Professionals in amateur tournaments?

Question

Johnny got me thinking about something the other day when he asked his question about the distinction between a professional and an amateur. I've noticed a lot of so-called "local", "amateur", or even "semi-pro" pool tournaments all over the country being won by the biggest names in the sport. I'll see Shane Van Boening, Johnny Archer, Earl, etc., easily winning tournament after tournament against talented local players who just want a chance to compete on their own turf against their peers in an organized format. Do you think it's fair that these high profile players should be allowed into so many of these lesser tournaments? Isn't is kind of like putting Alex Rodriguez on your company softball team? I know that these are the players who make a living from pool, but shouldn't there be a trade off somewhere when you reach a certain level of success? M.D.-BCA Instructor/Referee.

Answer 1

Hooray Straight for President !! That is exactly what I was talking about .My comment about arm wrestling a group of 4th graders It just spoils the fun for them.Not to long ago it was well defined but lately that has not been the case.

But YES there should be .Once someone knew me from another tourn and I got A DQ that would no longer be the case in my opinion

Answer 2

I always liked to have a name pro show up at a tournament. It brought out the best in me and kinda made everyone believe they were part of something larger. In a double elimination format who knows who will win anyway.

Granted I don't want Archer across the table from me with my grocery money bet but heck I'll be willing to pay a 20-100 buck entry to give him a try. Where else can you watch a pro, probably get to chat a little, shoot some pool and maybe have a chance to brag to your buddies about the tournament you beat Archer, or whoever?

Let them come it's fun.

Plus I assure you most people that answer here have entered tournaments where they were the overwhelming favorite right?

I mean I won't enter a "kids tournament" but I won 1 tournament here 9 weeks in a row. Should I be considered a present day pro? Absolutely not but at that club I enter and they start asking who gets 2nd.

LOL  just my 2 cents worth.

Luck

Kevin

Answer 3

I fully agree with you. I think the problem is defining a professional player. I think we can all agree than Johnny Archer is a pro.....how about Santos Sambajon or Keith McCready? They are very, very good, but don't make much money at all in tournaments. Some tournaments will say that the top 20 players in the world cannot enter.... to keep pros out, but it is not uncommon for say.......Efren Reyes to slip out of that group for awhile.....and he is definitely a pro. I've seen players that could play professionally in each tournament....but don't because of the cost involved. They are more than capable of beating Archer, Reyes, or Bustamante, but you couldn't consider them pro's because they don't make their living at it. I think this issue will always be around until the tournaments pay out enough that players will either 'go pro' or not......and not do the 'in-between' thing.

Answer 4

I agree with you in theory, but I agree with much of what Jay says as well. Johnny Archer and Earl Strickland, and guys like that certainly shouldn't be playing in amateur tournaments. It's not fair to the real amateur players, and in the end will likely be detrimental to the success of the tournament.

You likely will run into a problem classifying players though. I don't exactly agree with the specific players Jay listed, but there are certainly guys who are just 'sorta' pros.

Say a guy you know who just happens to be the best guy in his BCAPL division, and decides he'll try his luck in a pro tournament. He gets on a good run, and places high, or even wins, taking home maybe $5,000. Now say the guy is actually an accountant, and really has no intention of going pro. He's obviously capable of competing with the best, but should we ban him from tournaments? He may be good enough to go pro, but should he be banned for life from amateur tournaments just because he's "too good?"

Say there's another guy who wins a lot of local tournaments and money games, and decides to try his luck on the pro circuit. He quits his job and travels the country, playing in every pro tournament he can find. He soon finds out that he cannot make a decent living playing in these tourneys, and can't even compete in money games anymore because better pros are at every venue and are kicking his ***. When he comes back home with his tale between his legs, is he still a pro? Should we ban that guy for life from all the local tournaments just because he was technically a pro?