World 14.1 - Is this true???

SmoothStroke said:
There were male and female players that did not belong in that tournament.!! Male and female !!..The only reason for them to be at that event should have been as a spectator.
Some of the play I witnessed from both a few men and a woman was c+ to low B at best,,,AT BEST.
If they want to pick on the women tell them to pick on the men also who couldn't run a rack after their opponet blasted them with a chicago break, more than once.
Believe me they weren't haven't a bad day it was their level, it was obvious.
A handful of players were very weak, MEN AND WOMEN
How did they get in this event?
Why were they in this event?
WHERE WERE THE PLAYERS THAT BELONGED IN THESE SPOTS?
What a joke
I am curious which of the females in the event you think are c/b players at best? There were 4 in the field--Jasmin Ouschan, Gerda Hofstatter, Liz Ford, and Yu Ram Cha. I have seen 3 of 4 play personally, and can assure you that they are all strong. (Yu Ram Cha would be the one I haven't seen in person and she plays great) The weakest is Probably Liz and if you would like to match up I'm sure she would be open to the idea. She plays damn good.

Thanks Jason
 
I don't know why they picked on Jasmin, she is a 2 or three time 14.1 womens champion. She plays in mens events all year and cashes a lot. If you want to say any of the women didn't belong there, it would be Yu Ram Cha. She started practicing 14.1 for the first time about 13 months ago, and has played 14.1 in 1 or 2 events before this tournament.

I'm not going to go over the whole list of men that played but I know I could find quite a few I'd say "Huh, what's he doing in this". Johnnyt
 
I believe Jason is right on this one. Why should a woman be able to take
4th place away from a man in a men's event? Can the man go over and play in the women's event and win the thing, which would probably happen?

It isn't fair, even if the men are making much more $ than the women. What's fair for one has to be fair for the other.

There's so much talk nowadays about "fairness" in life. Well, wouldn't it be totally fair to allow both sexes play in every tournament, and just have a unisex tour, and not have a men's or women's tour? If not, then it's not fair to have the women take places away from the men, when men are struggling just to get by.

Now, if the event is open and listed as an open tournament for both, I agree then that's different.

Men should play in men's events and women in women's.
 
Danny K...How about because she OUTPLAYED the men? BTW, I don't believe this tournament was billed as the World MEN'S 14.1 Championship...was it? :rolleyes:

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Danny Kuykendal said:
I believe Jason is right on this one. Why should a woman be able to take 4th place away from a man in a men's event?

Now, if the event is open and listed as an open tournament for both, I agree then that's different.
 
Yes, I agree, it wasn't as far as I know billed as a World's Men Straight Pool Tourney.

I still believe that, like tennis and golf while women can compete at some level with men they shouldn't be allowed to cross over and play in each other's events.

If all men were allowed to play in all women's events, where would the women's tour be? It would be taken over by the men.

And I agree with what happened with Jean Balukas when she decided to play in a few men's events. Sure, she might have even won an event, but women have their own tour and men have theirs, like golf and tennis.

I remember back then, and there was more af a threat of her taking someone's place on the leader board and the prize money, instead of a threat of someone losing to a "woman."
 
What are you afraid of?

The UPA events are for the men, the WPBA events are for the women. They do not play in eachothers events. (As far as I know) The WPA events (such as this one) are OPEN. That means it's not a womens or men's event. It means just what it says, OPEN. As far as I'm concerned if a monkey can learn and beat Busty then thats great--more bananas. It should be a competition between the best in the world, men or women. IF a guy can't play well against a women then that's a flaw in his game. How many times have you heard or said yourself that the game is more mental that anything. Your fear of women beating you or taking the cash just proves this.

Thanks
Jason
 
I remember back then too when Jean started playing in mens events and the #1 reason that most men didn't want them to play was fear of losing to a woman, even though none will admit it. #2 was money. Years ago men didn't want women in poolrooms because they thought the rooms were their own private clubs.

The room I took over from my Dad was like that. Two women came in in 8 years. One was a biker chick and the other stayed about 5 min. I didn't make the room that way, that's the way I got it and that's how it was when my Dad bought it. I didn't really care that much back then. As long as the joint was making moey for me to party and raise hell. Johnnyt
 
I don't believe that this is nothing other than playing by the rules.
When Michele Wie (edited) was sponsored in a couple of pro golf events, several men, including V.J. Singh spoke out against it, and were immediately shouted down by the media.

V.J.'s point was that, even though she would probably not have an effect on his personal outcome, she might keep someone out of the field who worked his butt off to make it to the PGA Tour.

I don't disagree that if the tournament is billed as an "open" men and women should be allowed to play, but if the men's tour was stronger they could be like the women and have men's only events.

I was playing in a few tournaments at the same time Jean Balukas was not allowed to play, and mostly the people complaining were those who were not the top pros, but those making a meager living and could not afford to be beaten for the 13-16 spot. And she was definitely good enough to do that.

That was not what killed the PBA back then. The director (Don Mackey) may have had a lot to do with it.
 
Last edited:
Danny Kuykendal said:
When Michele Lee was sponsored in a couple of pro golf events, several men, including V.J. Singh spoke out against it, and were immediately shouted down by the media.

.
Michelle Lee is a soap opera star.

Michelle WIE is a golfer.
 
There are 4 world championship events. 8-ball, 10-ball, and 14.1 allow both sexes to play. Only 9-ball is segregated because there is a men's and women's world event.

I think that is only fair.

CW approached the WPA and obtained the rights to running a World 14.11 event for 5 years. That is fine too - except it became an invitational. That is Not Fair to be called a World's event.

There has to be standards-and they have to be consistent. I have always felt that Open means OPEN - and invitational is not open.

That is the goal of the upcoming National Championship Series (NCS) - it will be open to everyone - and they must all qualify. That is fair and that is consistent. And hopefully after a couple of years, these events will become the premier events in the country.

They wil become a stepping stone to having a chance to win a world's championship.

Just my thoughts -

Mark Griffin
Cuesports International
National Championship Series (NCS)
www.playbca.com
Diamond Billiard Products
www.playusapool.com
 
The fundamental reason for having separate sporting events for young people, old people, and women (and other classifications in some sports) is that people in these classifications typically perform at an inferior level compared to adult males who are not yet seniors. If the young, the old, and females did not have their own events, these people would be unable to win much of anything in the sports world. They are in "protected" classes so they can compete with similar people.

But at the highest level in most sports, the events are, and should be, open to any human being capable of competing at that level.

In the amateur golf world, for example, the U.S. Golf Association sponsors these six events (and some others) -- one for junior females, one for juniors as a whole, one for senior women, one for seniors as a whole, one for women of any age, and one for human beings of any age or sex. This last event is the U.S. Amateur, open to anyone who qualifies. And if a senior woman was good enough, she could play in both of the senior events and both of the adult (but-not-yet-senior) events. In fact, if this same senior woman was good enough to qualify, she could also play in the U.S. Open (amateurs and pros).

In pool, we see the same sort of thing -- events for juniors, or women, or "Class B" players, or wheelchair players, etc. These groups need to be protected in this way, because most of their players would be completely uncompetitive in open events. But if people in these classes are good enough, they can also try to compete at the highest level in truly open events, which, of course, are currently dominated by adult males.

Perhaps someday women pool players won't need their own tour. But in the meantime, it's a real pleasure to see a few of them able to compete with the top men. And to argue that the top men should therefore be eligible to compete in women's events is just ludicrous.
 
Like Mark said, qualifiers are the answer. With qualifiers you don't need to know if someone is an A or a B, or a C. If you can qualify, you get to play. As far as the pros go, there will never be a tour big enough for all that call themselves pros to play in. At best a 200 male/female tour. The others are just ****out of luck or need to find another gear.

The IPT had a lot of good ideas. I don't agree with how they picked the first hundred or so, but if the tour kept going it would have got rid of the ones that didn't belong on it in the first place as they dropped to the bottom of the rankings. Then the winners of the qualifiers would take their place. In a few years you would have had the best of the best. Johnnyt
 
Mark Griffin said:
There are 4 world championship events. 8-ball, 10-ball, and 14.1 allow both sexes to play. Only 9-ball is segregated because there is a men's and women's world event.

I think that is only fair.

CW approached the WPA and obtained the rights to running a World 14.11 event for 5 years. That is fine too - except it became an invitational. That is Not Fair to be called a World's event.

There has to be standards-and they have to be consistent. I have always felt that Open means OPEN - and invitational is not open.

That is the goal of the upcoming National Championship Series (NCS) - it will be open to everyone - and they must all qualify. That is fair and that is consistent. And hopefully after a couple of years, these events will become the premier events in the country.

They wil become a stepping stone to having a chance to win a world's championship.

Just my thoughts -

Mark Griffin
Cuesports International
National Championship Series (NCS)
www.playbca.com
Diamond Billiard Products
www.playusapool.com

Spoken like a true professional. I agree with EVERYTHING you have written in your post.

I look forward to learning more about the NCS.

I read in a recent thread by Holly that there are some upcoming State championships on the horizon. Maybe they can be incorporated into the NCS for qualification to compete in an event too.

And Mark, I know this is off topic, but I gotta ask you this question. What do you think about Sarah Palin? Personally, I think she rocks! :thumbup:

JAM
 
There are almost only "open" events in tennis, but many of the players have already qualified based on past performance. There are only a few open spots players can try to qualify for.

And, in both tours, the men's and women's, neither sex may try to qualify for the other's tournament.

Also, would it be right to have Efren Reyes have to qualify for a world open one pocket tournament?

Sorry, Jam. I believe Sarah Palin would not agree with "integrating" the sexes in professional sports. This is a liberal idea, isn't it?
 
AtLarge said:
The fundamental reason for having separate sporting events for young people, old people, and women (and other classifications in some sports) is that people in these classifications typically perform at an inferior level compared to adult males who are not yet seniors. If the young, the old, and females did not have their own events, these people would be unable to win much of anything in the sports world. They are in "protected" classes so they can compete with similar people.

But at the highest level in most sports, the events are, and should be, open to any human being capable of competing at that level.

In the amateur golf world, for example, the U.S. Golf Association sponsors these six events (and some others) -- one for junior females, one for juniors as a whole, one for senior women, one for seniors as a whole, one for women of any age, and one for human beings of any age or sex. This last event is the U.S. Amateur, open to anyone who qualifies. And if a senior woman was good enough, she could play in both of the senior events and both of the adult (but-not-yet-senior) events. In fact, if this same senior woman was good enough to qualify, she could also play in the U.S. Open (amateurs and pros).

In pool, we see the same sort of thing -- events for juniors, or women, or "Class B" players, or wheelchair players, etc. These groups need to be protected in this way, because most of their players would be completely uncompetitive in open events. But if people in these classes are good enough, they can also try to compete at the highest level in truly open events, which, of course, are currently dominated by adult males.

Perhaps someday women pool players won't need their own tour. But in the meantime, it's a real pleasure to see a few of them able to compete with the top men. And to argue that the top men should therefore be eligible to compete in women's events is just ludicrous.

Tap Tap, very well stated.
 
My only issue with the women playing is the dress code. That goes in the work place as well.

The men all seem to wear dress shirts and vest, the women should need to conform to that (Allison used to). Jasimon dressed in that brown outfit, and it looks comfortable. Dress clothes aren't comfortable, vests and dress shirts, and pleated pants.

I have the 2006 and Jeanete Lee was in a tank top. It's pool night a night club.

I know, I'm an old fuddy duddy...

Pete
 
Pete said:
My only issue with the women playing is the dress code. That goes in the work place as well.

The men all seem to wear dress shirts and vest, the women should need to conform to that (Allison used to). Jasimon dressed in that brown outfit, and it looks comfortable. Dress clothes aren't comfortable, vests and dress shirts, and pleated pants.

I have the 2006 and Jeanete Lee was in a tank top. It's pool night a night club.

I know, I'm an old fuddy duddy...

Pete

I agree 100 percent! :)

JAM
 
Island Drive said:
I think its good for the sport, and pool needs all the help it can get. With the constant female sex/clevage/bootie/tonge etc. camera angles that marketing gurus use to sell product and ideas, bringing a woman into the mix can only give more exposure/attention to the billiard world, we all know its direly needed. It'll all come out in the wash, but for now, all news is good news. I heard on House the other night, about TV/subplot, that old men dying in their beds enjoy watching women play pool, now that statement caught me off guard, but, slowly, pool is inching its way into society.


Anything that attracts sponsers will mean more $$$ for the Billiard/Pool pros - and women performing well against men (Jassy) attracts attention.
 
Back
Top