The open part of U.S. Open

[John Barton]

weren't you the one that said women were inferior earlier? why are you now pushing the issue? just curious. as far as you stating the UPA should be for ALL poolplayers - why? i would love to here your thoughts as to why they should encompass everyone - is that not what the BCA and APA (as well as others) do - in short, there are numerous tours out there for all players. the FACT is that the UPA is a men's professional tour - women are not allowed to play - just as the WPBA is a women's tour and no men.

as far as the Open is concerned, i could care less if men and women play together - i simply offered my opinion as to why i thought they shouldn't - it is a UPA sanctioned event (then we go back to the UPA is a MEN's only tour) i offered up the possibilities of rankings being an issue - you apparently don't like that suggestion and disagree - that is ok, it is your opinion.

why not ask Barry Behrman why he doesn't allow women - he apparently has his reasons - at least that way there is no speculation.

Don't take my words out of context. I said "as a group" women are inferior players to "men as a group" when considering overall ability. This is fact and is acknowledged by just about all women players including the top players I know personally.

I gave you my reasons WHY I think the UPA should be inclusive of all players regardless of gender. Please take the time to read my answers fully so that we don't need to constantly reiterate points that have already been made.

I don't need to ask Barry. As I stated before which I guess no one READ, is that I think the issue is contractual, that Barry gave up the right to the tournament name "US Open" to the WPBA on the condition that women are not allowed to enter the (now) "men's" US Open. I am pretty sure that this is the case and is the main reason women are not allowed to enter the Behrman US Open.

Yes, I know full well what the FACTS are with the current structure of the UPA and the WPBA regarding their respective stances on gender. That still does not change my opinion that the WPBA should be exclusive whereas the UPA should not, for the reasons I have stated, which no one so far can come up with a reasonable rationale to counter. It seems to be more emotional. As in "they have their tour so why should they be allowed to play on ours?".

However any c or b player with $500 who ALSO has their own tours that are NOT open to UPA professionals can enter and play in the Behrman US OPEN, and also on the UPA. That's a true double standard whereas the WPBA exclusivity is not. Any wheelchair player can play on the UPA and in the Behrman US Open while the wheelchair events are not open. So it's NOT an issue of players coming from restricted tours like the WPBA. In my opinion the issues that prevent women from playing UPA events are jealously, pride, and bigotry. The UPA is jealous that the women have a relatively stable and consistent tour. They are too proud to take the chance to lose to women. And they are simply bigots for making it a gender issue instead of welcoming all aspiring pool players who desire to compete against the best. (Well actually they do, unless that pool player has the "misfortune" to have been born with a y chromosone.)

As to the rankings, it's not a matter of liking what you say or not. The argument that women should be excluded because the US Open is a UPA ranking event simply does not hold up in light of the fact that most of the participating players are themselves not UPA players. That issue has nothing whatsoever to do with gender, nor does it affect the UPA choices to send US males to all make events abroad.

 

[crosseyedjoe]

This is my real 2Cents on this. I do support women only tour, but I don't support men only tour. Feminist will kill me, but if there is no exclusive women tour, it will be hard to find/develop players like Allison, Karen and Jasmin without any conducive environment to hone their skill. Men on the other hand, should just take all comers be it a lady pro or a 7year old kid.

 

[jay helfert]

This is my real 2Cents on this. I do support women only tour, but I don't support men only tour. Feminist will kill me, but if there is no exclusive women tour, it will be hard to find/develop players like Allison, Karen and Jasmin without any conducive environment to hone their skill. Men on the other hand, should just take all comers be it a lady pro or a 7year old kid.

Or a 12 year old named Landon.

 

[kaznj]

Has a relatively unkown player ever won the open?

 

[Fragged]

Has a relatively unkown player ever won the open?

...The pool world is too small for such an occurrence. The closest would be Reed Pierce and Tommy K IMHO. I think they both won in the early 90's.

 

[Snapshot9]

I think

women should be allowed to play in the Open. I am much more prepared for that than a woman President. If you don't 'play up', then how will you ever
cut your teeth, as they say. You will always be a 'greenhorn'. And nothing puts a woman's pool skill in more perspective than playing the best men Pool players, or teaches them more.

I see more women players, 2nd tier mostly but not all, making logic mistakes more than skill mistakes, but women, for the most parts, aren't attuned the
'Art of War' which guys become accustomed to in growing up with sports competitions. That is changing, as more and more young women compete in sports more growing up, and therefore become used to the rigors of competition.

 

[9balllvr]

Don't take my words out of context. I said "as a group" women are inferior players to "men as a group" when considering overall ability. This is fact and is acknowledged by just about all women players including the top players I know personally.

I gave you my reasons WHY I think the UPA should be inclusive of all players regardless of gender. Please take the time to read my answers fully so that we don't need to constantly reiterate points that have already been made.

I don't need to ask Barry. As I stated before which I guess no one READ, is that I think the issue is contractual, that Barry gave up the right to the tournament name "US Open" to the WPBA on the condition that women are not allowed to enter the (now) "men's" US Open. I am pretty sure that this is the case and is the main reason women are not allowed to enter the Behrman US Open.

Yes, I know full well what the FACTS are with the current structure of the UPA and the WPBA regarding their respective stances on gender. That still does not change my opinion that the WPBA should be exclusive whereas the UPA should not, for the reasons I have stated, which no one so far can come up with a reasonable rationale to counter. It seems to be more emotional. As in "they have their tour so why should they be allowed to play on ours?".

However any c or b player with $500 who ALSO has their own tours that are NOT open to UPA professionals can enter and play in the Behrman US OPEN, and also on the UPA. That's a true double standard whereas the WPBA exclusivity is not. Any wheelchair player can play on the UPA and in the Behrman US Open while the wheelchair events are not open. So it's NOT an issue of players coming from restricted tours like the WPBA. In my opinion the issues that prevent women from playing UPA events are jealously, pride, and bigotry. The UPA is jealous that the women have a relatively stable and consistent tour. They are too proud to take the chance to lose to women. And they are simply bigots for making it a gender issue instead of welcoming all aspiring pool players who desire to compete against the best. (Well actually they do, unless that pool player has the "misfortune" to have been born with a y chromosone.)

As to the rankings, it's not a matter of liking what you say or not. The argument that women should be excluded because the US Open is a UPA ranking event simply does not hold up in light of the fact that most of the participating players are themselves not UPA players. That issue has nothing whatsoever to do with gender, nor does it affect the UPA choices to send US males to all make events abroad.

John-I have read all of your responses, believe it or not. It is apparent we have varying opinions on many of the thoughts expressed in this thread - that was what I was attempting to get across, but apparently did not do so effectively, so let's just leave it at that. The thing I will leave you on is (as someone that has voluntarily assisted with the UPA tour because they wanted to see some sort of growth in the men's pro arena at some point) the tour is not about you have your tour so you can't play on mine - it is simply, we needed a men's tour, let's attempt to provide one.

 

[crosseyedjoe]

John-I have read all of your responses, believe it or not. It is apparent we have varying opinions on many of the thoughts expressed in this thread - that was what I was attempting to get across, but apparently did not do so effectively, so let's just leave it at that. The thing I will leave you on is (as someone that has voluntarily assisted with the UPA tour because they wanted to see some sort of growth in the men's pro arena at some point) the tour is not about you have your tour so you can't play on mine - it is simply, we needed a men's tour, let's attempt to provide one.

What most of the people are saying is that exclusive tour is not really needed to farther the cause of men's pool.

Let's put it this way, if for some strange reason Efren Reyes is a woman and you're the no. 1 male player, can you honestly say you are the best without having the chance to play who could be the best player in the world.

If no special treatment are given to the lady pro and young prodigies, I say let them join if they qualify. I don't see it as someone taking away spot from men, but rather a fair competition.

 

[9balllvr]

What most of the people are saying is that exclusive tour is not really needed to farther the cause of men's pool.

Thanks for your post - I have read each post in this thread and absolutely understand what was being said, but I thank you for attempting to clarify for me.

 

[John Barton]

John-I have read all of your responses, believe it or not. It is apparent we have varying opinions on many of the thoughts expressed in this thread - that was what I was attempting to get across, but apparently did not do so effectively, so let's just leave it at that. The thing I will leave you on is (as someone that has voluntarily assisted with the UPA tour because they wanted to see some sort of growth in the men's pro arena at some point) the tour is not about you have your tour so you can't play on mine - it is simply, we needed a men's tour, let's attempt to provide one.

When the UPA started I was all for it. Still am actually although I disagree with some choices they have made.

The UPA at the beginning made no mention of men or women. On paper at least it STOOD for all professional pool players.

I did not know that women were not allowed to play in UPA events until Kelly Fisher asked me if she could. I asked Frank Alvarez, at that time a UPA player and helper bee. Now Frank is the UPA president I think. Frank said no, the UPA is men only. I pointed out that nowhere in the UPA's website did it say that it was men only nor was it in the UPA's bylaws. Shortly thereafter the UPA website was changed to say that the UPA is the governing body of men's professional pool.

I agree that the professional men need a tour. And that tour needs to be inclusive of any and all humans who aspire to play with the best. Every tour stop should be filled to the limit with people who have qualified to play be they male or female.

Perhaps the UPA should adopt the WPBA's methods. Every WPBA event is full of touring pros AND aspiring players who come from the regional tours. This is how it should work with a definite tiered system in place.

I think that someone should lock the UPA, the BCA, VNEA, APA, ACS, and ALL the Tours together in a room and NOT let them come out until there is a clear path from being an APA 2 to a UPA Professional. And that path should include and receive support from all each level to the next.

It behooves the Leagues and the Tours to have a Professional Tour that is in the pubic conciousness. Pool on TV awakens desire to play. Leagues and Tours are the natural place to compete for an amateur. So the leagues and tours should support a Pro Tour.

Actually the Leagues and Tours should pay into an organization that would be strong enough to run a pro tour and legitimate enough to negotiate with strong sponsors.

That sort of organization would be the way to go in my opinion. .25 a week from every active league player would be enough to fund that organization. Then there wouldn't be all this nonsense over fighting for pieces of the pie. We'd have a bakery.

 

[barrett9ball]

Or a 12 year old named Landon.

Or 15 yo Richard Barney (15-19 national jr. champ) who I believe will be playing his first US open this year. This kid is THE REAL THING!!! He is chomping at the bit to play the Open.

 

[juegabillar]

Has a relatively unkown player ever won the open?

Yes, Tommy Kennedy was an unranked player when he won the title in 1992.

This partial text is from the Ted Harris Website:

"He has shown the world this, with his victory at the U.S. Open in 1992, where he became the only player in history to have won a major televised tournament, going into it unseeded with no professional ranking."

Here is the link: http://www.tedharris.com/kennedy_22.htm