Too good for the APA

smittie1984

smittie1984

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm not refering to the stuck up people who think that the APA sucks. But at what point or what do you have to do for the APA to say you are a pro and are too good to play here. Since the APA crowns it's self as the governing body of amature pool.

Because if I had to play Efren Reyes or Johnny Archer in APA despite they would be a 9 and I could be a 1 who plays like a 6 they would both still kill me.

Hopefully 1 day I'll reach this point.

AND THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ON WETHER THE APA SUCKS OR RULES
 
This is a good question, compounded by the fact that APA has Masters Leagues that have no skill limit to teams. Guys like Ike Runnels and Sal Butera -- both pros in every respect, and who IPT Cardholders -- play on it.

So I guess no one is ever too good to play on the APA.

smittie1984 said:
I'm not refering to the stuck up people who think that the APA sucks. But at what point or what do you have to do for the APA to say you are a pro and are too good to play here. Since the APA crowns it's self as the governing body of amature pool.

Because if I had to play Efren Reyes or Johnny Archer in APA despite they would be a 9 and I could be a 1 who plays like a 6 they would both still kill me.

Hopefully 1 day I'll reach this point.

AND THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ON WETHER THE APA SUCKS OR RULES
Click to expand...
 
Heh, I think he's talking the regular APA and not the master's part of it.

I suspect it's a thing left up to each individual league operator. They probably have leeway to allow/deny someone to play in their area.

I know there's some guys who are 7s in 8-ball in the Denver area whose skill generally surpasses your average 7. In some APA league-based tournaments around here (not APA league operated per se, but run using APA rules and handicaps), they have what are called "super sevens" - guys who are sevens, but have to give an extra game (their race is to six) to folks they play. It's kinda a stopgap to help combat the fact that seven is the highest rank available.
 
ScottW said:
I know there's some guys who are 7s in 8-ball in the Denver area whose skill generally surpasses your average 7. In some APA league-based tournaments around here (not APA league operated per se, but run using APA rules and handicaps), they have what are called "super sevens" - guys who are sevens, but have to give an extra game (their race is to six) to folks they play. It's kinda a stopgap to help combat the fact that seven is the highest rank available.
Click to expand...

I actually just gave up the APA after many years, and this was one of the reasons. Once I moved out of the bar Leagues and into a pool room League, and was playing 4s,5s and 6s every week at 8-ball, I didn't come close to losing. My streak was at 31 (8-ball is my strongest game by far) before an SL5 who had been on my team for years, and who I'd helped develop as a player over those years played an incredible match and he beat me on the hill. I couldn't have been happier for him. Next week Jude Rosenstock kicked my ass! :p If I was playing players of Jude's calibre most weeks, then that would have kept the competitive element in it for me. Since I've already done the Vegas Team events, and I see all my friends in our own Monday League, the competition was all that was really keeping me in it. So I knew it was time to move on. I am definitely thankful to the APA for introducing me to pool in this country.
 
I know in certain sports if you qualify for a pro event you can't play on the amature level again for a good while.

On my 9ball league night at cues2 in Atlanta I think we have only 3 or 4 nines (Thursday). Jeff Hooks is probably the best player on the regular APA. My team captain was a 9 but dropped down to an 8. Then there are 2 other nines who I'm not sure of.

But I think scottW is probably right. It would make sense to be left up to the league operator. I'm sure if Johnny Archer came wanting to play on the APA regular session he'd just get laughed at.

But then again who knows.
 
smittie1984 said:
I'm not refering to the stuck up people who think that the APA sucks. But at what point or what do you have to do for the APA to say you are a pro and are too good to play here. Since the APA crowns it's self as the governing body of amature pool.

Because if I had to play Efren Reyes or Johnny Archer in APA despite they would be a 9 and I could be a 1 who plays like a 6 they would both still kill me.

Hopefully 1 day I'll reach this point.

AND THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ON WETHER THE APA SUCKS OR RULES
Click to expand...

I found this on the APA website in the players manual.

32. NO PROFESSIONAL PLAYERS ALLOWED
This League is intended for amateurs, and the APA reserves the
right to reject or cancel the memberships of those individuals whom
the APA deems to be professionals.

The APA has a variety of criteria for determining professional or amateur status.
They include a touring (tournament) membership in any men’s or women’s professional billiards
organization, winning tour points from any of those organizations, being a
nationally known money player (a judgment call), or otherwise being
recognized as a billiards professional, billiards celebrity or entertainer (noted
performers of exhibitions, retired professionals, etc.).

The APA reserves the right to rule on the amateur/professional status of any member, and we may
consider all, some, or none of the above criteria. Just remember, if you enter a
professional event, perform exhibitions, or otherwise behave as a professional,
you risk your amateur standing in our association.

Locally, the League Operator and/or the Board of Governors has the option
of disallowing participation by an individual who has consistently
demonstrated professional characteristics. An individual who is a known
money player and is perceived by the League Operator/Board of Governors to
make a substantial portion of his living playing pool, rather than having other
employment, could fall into this category.

An individual who gives exhibitions or lessons for money may fall into this category.
A highly skilled individual who is employed as a manager/assistant manager of a billiard room may be
categorized as a house pro and could be ineligible for amateur play. The APA
does not wish League Operators/Boards of Governors to disallow
participation based strictly on ability. There are many skilled amateurs and
they are welcome to play in the League.

Hope this helps.
 
Hey man I dont know that it is a question of who is to good foro the APA, because it is a fun league, but rather when you reach a certain point, it becomes harder to field you. As a 7,8,9 you really limit what your team can play that night. If a team is put together and players are developing they will eventually go up in handicap and then the team will have to split. I went from a 4 to 5 took a few years off from the league and Routinely work over people rated at the SKLV of a 7 and hang with 8's and 9's. That has pretty much ruined my APA 9ball play, as a 7 in 8 ball, that is close to 1/3 of the alotted 23 you can have, so I need a few low numbers that wont get better and go up. So, I moved to the BCA, no limit to the skill level and I can play the 4 best period, (all though I will take a hit in the handicap area), I don't have to split a team.
No, I love the APA so much fun in Vegas (instead of Louisville).
 
being a
nationally known money player (a judgment call)
eric durbin was kicked off the apa i believe 3 years ago in vegas at apa nat. while playing mini tournys. someone went to booth and told them a road player was playing mini tournys. they went to him checked his background and on the spot kicked him off the apa and said he was a pro. i know this cause i was there and since at the time we were staking him on stuff he entered his first apa pro event that week. i think $300 entry fee. he got a bye his first round and went 2 and out but still ended up with $500 prize cause of the bye. ( just thought id add that story cause its so funny lol)
 
Guys like Jude Rosenstock are serious students of the game. An APA rating is a numerical value for bangers at varying levels of bangerdom. A person is diluting oneself by being proud of a 7 8 or 9 rating in an APA league.
Remember that number is only as good as the league as a whole. A 7 in one league may be a 2 in another. A 9 in most APA leagues would not make it into the money of a regional tour event.

If I am wrong here please correct me.
 
mnorwood said:
Guys like Jude Rosenstock are serious students of the game. An APA rating is a numerical value for bangers at varying levels of bangerdom. A person is diluting oneself by being proud of a 7 8 or 9 rating in an APA league.
Remember that number is only as good as the league as a whole. A 7 in one league may be a 2 in another. A 9 in most APA leagues would not make it into the money of a regional tour event.

If I am wrong here please correct me.
Click to expand...

See, I was having this very discussion with a fellow just last night - trying to explain that every APA player's handicap is based partly on the quality of players in his league.

For example, take two guys, who have the same record for a session, exactly - all their matches' opponent's handicaps are the same, the races end up the same, same innings, defensive shots, etc - mathematically, exactly the same.

BUT - in one guy's area, the general level of play is much higher than the second guy's area.

As far as the APA system goes, they'd end up with the exact same handicap - but the first guy would mop up on the second guy if they ever met.

That's the big weakness of handicap systems like the APA uses - it's very much dependent on regional factors. And those factors really show up like turds in punch bowls when nationals rolls around, and you get teams from all over coming together in one pile. The teams from areas where the level of play is generally tougher are going to clean up, because their handicaps are artifically lower than teams from areas that the level of play is weaker.

Thing is, I don't really see any way to change the APA handicap system to account for this. All through the year, you have thousands of little isolated pockets of league play going. I can't see trying to 'national-ize' the data, as you can't really compare Joe in NY vs Bob in LA without them going head-to-head.
 
ScottW said:
See, I was having this very discussion with a fellow just last night - trying to explain that every APA player's handicap is based partly on the quality of players in his league.

For example, take two guys, who have the same record for a session, exactly - all their matches' opponent's handicaps are the same, the races end up the same, same innings, defensive shots, etc - mathematically, exactly the same.

BUT - in one guy's area, the general level of play is much higher than the second guy's area.

As far as the APA system goes, they'd end up with the exact same handicap - but the first guy would mop up on the second guy if they ever met.

That's the big weakness of handicap systems like the APA uses - it's very much dependent on regional factors. And those factors really show up like turds in punch bowls when nationals rolls around, and you get teams from all over coming together in one pile. The teams from areas where the level of play is generally tougher are going to clean up, because their handicaps are artifically lower than teams from areas that the level of play is weaker.

Thing is, I don't really see any way to change the APA handicap system to account for this. All through the year, you have thousands of little isolated pockets of league play going. I can't see trying to 'national-ize' the data, as you can't really compare Joe in NY vs Bob in LA without them going head-to-head.
Click to expand...
It is for that reason that you should not take your rating seriously if your goal is to become a shortstop quality or better player. You will never get a clear view of your skill level if all you play are beer leaguers. If all you ever want to do is beer league then fine, what I am saying here does not apply.

I think the APA system is complete trash especially with all the sandbagging.

In my last BCA league (which is different) my team finished first in points but with the handicapped we finished 3rd. Who was the better team? Arguments could be made either way. I don't like handicapping of any kind which is why I say play in regional tourneys if you are serious about pool.
 
mnorwood said:
Guys like Jude Rosenstock are serious students of the game. An APA rating is a numerical value for bangers at varying levels of bangerdom. A person is diluting oneself by being proud of a 7 8 or 9 rating in an APA league.
Remember that number is only as good as the league as a whole. A 7 in one league may be a 2 in another. A 9 in most APA leagues would not make it into the money of a regional tour event.

If I am wrong here please correct me.
Click to expand...

I play in APA, and I will agree with you that a rating is nothing really to be proud of one way or another. I will also agree that it does seem that a large majority of APA players are not super serious players who are world beaters. I don't kid myself and believe that my rating means much at all, which is why I generally avoid all talk about APA ratings; I know I'm no fantastic player.

Having said that, the comment about APA ratings referring to APA players at various levels of "bangerdom", as you put it, is not fair to those of us who do, at least on some level, take the game semi-seriously. I may not be great, but I am not a "banger" and resent being called such a thing. I'm not naturally talented, and I don't have great ability, but I've only been playing about a year and a half, and I'm trying to get better all the time, so the "banger" label is untrue.
 
I play APA and TAP, and whoever says that an SL9 in nine ball is a banger does not know the system. One guy I played with as an SL9 was a wonderful player, and is a threat to run out on any bar or full size table. He has a high run of 69 in straight on a full size, and I've seen him run multiple racks many times. This person is far from a banger, IMO.

As far as being proud of my SL, let me explain that I started in an APA league with zero experience, and now a few years later, I'm up to a SL5.

I am proud of this. It gives me a great deal of satisfaction to be able to compete with some of the better league shooters in my area, who I nearly idolized for what they could do on the table!

That said, I do have perspective on my place in the pool hall, and don't think I'll be applying for my tour card anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
Given the APA rules cited by Skess,


If someone played in a single regional pro tour stop, that would qualify them as a pro. I believe you get some points for just showing up.

Aside from the APA, there's an aweful lot of players who could compete professionally that never get their name on a pro event but like to clean house on amateur tournaments. Big fish, little pond theory.


Anyone who's played in an IPT tournament, regardless of being a qualifier or card holder - should be prohibited from APA play. The APA is lame, it is an amateur league for the worst amateurs. Why would they still be members I don't know? Anyway, I doubt the APA cares unless someone from a local league files a complaint to their L.O. or to the APA. The APA loves everyone's money equally.


Kind of stupid in a way. The APA will pay for an entire team to fly out to Vegas for a tournament, then disqualify that team if any member of the team goes up more than 1 SL, or if 2 players on the team each go up just 1 SL....but won't enforce their NO-PRO rules....


LOL.
 
In 2001 I finished 9 in the National APA Tournament in Vegas as a "7". The player that put me out of the tournament, won the tournament, and was later announced "not able to win" due to being a "Road Player", not a Pro with a card. The APA does not allow "Road Players" or Gambling in the APA. You say gambling, they cannot control it, but a player I know in passing, which is a big money player, was asking his opponent, before the match, to gamble on the match. The referee overheard the question, and disqualified him from the field. Last note about this tournament, The womens side, was won by a "7" and "She" was a "HE...HE/SHE was disqualified also.
 
smittie1984 said:
...at what point or what do you have to do for the APA to say you are a pro and are too good to play here...
Click to expand...

Might not need to be a pro to leave, but maybe just can't stand watching two SL 2's play anymore - missing shot after shot after shot and putting everybody to sleep.

Or maybe when you can win fairly often when playing against your SL 6/7 (8-ball) team captain and the captain is they type who does not like anyone on his team who can win against him.

Etc. Etc.
 
ScottW said:
See, I was having this very discussion with a fellow just last night - trying to explain that every APA player's handicap is based partly on the quality of players in his league.

For example, take two guys, who have the same record for a session, exactly - all their matches' opponent's handicaps are the same, the races end up the same, same innings, defensive shots, etc - mathematically, exactly the same.

BUT - in one guy's area, the general level of play is much higher than the second guy's area.

As far as the APA system goes, they'd end up with the exact same handicap - but the first guy would mop up on the second guy if they ever met.

That's the big weakness of handicap systems like the APA uses - it's very much dependent on regional factors. And those factors really show up like turds in punch bowls when nationals rolls around, and you get teams from all over coming together in one pile. The teams from areas where the level of play is generally tougher are going to clean up, because their handicaps are artifically lower than teams from areas that the level of play is weaker.

Thing is, I don't really see any way to change the APA handicap system to account for this. All through the year, you have thousands of little isolated pockets of league play going. I can't see trying to 'national-ize' the data, as you can't really compare Joe in NY vs Bob in LA without them going head-to-head.
Click to expand...

While I play in BCA, and not APA, I do believe that the APA has a superior handicapping system when it comes to comparing two players from different regions. It's not perfect, by any means, but utilizing innings and safeties played gives a better objective idea of a player's ability than just counting balls dropped from the table.
 
mnorwood said:
Guys like Jude Rosenstock are serious students of the game. An APA rating is a numerical value for bangers at varying levels of bangerdom. A person is diluting oneself by being proud of a 7 8 or 9 rating in an APA league.
Remember that number is only as good as the league as a whole. A 7 in one league may be a 2 in another. A 9 in most APA leagues would not make it into the money of a regional tour event.

If I am wrong here please correct me.
Click to expand...


Well i kinda disagree..i have a friend...who is a nine in nine ball and has won and placed in several major events. He has placed high in the smokey mountain shoot out the West Virginia Open, the Va Open...not pro level material but has an awosome game..sometime the ranking of nine can be a shawdow a person real talent...im ranked a 5 got beat by a five ..I didnt have time to warm up before the match...got hid a bunch..but lost..at the end of the night went and played a race to seven with a nine who is a great player..heads up ...and i won 7 to 6..so it can be deceiving ..
 
mnorwood said:
A 7 in one league may be a 2 in another. A 9 in most APA leagues would not make it into the money of a regional tour event.

If I am wrong here please correct me.
Click to expand...

You're wrong here. As a former APA league operator, I agree that there are some regional differences in skill level assignments, but there are NO 7's (or 9's in 9-ball) that could be confused with a 2 or 3 in ANY league area...PERIOD. As for stating that no 9's would cash in regional tour events, I'd have to disagree here as well. The same people are playing in many of these regional events, and although they may not win, they certainly finish in the money many times. Since the top pros seem to be allowed to compete in many of these regional tours, that would be the reason an APA 9 might not finish in the money...not because they can't play.

About your comment that APA is trash because all it is, is sandbagging...this too is incorrect. Sandbagging can only go on, if BOTH teams let it go on.
There is certainly sandbagging in most amateur league play, but the attitude of "nobody cares" is more responsible, than "it just happens", imo.

As for the discussion that APA does not police the ranks of 'semi-pro' or 'pro-ability' players, I would have to agree. If you look at the winners of the top brackets of the national singles tournaments for the past few years, they have been won mainly by "known" pro-ability players. It sucks that some get through, and others get busted. IMO, they should ALL be banned from playing in what is supposed to be an all-amateur league.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
mnorwood said:
It is for that reason that you should not take your rating seriously if your goal is to become a shortstop quality or better player. ...

I think the APA system is complete trash especially with all the sandbagging.
Click to expand...

These two statements seem to be contradictory to me. I don't care about sandbagging because I think I should beat every player I play regardless of ranking. If I am an 8 and am playing a 5 that sandbags and should be a 7, I think this is really the best way to test my ranking and the best way to become a shortstop quality or better player. However, that is just my opinion.

Since I am an 8, I know that 9's can't be sandbagging; therefore, I feel I should win most of my matches if I play the game correctly, which is my ultimate goal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top