The Monk's article - amateurs vs. professionals

[dinovirus]

I just happened to read the Monk's article on the AZ homepage and thought I would comment. He suggests that 'weekly' or 'hobby' players are the ones who should be designated as 'amateur' while those who play in serious events on a regular basis (more than 6 per year) should be considered 'professionals'. He makes a good case but I think he leaves out the consideration of money.

Here's what I think. In tennis and golf, you are an amateur player right up unitl you take your first nickel of prize money in organized competition. After that you've completely turned your back on the amateur game - and you can never go back. It's cruel, but it's a system that works because it keeps such an easy separation between the two games. Get paid, you're a pro, play for fun and titles only, you're an amateur. After all, the actual definition of an amateur is 'someone who competes only for enjoyment', with an emphasis on 'only'.

I tend to think that it should be the same in pool. If you want to host or compete in tournaments that are offering prize money, then you must be prepared to accept 'road' players or other professionals entering. After all, don't you think that it's unfair to offer prize money in tournaments and then not allow people who are playing the game for their living to enter?

If you want to host a tournament that is restricted to amateurs only, then I would suggest to do away with prize money. That's the only truly fair way to keep pro players out, and I humbly suggest that's how it should be.

Comments??

 

[Williebetmore]

If you want to host a tournament that is restricted to amateurs only, then I would suggest to do away with prize money. That's the only truly fair way to keep pro players out, and I humbly suggest that's how it should be.

Comments??

Dino,
I totally agree, but I think you will find that your idea will float like a lead balloon around here. Lots of hardcore money players around these parts, and they don't want any unnecessarily tough competition. Players are in it for the love of the game, or for the love of gambling (and occasionally both).

 

[jjinfla]

I think a better distinction would be a person who is paid to compete, rather than someone who competes for money would be given pro status That is what happened to Jim Thorpe. The story goes that he was paid a paltry sum to play for a football team and that is why he lost lost his amateur status and had his medals taken away from him.

But then how many pool players get paid to compete?

How about designating certain tours, such as the UPA, Florida Pro Tour, Kennedy Tour, etc, where anyone who finishes in the top 25% would be given pro status. these people would then not be allowed to play in any amateur tournament.

And if a person is an excellent player, and does play at the pro level, he would still be listed as an amateur if he never plays in the pro-qualifier tournaments.

But it would take some independent body to gather the information from the various tours and compose a list. It would be a lot of work with no monetary compensation so I really can't see it going anywhere.

Jake

 

[Hunntyr]

I just happened to read the Monk's article on the AZ homepage and thought I would comment. He suggests that 'weekly' or 'hobby' players are the ones who should be designated as 'amateur' while those who play in serious events on a regular basis (more than 6 per year) should be considered 'professionals'. He makes a good case but I think he leaves out the consideration of money.

Here's what I think. In tennis and golf, you are an amateur player right up unitl you take your first nickel of prize money in organized competition. After that you've completely turned your back on the amateur game - and you can never go back. It's cruel, but it's a system that works because it keeps such an easy separation between the two games. Get paid, you're a pro, play for fun and titles only, you're an amateur. After all, the actual definition of an amateur is 'someone who competes only for enjoyment', with an emphasis on 'only'.

I tend to think that it should be the same in pool. If you want to host or compete in tournaments that are offering prize money, then you must be prepared to accept 'road' players or other professionals entering. After all, don't you think that it's unfair to offer prize money in tournaments and then not allow people who are playing the game for their living to enter?

If you want to host a tournament that is restricted to amateurs only, then I would suggest to do away with prize money. That's the only truly fair way to keep pro players out, and I humbly suggest that's how it should be.

Comments??

I have to some what agree with you. I do consider myself an amateur player but not in The Monk's sense. I do enter more than 6 tourneys a year. Does that make me a Pro?? I dont think so. The Tourneys I enter arent with $20,000 payouts or anything, or even tourneys with the opportunity to play people like Thorston Hohman and Charlie Williams. But I do play in money tourneys and sometimes money matches with road players. I do it mostly for the experience that I can get because when else would I, an amateur, be able to play these higher level players?? I enter Tournaments for the great fun, challenges and competition it brings. I dont mean to offend anyone else that reads this either but if anyone has a problem with Pro's or Road players playing in money tourneys, you really shouldnt be in these tourneys. If you keep playing the same people that you can always beat, how are you going to improve yourself??? Playing better/higher level people makes you play your best game. If you beat a better player with your best game, you've accomplished so much more. Its not always about the money. Sometimes its about what a person can accomplish.

 

[JustPlay]

After reading everyone's idea (Monk's included) of who is a professional pool player is, I have come to the conclusion that a (mens) professional pool player really doesn't exist any longer. There is no "Pro Tour" only a womens pro tour exist. Most tournaments today are NOT restricted to "pro's only". Only a handful of tournaments are invitational only (UPA/Williams) to top players and not just "Pro Players". The definition of winning and accepting money at any tournament is a good start to a definition of a "pro player". So if you enjoy pool just as much as Archer, Strickland, Mathews or McCready and you compete in tournaments to which they have entered to play in doesn't it make you a "pro" player as well? Also, what if you conduct yourself like a professional when competing at pool tournaments? An interesting topic.

 

[sjm]

As noble an idea as all this is, the fact is that the vast majority people who play pool seriously play it for profit. It's an unfortunate truth of our sport, but the fact is, that if we ever take the money-making opportunities away from the casual players, many of them will stop frequenting America's poolrooms. It's a sad truth, but far too few pool players play just for the thrill of it.

 

[mjantti]

IMHO, the difference between a professional player and an amateur player is decided where does one's income come from. Let's say a player has a full-time job (40h per week), then IMO it doesn't matter what kind of pool career he/she has, gambling or tournament. He/she is an amateur.
If a player decides to cut down the working hours... let's say to 20h per week or maybe takes a few weeks off every year to play pool, then the player can be called a semi-pro. If a player works only now and then, or a freelancer and gets the income from pool & sponsors, he/she can be called a pro.
Getting a pro status in pool doesn't really mean anything, like it does in many other sports such as golf and iceskating. That's why the concept of pro is quite vague in pool and no tournaments should be held which separate pros and amateurs. There are several top players in Europe who are on top of their game and still have a daytime job. Would you consider someone a pro who plays pool at the top level in the world but works daily 9-to-5 and travels to tournaments in weekends ? I wouldn't...

 

[Rich R.]

Here's what I think. In tennis and golf, you are an amateur player right up unitl you take your first nickel of prize money in organized competition. After that you've completely turned your back on the amateur game - and you can never go back. It's cruel, but it's a system that works because it keeps such an easy separation between the two games. Get paid, you're a pro, play for fun and titles only, you're an amateur. After all, the actual definition of an amateur is 'someone who competes only for enjoyment', with an emphasis on 'only'.

I have to disagree with your definition.

I play in tournaments that pay money, but I am far from what I would consider a pro player. The tournaments I play in are just weekly tournaments, at a local estableshment and the top prize is only about $100, on a good night. I don't think anyone in the place can be considered a pro.

My definition of a pro player would be some one who gets more than 50% of their income from pool prize money and/or endorsements.

 

[Williebetmore]

Rich,
So let me get this straight. Hypothetically speaking: if I only pay a hooker $100, then she's not really a professional, and I haven't done anything wrong. I'm sure my wife and the police will be in total agreement.

Miko,
I think your definition falls way short. There are numbers of top professionals who only occasionally play tournaments (no money there), and have full time jobs. There are certainly a number of professionals that play regularly in tournaments, but still juggle a full time job. Are you sure Joe Blow would like to see Tony Annigoni, George Breedlove, Melissa Herndon, Nesli O'Hare all show up for his next Tuesday night bar tournament???

 

[mjantti]

Rich,
So let me get this straight. Hypothetically speaking: if I only pay a hooker $100, then she's not really a professional, and I haven't done anything wrong. I'm sure my wife and the police will be in total agreement.

Miko,
I think your definition falls way short. There are numbers of top professionals who only occasionally play tournaments (no money there), and have full time jobs. There are certainly a number of professionals that play regularly in tournaments, but still juggle a full time job. Are you sure Joe Blow would like to see Tony Annigoni, George Breedlove, Melissa Herndon, Nesli O'Hare all show up for his next Tuesday night bar tournament???

Good comment, Willie. But this makes things complicated. IMHO, you cannot be a pool pro on your spare time & weekends if you have a daytime job no matter how good you are. There isn't just enough money at the pool tournaments so that players would turn into full-time pros. That's why there is no sensible way to use a term "professional" in mens' pool. Majority of "pros" have to go to (real) work or gamble to earn their living. For instance what I've heard from Germany is that Ralf Souquet is the only full-time pool professional there. Then, Tom Storm and Niclas Bergendorff from Sweden have full daytime jobs. I guess they don't have business cards printed with a "pool professional" as their occupation and they don't consider themselves as pros.

I think playing skills and term "professional" shouldn't be mixed, it doesn't make sense because your skills won't bring home the bread.

At WPBA they actually have a touring pro status but I don't know if that makes any other difference except that you're allowed to participate at pro tournaments...

I think Rich have a point there. Half of annual earnings from pool would make you a pool pro. But, then I think you'd have to pay taxes of your tournament prize money if they'd start comparing the numbers... I don't know about the taxing system in the US but in Finland the local IRS will get interested on your earnings at the pool tournaments if they excess let's say $5.000 per year.

 

[JustPlay]

Like I stated before, there is no (mens) professional pool players. No Mens pro tour. However, Players can conduct themselfs like a professional and play pool at it highest level. Until a pro tour is established how can there be professional players? This thread should be scraped.

 

[dinovirus]

I have to disagree with your definition.

I play in tournaments that pay money, but I am far from what I would consider a pro player. The tournaments I play in are just weekly tournaments, at a local estableshment and the top prize is only about $100, on a good night. I don't think anyone in the place can be considered a pro.

My definition of a pro player would be some one who gets more than 50% of their income from pool prize money and/or endorsements.

I actually should alter my definition somewhat. Just because you play for and win prize money doesn't make you a pro. What it means is that you're no longer an amateur, and your tournament can not (or should not) be considered as 'limited to amateurs'.

In the world of golf, for example, people who have accepted money for playing golf are not capable of playing in big amateur tournaments such as the US Amatuer or US Public Links. There are quite a few players who won prizes for holes-in-one or other such feats, accepted them, and then found that they no longer qualified for amateur status. It didn't make them a true 'professional' because that requires a whole different effort (Q-school, tournament wins, etc.), but it does shut them out of amateur competition. Effectively it leaves them in a limbo state, neither pro nor amateur, and it means that the only events they can play in are those that allow pros in as well.

So I guess the situation is that if you're playing in ANY tournament that offers prize money, you should be readily willing to accept pros entering, even if it's just a small weekly event that's usually limited to locals. I've seen many times where that happens, and the road player destorys the tournament and takes the money. The regular competitors squeal that he came in and 'robbed' their tournament. But the truth of the matter is that the road player was invited to the tournament because money was offered.

 

[Williebetmore]

I think playing skills and term "professional" shouldn't be mixed, it doesn't make sense because your skills won't bring home the bread.

Miko,
You are absolutely correct in the above statement. It seems that most of the harcore "amateur" players want to exclude some highly skilled players from their tournaments, want to make money playing, and still want to be referred to as amateurs. The terms "professional" and "amateur" are not the way to accomplish what they want, as you have rightly pointed out. They just want a better chance of taking home the green. By most people's definition so far, Mike Sigel is no longer a pro, but most would not welcome him at their weekly bar table tournament.

 

[Perk]

I guess they don't have business cards printed with a "pool professional" as their

Time to run to the press...next time I win a weekly tourney, I am gonna handout my professional pool buisness cards. Might even get a tax deduction for the cards, since its my buisness...

 

[LastTwo]

You are a professional when you travel around the country and play the pro tournaments with the rest of them. You are a professional when you can run racks and racks like the rest of them. You are a professional when a large part of your income is from pool.

 

[JPB]

I just happened to read the Monk's article on the AZ homepage and thought I would comment. He suggests that 'weekly' or 'hobby' players are the ones who should be designated as 'amateur' while those who play in serious events on a regular basis (more than 6 per year) should be considered 'professionals'. He makes a good case but I think he leaves out the consideration of money.

Here's what I think. In tennis and golf, you are an amateur player right up unitl you take your first nickel of prize money in organized competition. After that you've completely turned your back on the amateur game - and you can never go back. It's cruel, but it's a system that works because it keeps such an easy separation between the two games. Get paid, you're a pro, play for fun and titles only, you're an amateur. After all, the actual definition of an amateur is 'someone who competes only for enjoyment', with an emphasis on 'only'.

I tend to think that it should be the same in pool. If you want to host or compete in tournaments that are offering prize money, then you must be prepared to accept 'road' players or other professionals entering. After all, don't you think that it's unfair to offer prize money in tournaments and then not allow people who are playing the game for their living to enter?

If you want to host a tournament that is restricted to amateurs only, then I would suggest to do away with prize money. That's the only truly fair way to keep pro players out, and I humbly suggest that's how it should be.

Comments??

Dinovirus, where were you a coupla weeks ago when I argued this exact point? I needed support.

You are correct of course, and IMO pool suffers because of it. We are in a very small minority of pool players tho, and I don't expect the system to change anytime soon. Pool players want to play for money in tourns but still be considered "amateur" players. What they mean is that they want to play in tournaments they can win, because either their money and/or heart are in
limited supply. I think there is a place for money games. Match up on your own, no problem, nothing wrong with it. If you want to play an amateur tournament, play for a trophy. If it pays money, it isn't an amateur tournament. This is why there is really no such thing as an amateur pool tournament, just some tournaments exclude competition superior to that of the typical player in the tournament. By golf standards, I'm a pro. Or at least somebody who forfeited amateur status. In pool I'm an "amateur". It doesn't really matter in the end I suppose. Except that I think pool would be healthier if there were genuine amateur tournaments. Won't happen tho.

 

[sjm]

Hey...Since I have won money playing pool, that makes me a pro...right.... That means I can write off my Cues..(tools of the trade)...my table time...(practice facility)....and Drinks....(aiming fluid)....I need to start saving my reciepts.....Man this is going to be great.....Now I will have more gambling money....(Hey...I can write that off too)....

I nominate you as the offcial accounting consultant of the forum. Your post totally cracked me up. Thanks, RC, for a good laugh.

 

[bruin70]

I just happened to read the Monk's article on the AZ homepage and thought I would ,,,,,,, should be considered 'professionals'. He makes a good case but I think he leaves out the consideration of money.

n I would suggest to do away with prize money. That's the only truly fair way to keep pro players out, and I humbly suggest that's how it should be.

Comments??

the irs would ask if pool is his main source of income..

 

[Rich R.]

I don't know about the taxing system in the US but in Finland the local IRS will get interested on your earnings at the pool tournaments if they excess let's say $5.000 per year.

I believe, if you look into it, many of the major tournaments already deduct taxes, or require the official paperwork from foreign players to avoid the taxes.

 

[Billy_Bob]

By looking at the APA rules on professional status, it seems they do not have a clear cut definition (Yes/No) of amateur/pro and seem to leave determination of this up to the judgement of APA officials.

But they give some "clues" as to who might be considered a professional player...

-Membership in a professional billiards organization.
-Winning tour points from a professional billiards organization.
-Being a nationally known money player.
-Being recognized as a billiards professional, celebrity or entertainer.
-Makes a substantial portion of living playing pool, rather than having other employment.
-Gives exhibitions or lessons for money.
-Billiard room managers/assistant managers (house pro) in some situations.

Exact wording of APA professional status rules...
Page 40 of acrobat (Team Manual page 39)
http://www.poolplayers.com/tmanual.pdf