I think it’s all in how you would see yourself. Oscar and MD consider themselves pros
and have the resume to back it up.
US Amateur
- Thread starter captainjko
- Start date
I think it’s all in how you would see yourself. Oscar and MD consider themselves pros
and have the resume to back it up.
Probably they would because I don't see anything where they say who can play and who can't, so unless you are a known pro player, you are OK. Does not change the issue with skill levels in lower tier events. The $5,000 added Bud event held in Snookers was for Amateurs only, they had specific criteria no-one that won it before could play, no-one that won a regional tour event like Joss tour could play, no known pro players or players over A level could play. Of course they let an A play as a B and a B play as a C, so guess which two ended up 1 and 2 LOL? And someone there not only won a Predator event just months before, it was even in the news here because he was the second youngest to ever win it. Need to follow the rules, even with clear restrictions, the people that enforce them did not.
I thought the winner automatically qualifies for next year's event to defend the title? But yes, the letters are relative and in the Bud event, everyone is moved down a notch to allow "open" players to compete as an "A".
I don't agree with anything you said. I've played both the guys you're talking about and I think your assessment is way off.
Hang I want to start off by saying I have agreed with you several times in the past and respect and admire your devotion to your son in his pool playing ventures.
However ....i really gotta disagree with your comments in this thread. Actually every thing you have posted in here is the opposite of what you were saying in that thread you started about people complaining about others handicaps in tournaments instead of having the ambition of improving their selves.
Like it or not Brian apparently meets all the criteria of playing in the us amateurs . If yall dont like it o suggest you xo what hang the 9 said in the thread I mentioned previously. ...get off your ass and spend every waking moment on the table to improve when you are not at work or with family and take it from him next year.
chaselo1987
Registered
I've seen Pro players look like high caliber amateurs. The core problem is that there is no clear differential between Pro and Amatuer. Brian plays professional pool player speed. Simple as that. He has won the tournament 5 times!. That speaks volumes to his game.
SVB has won the US Open 5 times over 10 years, and most consider him to be among the greatest players in the world.
Brian Parks wins US Am's 5 times over 8 years, and beats Pro players on the regular,, but he is still, "just an amateur"?
T
This is an excellent philosophy when talking about non-handicapped events. But US Am's is handicapped, certain players are not allowed to play. Sure, the races are not handicapped, but the level of players allowed to enter is.
Use a women only event as an example. The purpose is to have women compete against women. You don't let a male play and steal it 5 times, and just tell the woman to "get off your ass and spending every walking....etc"
I think Brian is a great player, congratulations for the wins. All I'm saying is, at what point are you no longer Amatuer?
If Justin Bergman starts working at State Farm in between tournaments, can he now play in US Ams?
You can probably get action on Oscar or Mike ever winning the US Open
For God's sake, the guy has a full time job who happens to play pool at a very high level. Doesn't make him a pro. Friggin game is full of whiners who want the obstacles removed for them.
Here's a thought, work a full time job like Brian does and put in the time it takes to get as good or better and beat him for the title. There's a novel idea.
Here's a thought, work a full time job like Brian does and put in the time it takes to get as good or better and beat him for the title. There's a novel idea.
Your analogy of a man in a women's tournament has nothing to do with this thread but I do agree wth your opinion on that topic.
Your question about at what point are you no longer an amateur is pretty much covered under apa's definition. Their tournament...their rules....their guidelines of what constitutes a pro player. Brian currently falls under their definition of am amateur. Now you and others may not agree with their definition and I have no problem with that. But again...their tournament ..their definition.
I am not going to debate a what if scenario such as you described with Bergman . I assume that would be something apa would have to address if a pro decided to go that route someday.
I am not disputing Brian's level of play. Some one mentioned that from year 2000 to date Brian has averaged 1,300 a year playing pool. If that is correct Brian does not fall under apa's definition of a pro.
Some one mentioned that Brian won the swanee event this year. Some one said the person in the swanee video is not the person he saw in the us amateur video. I am curious if they are indeed the same Brian parks.
If you had posted a lil sooner you coulda saved me a whole lotta typing .:grin-square:
Unfortunately, a pool professional is not as easy to recognize as they are in other sports such as baseball, or football. So I see it one of two ways.
First, you could view it as almost all of us are professionals considering we have taken, or received money to play pool at some point in our careers. Hence, losing our amateur status.
Second, you could go by the definition of a professional.
1.of, relating to, or connected with a profession:
"young professional people" · synonyms: white-collar · nonmanual
2.(of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime: "a professional boxer"
I don't assume that Brian's main paid occupation is pool. Therefore, I consider him an amateur. Heck, after I think about this some more, I am going to compare pool to golf. I could be the best golfer in the world without any question and still be an amateur. So why can't pool players be?
The difference is the best golfer in the world would be a fool not to compete in a few tournaments and collect millions of dollars and then lose their amateur status. Pool players are not offered the same option.
First, you could view it as almost all of us are professionals considering we have taken, or received money to play pool at some point in our careers. Hence, losing our amateur status.
Second, you could go by the definition of a professional.
1.of, relating to, or connected with a profession:
"young professional people" · synonyms: white-collar · nonmanual
2.(of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime: "a professional boxer"
I don't assume that Brian's main paid occupation is pool. Therefore, I consider him an amateur. Heck, after I think about this some more, I am going to compare pool to golf. I could be the best golfer in the world without any question and still be an amateur. So why can't pool players be?
The difference is the best golfer in the world would be a fool not to compete in a few tournaments and collect millions of dollars and then lose their amateur status. Pool players are not offered the same option.
LOL...sorry, man. Next time I'll try to be quicker on the draw
Oscar or Mike may have a 3-5% chance at winning the US Open any given year which is different than the average amateur who has <.01%. Extrapolate that to the average length of a pool player's career (20 years?) and and suddenly you're looking at the statistical likelihood of the event taking place. The average pro should see a double-digit percentage, not necessarily "likely" but definitely possible. The amateur's number will barely budge. Their odds will be insignificant. That's my point.
It is the same Brian Parks that won the Swanee tournament
When I said that wasn't the same player, I was commenting on his level of play. He is actually the same person.
Re: Brian Parks
I read some of the posts and not all of them...
All I have to say is: WOW!!!
.
.
Congratulations Brian! Well deserved my friend. Keep it up and hope you win it 50 more times.
I read some of the posts and not all of them...
All I have to say is: WOW!!!
.
.
Congratulations Brian! Well deserved my friend. Keep it up and hope you win it 50 more times.
THat's the gist of it. A volleyball player, golfer, softball player, whatever could stay amateur status pretty much forever if they didn't want to turn pro.
We have a few "players" that could play or at least compete with pro's if they took it up as a full time profession. Not saying they'd be the next SVB but they be competing with the others. I mean, some of these guys have won multiple state and national titles in numerous League tourney's.
But, rather than dog it for years chasing $2500 tourneys, with a couple of $10K tourney's here and there, they work full-time in their gig and play pool as a hobby. Yeah, it's a hobby that makes their car payment, heck, it might pay their rent/mortgage. But so what.
If there was a pro tour that one could make money, maybe they'd swap out and go on the road.
If you could win $100K a year, but you pay all your own expenses, air fare, cabs, hotels, food, entrance fee's, and lets not forget; you get NO health insurance, NO retirement benefits, NO company bonuses, NO unemployment, NO Work Comp, No shot term disability, NO long term disability, NO Life Insurance. I personally don't know many that would take that gig, I really don't. If you do take it, you better have a wife/girlfriend/mistress with a decent job that can get you on her health plan
After taxes, paying health insurance, and adding up all expenses, what does this leave you with really? And the $100K is never guaranteed either. You better pray you don't get a string of bad rolls
In all fairness, there are questions here bigger than Brian Parks and the US Amateurs.
How important is it to protect amateur fields?
If we choose to protect amateur fields, how do we do it?
Is there enough data in Fargo to justify using it as the primary determinant for protecting amateur fields?
Personally, I think Fargo is awesome. I love the idea of displaying data this way but I worry the threshold for "established" is too low and/or too infrequent. Data should be new and plentiful if we're going to prevent (penalize) people from playing in events. That said, I don't like excluding shortstops from amateur events. Yes, it's confusing but most of the confusion stems from the fact there is no such thing as professional pool so how can you ban someone from amateur pool and give them no place else to go? If you can convince me that I'm a 3:2 favorite over Danny Basavich then you can convince me that Brian Parks' FargoRating should matter here too. Until then, I think we should be very careful. I think he's a solid shortstop and I worry that the effort to protect amateurs will put many shortstops on a perpetual donor list. What's more, the effort will still fail to exclude all of the players who are actually recognized as professional.
How important is it to protect amateur fields?
If we choose to protect amateur fields, how do we do it?
Is there enough data in Fargo to justify using it as the primary determinant for protecting amateur fields?
Personally, I think Fargo is awesome. I love the idea of displaying data this way but I worry the threshold for "established" is too low and/or too infrequent. Data should be new and plentiful if we're going to prevent (penalize) people from playing in events. That said, I don't like excluding shortstops from amateur events. Yes, it's confusing but most of the confusion stems from the fact there is no such thing as professional pool so how can you ban someone from amateur pool and give them no place else to go? If you can convince me that I'm a 3:2 favorite over Danny Basavich then you can convince me that Brian Parks' FargoRating should matter here too. Until then, I think we should be very careful. I think he's a solid shortstop and I worry that the effort to protect amateurs will put many shortstops on a perpetual donor list. What's more, the effort will still fail to exclude all of the players who are actually recognized as professional.
I have no problem with Brian playing in the Amateurs and the APA masters league. I do think it crosses the line for him to play in regular league night and the APA singles though. The masters should have players like him.
I was at this event this year. I didn’t hear one word about this subject. Obviously I didn’t hear every conversation but I spoke to a couple guys I knew & made a couple new friends and literally nothing about Brian Parks in this regard. The event is well run and the contestants are top notch. No whining, no complaining, no rack shenanigans, and barely any need for refs to watch hits. We all no there is no money in this event, so save any comments regarding that.
I’m of the opinion the way to define an amateur is by their playing ability, not anything regarding income derived from pool. That said, I don’t know what the line is or how to determine what the line ought to be. This event is for amateurs and if it’s decided that Parks is an amateur then he (or anyone that speed) needs to be allowed in.
Now whether Brian Parks played at this event or not was absolutely irrelevant to me, and probably many like me. If he didn’t win there were 50 other guys better than me/us there. I believe Brian Parks is the exception to the rule though. Most guys his speed have no interest in a tourney you can’t win money at. So it will likely keep most guys that speed out and give more chances to us peons. I, locally, won 1 of 3 spots to qualify, and I can go into my pool hall on a busy night and easily find 5 guys who will give me the 7out. There’s no money to be won so they have no interest.
That’s my 2 cents and it’s worth what ya paid for it.
I’m of the opinion the way to define an amateur is by their playing ability, not anything regarding income derived from pool. That said, I don’t know what the line is or how to determine what the line ought to be. This event is for amateurs and if it’s decided that Parks is an amateur then he (or anyone that speed) needs to be allowed in.
Now whether Brian Parks played at this event or not was absolutely irrelevant to me, and probably many like me. If he didn’t win there were 50 other guys better than me/us there. I believe Brian Parks is the exception to the rule though. Most guys his speed have no interest in a tourney you can’t win money at. So it will likely keep most guys that speed out and give more chances to us peons. I, locally, won 1 of 3 spots to qualify, and I can go into my pool hall on a busy night and easily find 5 guys who will give me the 7out. There’s no money to be won so they have no interest.
That’s my 2 cents and it’s worth what ya paid for it.