat Niels Feijen at the 2003 Open, and Niels Feijen got a seed and a bye for the 2004 Open, but not Keith.

I have made reservations for lodging at the U.S. Open already. However, when the time comes, depending on the financial status of our household, there will be some decisions which will be made as to which tournaments we will be attending. I have a deep passion for pool and appreciate the prestige of the U.S. Open, but I also like having a roof over my head, and when push comes to shove, there's no place like home.

I took the same stance as you, SJM, last year relating on sending a player to the U.S. Open. This year, I nominated Black-Balled a/k/a Walter Kochs because I think he's worthy of consideration, too.

It's kind of a tough spot to be in. In reality, Keith McCready is out there scrapping just like every other aspiring player, when the opportunities avail themselves. Keith is a pool player; JAM is a realist. I will support whoever this forum votes for. Last year, I withdrew Keith's name from the nomination list, but this year, I take a different stance because I have been beaten up with pool politics.

JAM
 
JAM said:
SJM, I too will support whoever is selected to go to the U.S. Open.

Keith McCready is not a "professional" in the eyes of the UPA. He starts from the bottom of the charts, without the benefit of a seed and a bye, just like everybody else. As a matter of fact, last year at the U.S. Open, UPA Representative Frankie Alvarez told me personally that Keith would not be allowed to compete at the UPA-sanctioned World Summit of Pool unless he was a UPA member, even though when the World Summit of Pool was held at Grand Central Station several weeks later, Earl Strickland, who was not a UPA member, was allowed to play. The UPA rules are changed whenever the UPA deems it appropriate to suit their needs. Ironically, the UPA rules were changed to accommodate Earl's participation, but Keith's opportunities were thwarted.

When Keith came in third place at the 2003 U.S. Open, he was originally going to be seeded in the 2004 U.S. Open for his fine third-place finish, or so we thought. A disgruntled pool player came up to Scott Smith and Barry Behrman while they were making up the chart and complained bitterly that the "senior players" should get a seed. Keith's seed was then eliminated at that time, thanks to the disgruntled pool player. Charlie Brinson and David Bollman enjoyed seeds and byes. Barry Behrman apologized to Keith for the oversight and PROMISED him he'd be seeded this year. Do you want to make a small wager on whether he is seeded or not? ;)

Last year, several of our European comrades were competing in Europe at the beginning of the U.S. Open. To allow them time to get to Virginia, these players were thereby granted seeds with byes and didn't arrive until Tuesday, although the rest of us schmucks were there Sunday night for the players meeting, incurring all of the associated expenses and starting from the bottom of the charts, without the benefit of the seeds and byes. Keith beat Niels Feijen at the 2003 Open, and Niels Feijen got a seed and a bye for the 2004 Open, but not Keith.

I have made reservations for lodging at the U.S. Open already. However, when the time comes, depending on the financial status of our household, there will be some decisions which will be made as to which tournaments we will be attending. I have a deep passion for pool and appreciate the prestige of the U.S. Open, but I also like having a roof over my head, and when push comes to shove, there's no place like home.

I took the same stance as you, SJM, last year relating on sending a player to the U.S. Open. This year, I nominated Black-Balled a/k/a Walter Kochs because I think he's worthy of consideration, too.

It's kind of a tough spot to be in. In reality, Keith McCready is out there scrapping just like every other aspiring player, when the opportunities avail themselves. Keith is a pool player; JAM is a realist. I will support whoever this forum votes for. Last year, I withdrew Keith's name from the nomination list, but this year, I take a different stance because I have been beaten up with pool politics.

JAM

Thanks, JAM, now I'm fine with having Keith on the ballot, and I wish him good luck when the votes are tallied.
 
sjm said:
Thanks, JAM, now I'm fine with having Keith on the ballot, and I wish him good luck when the votes are tallied.

I tend to think along the lines of your first post in this subject. I was very suprise that you backed away from your original position.

Dave, who hopes we send a deserving player but will cheer for KM to win it all (wouldn't that bring out some wonderful posts by JAM, I hope we see them !)
 
sjm said:
Well, I know this will be controversial and that I'm risking finding disfavor with some professionals, but why are there professionals on our list? Since when was this idea anything to do with paying the expenses of professionals that would play in the US Open anyway?

As far as I'm concerned, sending a player is about rewarding one of the regular posters who has enriched our forum experience by regularly sharing things about their current life in pool with us, to live out the dream of playing in a US Open. What we'd all get in return is that the person, whose habit of sharing their experiences in pool is already well-established and whose posts we already admire, would post regularly during the US Open and tell us what it's like to live the dream. Rude Dog played the part well last year, living the dream and relating his experiences, thoughts and reactions to playing in the event. All the amateur players nominated are worthy of our consideration.

Am I opposed to sponsoring professionals? Actually, I sponsored a player on the PBT for over three years and was at personal risk for well over $20,000. I urge all (having the means) to consider sponsoring a professional as I did.

Nonetheless, this AZB initiative, at least in my opinion, is not about covering the expenses of established professionals already planning to play in the US Open, but about bringing one of our frequent posters in contact with their dreams, and sharing the experience with them through the forum.

I will support whichever player we choose, but I feel it should be an amateur.

I was thinking the same thing when I saw the list. I think your thoughts are right on point.
 
I am totally new to this discussion, but I wanted to weigh in on some things. IMHO, Mr. McCready is a professional regardless of his UPA standing. He could become a member if he wanted to...as well as I. I am by NO means a professional, hell sometimes I don't even think I am good enough to be considered an armature, LMAO! So, being a UPA member has nothing to do with being a Pro in my book. As a matter of fact Mr. McCready is not permitted to play in BCA armature events. Those are just my honest opinions about Mr. McCready in the pool world. I would hate for my thoughts to be misconceived as negative against Mr. McCready, because they are not. I however, just don't agree with him being on the list because in reality he is FAR from being anything but a pro.

Another question I have is when will the payments no longer be accepted? I would like to donate, but I have to wait a few weeks before I have free cash. Also, how much money is needed exactly? If that amount is exceeded will another player be able to attend or will the donations be stopped once that amount is reached?
 
landshark77 said:
I am totally new to this discussion, but I wanted to weigh in on some things. IMHO, Mr. McCready is a professional regardless of his UPA standing. He could become a member if he wanted to...as well as I....

Landshark77, just one point of clarity, Keith CANNOT become a member IF HE WANTED TO, for reasons I do not care to divulge on a public form, but most definitely, neither can you. I do not believe that women are allowed to join the UPA. :p

We have decided to withdraw Keith's name from the Best Qualified List. As one who likes to stay away from controversy, I think this is best, but I would like to vote with the majority and will continue to support whichever player is selected. :)

JAM
 
JAM said:
Landshark77, just one point of clarity, Keith CANNOT become a member IF HE WANTED TO, for reasons I do not care to divulge on a public form,
Point taken and respected.

JAM said:
but most definitely, neither can you. I do not believe that women are allowed to join the UPA. :p
There is nothing on the UPA website that says women may not become a UPA memeber. Maybe when I have a spare $100 I might try it... :p
 
Hello

Just because I'm not playing in the Open does not mean that I have retired, I just don't think that I could give it my best effort when knowing that Berry son (one of the U.S. Open Promoters) still owes me $.
 
Back
Top