Who is a Professional Billiard Player?

cardiac kid

cardiac kid

Super Senior Member
Silver Member
First, allow me to congradulate Gabe Owen on his US Open victory.

Having said that, would someone please explain to me how Gabe will still be listed as an amateur player? Isn't it time for all the sanctioning bodies of "Amateur" pool to re-define who a Professional is. If they continue to use the UPA points list as a reference, no one will be added to the professional ranks for years. Isn't there anyone at the accepted sanctioning bodies willing to tackle this issue? BCA helped to create the problem with the UPA thing. Perhaps John Lewis or Mark Griffin will comment on it. I'm not singling out Gabe. He is just the most visible at this moment.
 
IMHO, the biggest problem with the professional/amature definitions is that they some how become associated with the skill level of the player (you know stuff like "wow, that guy is a real pro" and "don't worry he's just an amature"). To me, being a professional or amature has nothing to do with how well you play, it merely defines how you make your primary source of income, and thus a term only useful for the tax man.
 
8ballbanger said:
IMHO, the biggest problem with the professional/amature definitions is that they some how become associated with the skill level of the player (you know stuff like "wow, that guy is a real pro" and "don't worry he's just an amature"). To me, being a professional or amature has nothing to do with how well you play, it merely defines how you make your primary source of income, and thus a term only useful for the tax man.
Click to expand...

Certainly a reasonable point, 8BallBanger, except that keeping pros out of amateur events is vital to the integrity, and ultimately, the popularity, of the major amateur events in the United States.

It is the intent of the amateur sanctioning bodies to ensure that those who play at pro speed, whether pool represents their primary source of income or not, are omitted from their tournament fields. The matter of what constitutes a professional is a crucial one, as in the United states, there are several amateur events that draw thousands of players.
 
Last edited:
It should be very simple. The sanctioning bodies should simply set a date after which anybody who accepts a cash prize in a tournament is a pro. IMO most of us are pros because we have played in a tournament with cash prizes. It is a joke to call tournaments amateur events when they pay cash. That damages the integrity of the game more than 2 bit pros who are so broke they try to play in tournaments with bad players and dinky prizes. (Although they are pro events IMO.) Basically whenever you run a closed event - i.e. so called amateur events that exclude "pros"- you will have problems with definitions. Better that pool adopt an actual definition of a pro player and then have open amateur events that give trophies and no cash. Then there would also be less incentive to cheat in handicapped events, but I have never understood why anybody would want to play a handicapped event, let alone try to cheat in one. But I'm hardcore and don't understand the allure of leagues, bar tables, cash prizes in events that should be amateur events, or handicapped events, IOW I am old and crusty before my time. ;-)
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
Certainly a reasonable point, 8BallBanger, except that keeping pros out of amateur events is vital to the integrity, and ultimately, the popularity, of the major amateur events in the United States.
Click to expand...

Hey SJM,

I think there was some confusion about the point I was trying to make. I agree completely that you must keep very high skill level players out of lower skill tourneys, but I think the terms pro/am are ambiguous in this context.

Hypothetically speaking, the best player in the world could be an amature if there primary source of income was from sources other than pool. And likewise if I quit my job and my only source of income was pool, then I would be a professional (though probably the poorest one in the world). Does that mean that because I am a pro my game is automatically clocked as better than the best player in the world because he's an amature? No, pro/am status has no direct relationship to skill level.

So to take away the confusion, instead of saying "keep pros out of amateur events", lets say "keep A grade players out of B grade and lower events".

Cheers!
 
Hi Folks,

In the days of the "old" BCA, John Lewis and staff decided the UPA ranking system would determine who was a "professional". Before that, the standard was: If you entered a tournament with a three hundred dollar entry fee and CASHED, you were then a "professional". That way, if a player like Scott Frost, Tony Chohan, Gabe Owen, Barry Emerson, Bobby Pickle or players of their ability showed up in Vegas, Reno, Chicago, Valley Forge, etc. for an amateur event, they would be turned away.

There are enough regional tours and events out there for players of that caliber. Like some other posters here at AZ, I've been asked not to play in certain events so players of lower speed will have a chance. I respect and understand their position. I'm also poorer for it. I also want to feel I have a chance when I attend an event specifically listed for AMATEURS or players around my speed. Letting world beaters play only allows them to steal from weaker players. Thats OK head to head if you accept the game and put your money down. In a tournament, you don't have that luxury!

There is a way for the sanctioning bodies to track player performance. The internet is a very strong tool. Use it!
 
Kind of a difficult issue. I just sent my entry fee in for the Riversharks Open in Lancaster Pa. $40.00 to enter plus $20 greens fee. First 64 players signed up. $500.00 to win and about 1/3 of the field at least gets the entry fee back. There is that chance that I'll place in the top 1/3rd and win $40.00. I'm I a Pro? Not even close.

This is an 'open' event. Anyone who sends them money can get in. I go to these events because I want to play very good players. I'd welcome the pro's. Handicap events are the only thing I'd consider as being amateur events. I won't enter a handicap event, to much sandbagging. That said, I'm still not a Pro.

Won't really be able to say who's a pro and who isn't without a major tour. Then the pro's are - the tour players and teaching pros. That would be a starting point. Then once that is established you can start to consider minor touring pros.
 
8ballbanger said:
Hey SJM,

I think there was some confusion about the point I was trying to make. I agree completely that you must keep very high skill level players out of lower skill tourneys, but I think the terms pro/am are ambiguous in this context.

Hypothetically speaking, the best player in the world could be an amature if there primary source of income was from sources other than pool. And likewise if I quit my job and my only source of income was pool, then I would be a professional (though probably the poorest one in the world). Does that mean that because I am a pro my game is automatically clocked as better than the best player in the world because he's an amature? No, pro/am status has no direct relationship to skill level.

So to take away the confusion, instead of saying "keep pros out of amateur events", lets say "keep A grade players out of B grade and lower events".

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Nicely put!
 
I think most European top players have 9-to-5 jobs and they have to take days off to travel in tournaments. I think Ralf Souquet is the only real pro, meaning that all (?) his income is pool related or at least there aren't many besides Ralf. I think such players as Ortmann, Hohmann, Engert, Storm, Bergendorff have jobs and pool is only additional income to them. Can they be considered as pro players just because they are so good players ? Then would you consider a road player a pro if all his income come from money matches ?

Difficult questions... and does it really matter if you are a pro or an amateur ? As far as I know, hardly any tournaments are for pros or for amateurs only. There was some big 8-ball tournament in US which listed a large number of players who weren't allowed to participate, because they were "pro" players. And there were some ridiculous names there... they were listed only because they had had some success in some tournament.
 
Professional and amateur are words that have already been defined - just look in any dictionary. As long as the pool world continues to disregard these definitions, it will continue to be looked at as a shady subculture.

No one objects to separating the good from bad players, but why not call a spade a spade instead of making up new definitions for professional and amateur. Pool needs a czar to clean things up - I nominate SJM (SJM, think Kenesaw Mountain Landis or perhaps Pete Rozelle).
 
Williebetmore said:
Professional and amateur are words that have already been defined - just look in any dictionary. As long as the pool world continues to disregard these definitions, it will continue to be looked at as a shady subculture.

No one objects to separating the good from bad players, but why not call a spade a spade instead of making up new definitions for professional and amateur. Pool needs a czar to clean things up - I nominate SJM (SJM, think Kenesaw Mountain Landis or perhaps Pete Rozelle).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the endorsement, Willie. I'll check my schedule and see whether I have time for a Czar position. Of course, we all know what happened to the last Czar. Maybe that's why nobody has applied for the position since 1918!
 
Hi mjantti,

There are lots and lots of "amateur" events here in the states. There are now four major sanctioning bodies that have multi-thousand participant tournaments. The Billiard Congress of America, American Cue Sports, American Pool Association and Valley National Eightball Association. All have large dollar events supposedly for the average player. The Romano's, who post at AZ Billiards, run two independent events just outside Chicago, Ill. The Allen Hopkins Valley Forge event is also "amateurs" only.

Perhaps you and I don't mind playing players of Mika Immonen's ability on a regular basis. There are thousands of other players who avoid confrontation with much better players. Perhaps some call it fear. Whatever you call it, players of his ability should not be allowed to steal a tournament(s) advertised as "amateurs only". "We" know who "they" are. Why don't the sanctioning bodies? It sure seems easy to me. I have a computer with DSL internet access. I look at the results of virtually every event covered by AZ Billiards and others. When the same names keep appearing in the top four or five at each event, there must be something about the capability of those players to allow them to continue to dominate. We seem to be unable to define "professional" as it applies to pool. Whether they earn their living solely on the table or just pick up "walking around money" from time to time, they are professional level players period. At one time, the BCA also had the following statement "or plays to that level" in their description of a "pro".
 
Last edited:
Hi all,

I just thought I would put my two cents in, but first. I've only been playing pool for a little less than two years, and think I would be a "C" player.

But even though I'm only a "C" player, I play in the Killer Bees Tournaments around the MA area (I'm from Medford at this time).

Now I now of players (C level and week B level) from the Killer Bees that play in Joss Tournaments as well. Now they aren't playing at "The Pro Level", but they are competing at the pro level (and lossing I assume).

So what I think, and I may be totally off base here. There needs to be a better definitiuon of player level (D-World Killer). And define pro/am.


I don't know, but I think it is really need to define what the skill requirements are for the diffrent levels first...

Sorry if this comes across stuppid, but it's what I at this time...

Pete
 
sjm said:
I'll check my schedule and see whether I have time for a Czar position. Of course, we all know what happened to the last Czar. Maybe that's why nobody has applied for the position since 1918!
Click to expand...

SJM,
I didn't say there was great job security, but think of the fringe benefits. Remember Mel Brooks, "it's good to be the king."
 
Pete,

No such thing as a stupid thought! Thanks for posting. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an accepted definition of classes other than for "professional". Each room or area defines a players ability because we see and play each other regularly. An "A" player here may be a "AA" in Boston.

When a tournament is advertised as "open", anyone may play regardless of skill level. When a tournament is advertised as a certain skill level or lower or amateur only, it should mean just that. The Joss Tour has always been an "open" tour. That is why so many top level players frequent it. There are also many "B" level players in each event. Without the "A" and "B" players, no tour, regardless of the classy players that show up, can survive. As I've told him many times, Mike Zuglan needs you and me and others like us more than he needs Earl or Busti! And he agrees!

My frustration is over the "cream of the cream" playing in amateur events because the regulators are not doing their job. If I go to the US Open or a UPA event, I expect to see the very best out there. When I go to events like the BCA in Vegas, I don't expect to see Gabe Owen playing in the Masters. He did this year solely because of the BCA definition of a "professional" player. John Lewis must have conveniently forgot about the "or plays to that level" clause in the pro definition.
 
Willie and SJM,

Why the sarcasm? I think its a great idea. Three of the four sanctioning bodies already use the same player definitions. Master in one, master in all. Once a pro, always a pro. If they could agree to use one person(s) to follow the tournament results and use that persons input to help keep overachievers out, I think its great! Think of the power! Think of the low pay! Think of the ... Ouch, my head hurts from thinking.
 
cardiac kid said:
Willie and SJM,

Why the sarcasm? I think its a great idea. Three of the four sanctioning bodies already use the same player definitions. Master in one, master in all. Once a pro, always a pro. If they could agree to use one person(s) to follow the tournament results and use that persons input to help keep overachievers out, I think its great! Think of the power! Think of the low pay! Think of the ... Ouch, my head hurts from thinking.
Click to expand...

Agreed, CK, the only sarcasm/levity here was in the use of the term czar. I think designating someone as responsible for oversight and rating of all players is a great idea, an idea for which the time has definitely come.

I think you're right, anyone accepting such a role would have to do it more as a labor of love than for the likely pay.
 
sjm said:
I think designating someone as responsible for oversight and rating of all players is a great idea, an idea for which the time has definitely come.

I think you're right, anyone accepting such a role would have to do it more as a labor of love than for the likely pay.
Click to expand...

SJM and CK,
Actually someone in this role would ideally do it for no pay - so motives are not questioned (see multiple BCA vs ACS threads for this type of controversy).

Unfortunately, such a person would only be effective if there was already an organization/league that controlled and sanctioned all competitions (at least all competitions above a certain level of proficiency). A ruler can only function with the consent of the ruled (and you can bet Czar Nicholas would agree with this statement were he still around).
 
Based on what I've seen of pro vs. amateur, it seems that the purpose is to exlude pro's from amateur events, always has been. And, the definition of who is professional and who is amateur is the responsibility of the amateur sanctioning body. So the important thing has been 'are you an amateur' (for some specific purpose), not 'who is a pro'. Having said that, I believe that some amateur pool governing bodies list the 'pros' rather than the 'amateurs', possibly because it is so much easier ! I don't believe that this has always been the case ... I'm guessing here, but based on what I've read the 'Amateur Gentlemen' may have been the one identified in the original class system. It's a very interesting history ...

Dave
 
Hi Dave,

Welcome to AZ! Understand your point of view. However, since there are only about two hundred "professional" level players out there and hundreds of thousands of amateurs, your way seems way too hard. You are correct that it is the sanctioning bodies job to tell everyone who may play in an event. I think they do that right now. Each event run by them says amateurs only. They also provide a list (the same one) of players that they know are "professionals" and are unacceptable entries at the event. It is the description of how they determine if you are a pro that bothers me. If you are not a full member of the UPA, forget it. You will not be listed as a pro even if you win a UPA event. No seeding points, no professional status. Only contracted members earn points. Therefore, my original question regarding Gabe Owen. According to the list, he is an amateur and may still play BCA/VNEA/ACS events as such. Thats the loophole I would like to see filled. For my benefit and yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top