which is more prestigious....i still think it's the US Open.
Damn if only i knew how to make a poll
Damn if only i knew how to make a poll
US Open vs WPC
- Thread starter Cardinal_Syn
- Start date
T
THE SILENCER
Guest
the world championship. much more t.v. coverage. better field. and 9 days long, plus the british have more class. just my 2 cents. p.s. what would be real good, is if there was a tournament, that was 8 ball and 9-ball back to back race to 25 single elimination!
Cardinal_Syn said:
My vote goes to WPC. More prize money (i think its 60K vs. 30K for the winner - I could be wrong but I'm sure it isn't less), non controversial promoter, world wide interest and representation, "Sid" making his comments, "some" TV coverage, and oh yaaaa... its got Steve Davis. I know they're talking about moving it, but the Wales location seems more prestigious to me anyway...
Cardinal_Syn said:
Strongly disagree. The US Open has a great field, but only the WPC includes virtually all of the international stars of the game. Add the biggest prize of the year, $65,000, for first place, and the high production values of the event itself, and there's really no comparison.
The BCA Open, which also boasts an incredibly strong international field, is very nearly, but not quite, on a par with the US Open.
The US Open remains a first tier event, but it's no longer the most prestigious, and may never be again.
US-Open is a great field, but it is not as strong as the WPC. The WPC has every player of note, you can look at the players in the US-Open and pick out the best players and see that there are 10 times as many players that level in the WPC. Simply the Asian and Euro addition to the field in the WPC makes adds a huge amount of talent that the US-Open has lacked. Look at both fields and it is not hard to see where the most top players are, last years US-Open was missing alot of really strong players, the WPC on the other hand had pretty much every top player of note.
Sorry Cardinal, but it appears the majority of players think that WPC is more prestigious. This year 1st place at WPC is worth $75,000 which is more than double the US open, TV coverage is live in various parts of the world...there is actually a crowd watching most of the matches 
I may be alone but my answer still stands. Just cause you got fancy camera's, and nice setup's doesn't cut it for me. Sorry. If it's a World Championship then why is it limited to a number of players? Any players should be able to play just so that we all know who is the best of the best, this ain't poker where anyone can win, why limit the players? Why even invite players that don't even play pool. Like snooker players, their heart isn't in pool it's in snooker why bother, give that spot to someone else. Look at the World Series of Poker, they have no sponsors and their money list is based on the number of people that enter. Why not do the same in pool make it an Open and with the sponsorship it has it'll probably have more money than pool has ever offer. Until it's an Open even then I'll change my mind.
Grady said:
I believe that the absence of any qualification criteria is a weakness, and not a strength, of the US Open 9-ball event. In the two biggest individual sports, golf and tennis, you can't just show up and compete in the US Open, but must qualify either on the merits of your competitive record, or by participating in qualifier events that are open to all. The same can be said of the World Pool Championships, and while I'm not suggesting their field selection criteria are perfect, I think they are very good -- certainly good enough to ensure that they have a field very becoming of a world championship event.
Having the desire to compete and the willingness to pay for the entry fee doesn't lend credence to a tournament. But what makes the US Open prestigious is its history. Its roster of champions would validate that.
In the present, I say the WPC is MORE prestigious. You can't just walk-in, but you need to qualify. As in other major sporting events just like the tennis SLAMS or golf MAJORS, there is a qualifying process.
Though in the past 4 years the qualifying tournaments for the WPC has been held just in London, fact remains, a venue was made for uninvited and non-nominated players to have a chance to get in the main draw.
But for this year, the WPC will have qualifying events in Taipei, Holland, London and New York. This enables players from 3 continents to get a chance to vie for a world title.
In the WPC, the TV coverage is proof of its greater prestige. Otherwise, no sponsor or advertiser would come in to finance such broadcast.
Indeed, in today's era, FOR ANY SPORTING EVENT, unless you are credible enough to convince corporations to take up the tab of airing the matches live, then you are just "another one of those other tournaments".
In the present, I say the WPC is MORE prestigious. You can't just walk-in, but you need to qualify. As in other major sporting events just like the tennis SLAMS or golf MAJORS, there is a qualifying process.
Though in the past 4 years the qualifying tournaments for the WPC has been held just in London, fact remains, a venue was made for uninvited and non-nominated players to have a chance to get in the main draw.
But for this year, the WPC will have qualifying events in Taipei, Holland, London and New York. This enables players from 3 continents to get a chance to vie for a world title.
In the WPC, the TV coverage is proof of its greater prestige. Otherwise, no sponsor or advertiser would come in to finance such broadcast.
Indeed, in today's era, FOR ANY SPORTING EVENT, unless you are credible enough to convince corporations to take up the tab of airing the matches live, then you are just "another one of those other tournaments".
You have to qualify to play in the US Open of Golf, the Masters also. I see qualification as a good thing as well. Otherwise we have thousands of people in the tournament taking for ever to actually get into the meat of the competition. And in the end the same people are at the end anyways, Pagulayan and Souquet in the finals of the US-Open, not Joe Shmoe from nowheresville. Why make the top players wade through a bunch of small fry before they can compete against each other. The best people in every country are playing in the WPC. If a snooker player is playing in the tourney then he clearly plays better 9-ball then the 9-ball players in that country and deserves the spot in the tourney. Alot of the snooker players have made pretty good showings, I am not sure why they should not be there if they are the best in their country and can compete at that level. 6 months of practice and Ronnie O'Sullivan would be a good bet to win the bloody thing.
The problem is that there are a minium of 3 or 4 hundred almost world class players and hardly any of them will get to play.What then? Go to another continent or NYC, at considerable expense and inconvenience?
In addition to the aforementioned players there are some pretty good seniors, most of whom gave their lives to pool and that for pathetic money.
Personally, I'd ante up a $5000 entry fee to go and play but having to qualify is ridiculous.
In addition to the aforementioned players there are some pretty good seniors, most of whom gave their lives to pool and that for pathetic money.
Personally, I'd ante up a $5000 entry fee to go and play but having to qualify is ridiculous.
The UPA
Good post, Grady. As you say, the superabundance of great players presents a small problem, but access to the greatest events of any sport is a privilege that must be earned. Golf has a similar situation. A pro golfer I know suggested that their are over 1,000 golfers in America capable of a top 10 finish in a PGA Tour event, yet only about 200 of them carry a PGA tour card. The other 800 can only get in through qualifying. Pool's deep talent pool presents a simliar challenge, but I don't think allowing all comers to compete in the game's premier event is reasonable.
All comers in Amercian pool have, in my opinion, sufficient access to the WPC through the UPA Tour, the premier men's tour in this country.
Finish high enough (top 32, I think) in the UPA rankings, and you get invited to the WPC. All those for whom playing the UPA tour is either uneconomic or too much trouble deserve to have to go through the qualifiers, even those, like yourself, Grady, whose heartfelt contributions to the game over a lifetime have meant, and still mean, so much to all of us who love pool.
Successful UPA players, who as a group, step up to the plate and compete against the game's superstars, are the ones with credentials. To you and all others who think their skills merit their inclusion in the WPC, I must say, go play the UPA Tour and you'll get your chance to prove it.
The WPC field selection methodology, though not perfect, tends to deny access to players that don't compete regularly at the game's highest level in their home continents. That seems very fair to me.
Grady said:
Good post, Grady. As you say, the superabundance of great players presents a small problem, but access to the greatest events of any sport is a privilege that must be earned. Golf has a similar situation. A pro golfer I know suggested that their are over 1,000 golfers in America capable of a top 10 finish in a PGA Tour event, yet only about 200 of them carry a PGA tour card. The other 800 can only get in through qualifying. Pool's deep talent pool presents a simliar challenge, but I don't think allowing all comers to compete in the game's premier event is reasonable.
All comers in Amercian pool have, in my opinion, sufficient access to the WPC through the UPA Tour, the premier men's tour in this country.
Finish high enough (top 32, I think) in the UPA rankings, and you get invited to the WPC. All those for whom playing the UPA tour is either uneconomic or too much trouble deserve to have to go through the qualifiers, even those, like yourself, Grady, whose heartfelt contributions to the game over a lifetime have meant, and still mean, so much to all of us who love pool.
Successful UPA players, who as a group, step up to the plate and compete against the game's superstars, are the ones with credentials. To you and all others who think their skills merit their inclusion in the WPC, I must say, go play the UPA Tour and you'll get your chance to prove it.
The WPC field selection methodology, though not perfect, tends to deny access to players that don't compete regularly at the game's highest level in their home continents. That seems very fair to me.
"It's prestigous cause you have to qualify" ???? Busta I don't think will qualify unless he wins something and yet he will still be playing, why? Because he's gonna get invited. What is this, a qualifying tournament or an invitational tournament, make up your mind it's just silly to be both. Pick one, if not then let it be open to all players, maybe not the $500 entry like the US Open but heck make it in the thousands. Is matchroom stil trying to invite Ronnie play or a another snooker star...pls his dream if not a big achievement already came true for em by winning the Embassy and other big tournaments why not just give a spot to a real pool player who give's his sweat and blood into the sport just to try and make a living or even heck to be crown a World Champion.
Cardinal_Syn said:
Discretionary entry spots are, and always be, given to those that put up the prize money in pool, golf, tennis, etc. The existence of such spots, called promoter spots in pool, sponsor's exemptions in golf, and wild-cards in tennis, does not mean that field selection criteria in use aren't objective.
Still, the way that these spots have been awarded has, at times, been controversial. In golf, more than a few took exception to the awarding of a promoter spot (called a "sponsor exemption" in that sport) to young female phenom Michelle Wie into a PGA event recently, arguing that others were more qualified on merit to participate. Still others have argued that Arnold Palmer has been undeserving of the sponsor exemptions he's been receiving for years, using the same argument. In pool, promoter spots have often been awarded to local players in the city (or poolroom) in which the event is taking place, and some have a problem with that.
The reality, though, is that event sponsors always demand discretionary spots in their events so that they can make selections they believe will make their event more successful. The existence of these spots is a fact of life. Get used to it.
I don't have t o get used to anything, if i don't like something i don't like it, there's nothing i can do about it but that doesn't mean i have to like it. Although i will admit WPC has the best coverage. It's entertaining. But then again watching golf isn't entertaining to me.sjm said:
T
THE SILENCER
Guest
as far as qualifying, or not, i don't know. on one hand, if you do not have to qualify, every shit head on earth would fly over and play. the amount of people 2367. would take 3 months to complete! most of the players would suck real bad, and what else could i say, it would stink! on the other hand, qualifying to get into the actual tournament, is horrible also, suppose your a great player, yet that particular day, you lose the qualifier?, what then? you try 10 more times, and if you should win on the tenth try, why should you be allowed to play in the world championships? you stink! it took you ten bloody times to make it!, so i don't know what's good or right. one thing i can say, is a race to 5 over and over and over in 9-ball for the world championship is PURE BULLSHIT! it should be a single elimination tournament race to 25 8ball/9ball back to back!, now it's not just lucky 9-ball.
THE SILENCER said:
I think they're moving in the right direction, i was under the impression that most of the players that get invited do so because they are ranked? I beleive that this is what happens on the IBC tour, although that seems to have died this year?
IMO the vast majority of spots should be given to the top ranked players on regional tours for each nation (if they have one?) and then there should be as many qualifying events as possible in each region with a decent amount of spots for each. I also quite like the idea of the pre-tournament qualifying as, although it is loaded towards the hosting nation since it is cheaper for more locals to enter this makes the comp more appealing to the local crowd and helps fund it.
I think that with a number of qualifying tournaments around the world this year plus the high price of entries, esp in taiwan then we should end up with a quality tournament, last 64 anyway. Any player that isn't there this year doesn't really have any excuse as there's plenty of opportunity.
My only gripe from a marketing point of view is that lack of infomation and the website really lets thr tournament down. Also the fact that there's no coverage in Australia, but then they don't even show the Work Snooker over here!