PDA

View Full Version : WPBA-- Players on the move in Las Vegas.



facets58
05-20-2002, 01:23 PM
Below is a current list of the WPBA players whose status has changed after the Las Vegas event.

The new Touring Pros are:

Melissa Herndon (Great tournament)

Sarah Ellerby

Megan Smith

Stacy Hurst (way to go baby...it's about time!!!)

-----------------------------------------------------------

The new Active Pros are:

Anita Kuczma
-----------------------------------------------------------

The new Pros are:

Kim Shaw -- 4 out of 4 ain't bad. (Kim needs 1 event for her Active Pro status).
-----------------------------------------------------------

Regaining Touring Pro status:

Shari Stauch
-----------------------------------------------------------

Dropping from Touring Pro to Active Pro:

Fran Crimi
Vicki Paski
-----------------------------------------------------------

Dropping from Active Pro to Pro:

Cassie Anderson
-----------------------------------------------------------

Next update...Peoria Illinois in August 21-25th.
Mike Hurst--

Doctor_D
05-20-2002, 02:31 PM
Good afternoon:

The WPBA Professional landscape is changing, FAST!!!

Kudos to all.

Dr. D.

05-20-2002, 04:10 PM
Hey Mike, I think it's great that you have all the stats. For a change someone is doing the job and getting it right. But just a suggestion: How about sticking to announcing the good news and reserve the bad news for personal e-mail notifications?

It's hard enough sweating losing your touring pro status (once again) and it's twice as hard sweating it being announced to the world.

Fran

Doctor_D
05-20-2002, 04:18 PM
Good afternoon Fran:

I am certain that Mike's intentions were very honorable. If not, we will just have to castrate him...

/ccboard/images/icons/wink.gif

Dr. D.

05-20-2002, 04:21 PM
Haha! This isn't a BCA ruling. Intent isn't the issue here. I'm sure he has the best intent. It's just an issue of being sensitive towards others failures.

Fran

05-20-2002, 04:31 PM
Fran,
I think it's a mistake to think of this as a failure. For one thing, you had personal issues during the past year that took precedence in your life, as they should have. For another, you yourself said that you went through the tournament in the beginning stages of the Flu. I think that this TEMPORARY setback merely reaffirms your status as a woman whose priorities are EXTREMELY well ordered. A scumbag would have ignored it all and kept their pro status above all else. You, my dear, are most certainly NOT a scumbag! Not so long ago you posted a thought about men vs. women players, I think it's important right now to recognize where in that thought you belong. We all know what you are truly capable of Fran, so courage, dear heart, there are a lot of good people who believe in you! :-)

05-20-2002, 04:42 PM
Thanks, I do appreciate your kind words, but the point I was trying to make was that if I were in control of the stats, I would focus on the good news. Unless it were in the by-laws of the organization to publish all changes in the status of players, (which it isn't) then Mike is doing this strictly of his own accord. I simply wouldn't publish the negative news. There's no mandate that declares it has to be published. The issue is not whether the public wants to know or not. At this point, this information is strictly for the players and the WPBA.

All I'm saying is that I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of bad news and I know that others will not appreciate it in the future as well.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

Fran

Doctor_D
05-20-2002, 04:42 PM
Good evening:

For professionals like yourself there are NO failures; only temporary set backs which will allow you to prepare for your next major advance.

/ccboard/images/icons/wink.gif

Dr. D.

05-20-2002, 04:45 PM
I understood your point Fran, and I understand your heartache. I'm truly sorry, and I should have added that you were right to request a little privacy.

05-20-2002, 04:46 PM
I'm not afraid of failure, Diana. I never said it was permanent. We all have temporary failures. It shouldn't be published out of respect for the players if it isn't mandated.

Fran

05-20-2002, 04:53 PM
Hi Fran.

It was great meeting you in Vegas. I wasn't around much for "hanging out", because I was glued to my chair (in the skybox, which made it easier to sit and watch all day! /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif ) for most of the week. Dan says he got a chance to chat with you a bit. Don't know if you knew his results, but after winning a couple of matches, he lost to Francisco Bustamante and then Efren Reyes. Francisco just played unbelievably great against Dan. He was just unstoppable, and got out from anywhere. Efren got off to a BAD start, but got into gear and also started getting out from everywhere. No matter how he was hooked, Efren would either get out or leave another safe.

Don't worry about your status and it being posted. I'm sure its just a temporary thing, and I'm sure Mike didn't mean anything bad by posting it. But I do see your point.

Talk to ya later!

Doctor_D
05-20-2002, 04:55 PM
Good evening Fran:

You are absolutely correct. I am also sorry that I was not more sensitive to your feelings from the start.

Dr. D.

05-20-2002, 05:10 PM
Hi Mike. It was great seeing you at the event. I hope you don't mind if I brag about Dan here a bit. He is one of the people I admire most in the world.

I don't think a lot of people know about Dan Louie's story. Besides being a great player and one of the nicest people I've ever met, Dan had suffered many years from kidney disease. I recall seeing him at tournaments where he had to take time out between matches to run to a local hospital for dialysis. As dire as his condition was, I never saw him complain or without a smile. It was truly amazing. Then a few years ago, a donor was found and Dan received a kidney transplant. He looks great and he says he's doing really well. And boy, can that guy play some serious pool!

Thanks for reminding me about Dan. It kind of puts things in perspective when you consider what he went through vs. something as small as losing your touring pro status. Ha!

Please give him my best, Mike.

Fran

05-20-2002, 05:15 PM
Will do, Fran! And you're right. He is definately one of the nicest guys this game has. And when he's on, he can hang with the best in the world. The list of people he has beaten in his career is quite distinguished.

facets58
05-20-2002, 11:13 PM
Yes Ma'am, nothin but honorable intensions from me...nothin but honorable.

I had a dog once, they cut 'em off and he was never right after that.

Ma'am, Id like to keep my nuggets. I promise I'll be a bit more kind in the future.

Hopefully I won't have any nightmares tonight.
Mike--

05-20-2002, 11:17 PM
Best be careful around here Mike, or those nuggets could be converted....... LOL I feel your pain buddy. Metaphorically, of course.

facets58
05-20-2002, 11:34 PM
Thanks for the warning. Just to be sure, I'm gonna go check the garage for that cup I used in little league.

On second thought I better not...that might just do the job for Fran. Now I know how those chickens on the TV commercials must feel. Got nuggets???


Mike--

Rich R.
05-21-2002, 04:44 AM
Fran, in life, there are ups and downs. Going down only gives you a running start for the next up hill voyage.
Many of us are looking forward to your next trip up.
Rich R.

05-21-2002, 06:18 AM
Thank you Rich. You and everyone are really great for all your encouragement. I'm fine. Believe it or not, before I posted my reaction to Mike's announcement, I gave the pros and cons of posting a response a lot of thought. I could have sent Mike a private e-mail to let him know how I felt, however, I decided that I wanted everyone to know that I am against unnecessary posting of negative status changes of players without a mandate. I also realized that by posting my reaction, some people would interpret that as I am hurting and in pain over having lost my touring pro status.

Sure, I'm not thrilled about it, but I'm not hurting, nor am I in any pain whatsoever. The word 'failure' is not as negative a word to me as it may be for others. To me, 'failure' simply means lack of succeeding at a particular point in time. That point in time is already in the past. It's over.

What I do know from being a pool player is that when you lose a match or have a setback, sometimes a player just wants to deal with it privately in whatever way they need to deal with it. Like if you were to lose a match, Rich, and the last thing you want is for everyone to come up to you and say "It'll be alright. You'll get 'em next time." Maybe you just want to be alone with it until you get past it.

Well, unnecessary public announcements of that sort take that right away from those players; not just myself but for all players.

So, again I suggest, congratulate the successful ones and leave the others alone to decide for themselves if they wish to discuss it or not.

Fran

Eric.
05-21-2002, 07:24 AM
Hi Fran,

I'm a little late on this one.
I agree that Mike's comment was not in the best taste, but I don't think he meant anything by it. Some people don't think things all the way through.
The only thing I'm gonna say is that you are a Champion. Now i'm not trying to blow smoke up yours, I mean it! But we are all human and the point I'm making is that sometimes people need to get pissed off enough about something to give them that extra spark. I suggest you print this thread. Carry it in your cuecase. Read it again before you practice, everytime.
I think it will be a short time before you are on top again, it's not a matter of if, but when.

Eric >my 2 cents(.01 resale value)

cheesemouse
05-21-2002, 10:55 AM
Confused,
When Mike H. posted these 'stats' my thinking was "hey, this is great" because I can't figure out on my own what is what in the WPBA in regards to those levels. I was grateful that Mike had taken the time to provide me a service which I am unwilling to provide myself. What he posted were just results or just facts that, when all is said and done, the WPBA's website could, or better yet should have on their website.
Being the professional that she is, I know Fran will double down and be delighted when Mike posts the next big change in the levels. Truthfully, I never considered these results could be hurtfull and I'm sure Mike didn't either. I now think I understand how Fran feels about it but I didn't want to pile on Mike and at the same time be grateful for the service he provided me.
If I were the the pool god I would sprinkle the magic dust all over Fran and make her #1. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Doctor_D
05-21-2002, 12:30 PM
Good afternoon:

I second that suggestion.

Dr. D.

Tom_In_Cincy
05-21-2002, 01:11 PM
Status? just THE best touring PRO on CCB ever!!!
Still NUMBER 1 with me..

05-21-2002, 03:54 PM
Mike,

I think your right on posting the stats. Why should pool players be exempt from fan scrutiny. Fran is only one of what I call the two win and out ladies who have been hanging on in the WPBA for years taking space away from the Jennifer's and the Lorri's.

With the 64 player format the two win and out hangers stick
out like a bunch of people who should retire or be prosecuted for fraud. Thanks Mike keep the stats comming.

Anonymous

05-21-2002, 04:09 PM
Does your husband play nine ball Ms Anonymous? Is he mean to you all the time- - like you are here?
Try to be polite, just every so often...you'll like how it makes you feel. Its like the first two lines of this response...does it do anything but infuriate? no....just read and don't respond.

05-21-2002, 04:22 PM
Hello Anonymous,

Well since you've taken such an interest in me, I'll be happy to oblidge with some background information. I bet you didn't know that some two years ago I was ranked in the top 16.

I have two aging parents, no brothers or sisters and my mother got sick. She had two life threatening strokes in two years. With each family crisis, I willingly put my family first. I figure my parents lives have precedence ovet shooting balls in holes. Ask Barbara how many NEWT tournaments I've played in the past two years.

Now I know it would please you for someone like me to drop off the tour and make room for someone else. But that ain't gonna happen until they throw me out because I earned my right to be there with all the years of sweat I put into my game and all the good performances I've had, and guess what...it's not over.

So feel free to yell and scream all you like, but you won't have a shread of evidence to prove me a fraud, because unless you play like a top ranked player, I could easily whip your butt.

Now put up or shut up, a##hole.

Doctor_D
05-21-2002, 04:34 PM
Good evening:

Go Fran !!!

Dr. D.

cheesemouse
05-21-2002, 04:37 PM
Now that's the Fran I would love to meet. LOL LOL /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

CarolNYC
05-21-2002, 04:43 PM
Ah,ha ha ha-I really feel sorry for you,ha ha ha ha-boy, I hope one day I'd be there for a face-off,ha ha ha!
Carol~stay anonymous cause the "A" stands for A**hole!ha ha ha!

Doctor_D
05-21-2002, 04:43 PM
Good evening:

Just remember to behave yourself Cheese. If not, you just might lose your nuggets!

/ccboard/images/icons/wink.gif

Dr. D.

05-21-2002, 04:55 PM
Fran- I have never met you personally, but have heard much about you from many sources-and I do not believe anything you do could be considered failure! You have great integrity, are a top flight player, and can only be admired for the care you have taken to consider family over your personal status at this time- Applause from me!!!! Patti I

Barbara
05-21-2002, 05:38 PM
For the record, Fran has played in AT MOST 2 tournaments with NEWT within the past 2 years. The only points I have for Fran would be from last August at the NJ State Women's 9-Ball Championships. And the only reason why Fran probably played at that one was because it's only and hour from where she lives and the room owner begged her to come out.

There are many women on the WPBA tour that don't belong there, and Fran is NOT one of them. Not only can she open up a can of Whoop-A$$ on you, but she can explain and correct all your mechanical flaws afterwards.

You are too used to watching these Phenoms come in from nowhere and take over first place. The fact of the matter is, there are women in the WPBA who are ranked in the teens and the 20s and 30s and 40s who will never advance much more than that. Heck! What about the ones in the top 10 that haven't won in a while?? How about the ones that have never won, but still are ranked up there?? They still keep at it, tournament after tournament after tournament.

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered with failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much or suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory or defeat." -- Teddy Roosevelt

Odds are, you probably have won a tournament or two, here and there. When was the last time you matched up to one of the top pros even-up - male or female? How'd you do? What's your real name?

Barbara

AzHousePro
05-21-2002, 05:54 PM
Fran, while I admit that Anonymous' post was in poor taste, he does have a point to some degree.

If there were 64 local players rated as 8s on a 1-10 scale and they made up the Arizona tour, what would happen when someone who was a 7 rated player worked hard and brought their game to 8 speed? They would be unable to prove it against the best players in town. When that 7 rated player played against 10 rated players from other states and brought their game to 9 speed, they would still be unable to compete but now them not competing is hurting the entire tour because the level of play suffers without that better player.

The 64 8 rated players who are already on the tour would feel that they already proved themselves the best in Arizona so they should remain on the tour but proving themselves as one of the 64 best in the past should not mean they receive the benefits of being thought of as one of the best 64 now.

They should have to put their cues together and play the new player and when the new player finishes better than some of them, the existing player who finished worst should then be the one struggling to get back in.

It is just like qualifying for the Indy 500 this month. Just because someone was on the poll in the first week of time trials doesn't mean they are on the poll when the race starts. If 33 other drivers run faster times than that person, then that person doesn't race.

I am not by any means trying to single you out and I apologize in advance if this message sounds that way. I have met you a number of times in the past and have always respected your opinion in person and here on the board. I also realize that the current shift to 64 player fields make this a moot point to a degree. All I am saying is that the Pro tour should be made up of the top players playing the game at that time.

Mike

05-21-2002, 06:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Hello Anonymous,

Well since you've taken such an interest in me, I'll be happy to oblidge with some background information. I bet you didn't know that some two years ago I was ranked in the top 16.

I have two aging parents, no brothers or sisters and my mother got sick. She had two life threatening strokes in two years. With each family crisis, I willingly put my family first. I figure my parents lives have precedence ovet shooting balls in holes. Ask Barbara how many NEWT tournaments I've played in the past two years.

Now I know it would please you for someone like me to drop off the tour and make room for someone else. But that ain't gonna happen until they throw me out because I earned my right to be there with all the years of sweat I put into my game and all the good performances I've had, and guess what...it's not over.

So feel free to yell and scream all you like, but you won't have a shread of evidence to prove me a fraud, because unless you play like a top ranked player, I could easily whip your butt.

Now put up or shut up, a##hole.

<hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure why you felt compelled to reply to this,Fran.Personal issues are just that...personal.You need not crawl down to this person's level and feel the need to explain what's happening in your life.Your priorities are established and in good order imo.

Hard work,dedication,and perserverance are all obvious traits of a Fran Crimi.These sometime needed temporary set-backs can be a really good thing,young lady. They revive the competiveness and get the juices flowing that may of abandoned us because of whatever.

I've been told that there's a new day tomorrow ... let it go,start over,and let your cue do the talking as any class professsional would.All the best.BS

05-21-2002, 06:45 PM
If the only way I could get there was at Fran's expense, well, I don't think I would. Unless she told me it was OK. Which she wouldn't. Fran is a great lady, great teacher, and has been a wonderful mentor to me and a lot of other young hopefuls out there. I agree that there is a lot of dead wood to be trimmed, but not Fran. The only place she'll ever be considered dead is in her coffin, and even then I'm keeping an eye on her!

JimS
05-21-2002, 08:19 PM
You're right Fran. A little discretion, consideration and kindness go a long way.

05-21-2002, 09:07 PM
Fran, no disrespect towards you or anyone else, but even though this type of info has never been readily available to us fans / supporters in the past there is no reason this type of info (the positive along with the negative) shouldn't be public knowledge. I think all of us (fans as well as the WPBA players) should appreciate Mike Howerton's considerable efforts to cover the tour as it has never been covered before, and to keep us informed of stuff like this that up until now was never made available, and apparently no one ever thought that we'd be interested in knowing.

If the WPBA has among it's goals to build a larger and loyal fan base, attract major sponsors and TV contracts in order to allow the players to play for big purses ( and for more than just a select few to make a respectable living from the tour) you've got to take the good with the bad. The fans that follow and support the tour are going to want to keep informed of all this stuff if we are to become attached to the tour and knowledgeable about all of it's players - much like fans of all the other popular sports take an interest in.

Fran, as you know I follow all the tournaments and I'm sure you'll be back very soon. You had a great showing in San Diego last month despite a very tough draw. I'm sure I speak for many CCB'ers here in support of you and in following your effort to make it back to tour status. Often something like this can be a positive experience for you, as you will no longer take your tour status for granted. If if your pool game and your tournament performances are important to you (as I know they are) you can use this as an added incentive to further improve your game, and you'll be the better for it. My guess is that due to the extended 64 player fields, you'll get plenty of opportunities and invites to upcoming WPBA tourneys simply from the points rankings until you are able to earn back your tour status. You'll also have the additional chance to polish up your game and prove yourself in the very competitive WPBA qualifiers. Fran, best wishes in your upcoming tourneys. - Chris in NC

05-21-2002, 09:43 PM
Mike, you may have met me several times, but I think you forgot to introduce yourself. I can't place your face with your name although I do know you by your reputation.

There is a big debate going on right now and things may change drastically within the WPBA very soon. You and the anonymous idiot may see your wish come true (not that I am categorizing you with such a person. You obviously have a lot more class).

However, I think you should keep in mind that the recent past does have meaning because if you don't allow the past to have meaning then you will see all players qualifying for every event. While that may sound appealing to some of you, it can no longer be called a tour. All you can call it are a bunch of unrelated tournaments.

So the next question you have to ask is if the past is to have meaning, then how far back do you go? The WPBA counts 10 tournaments or one year, whichever is greater. That is not out of line when compared to any professional tour.

The next question is what defines a touring pro during that one year or ten event period? This is one of the issues being debated now and one that I believe will change. Presently it's two top half finishes and 80% participation. I think probably both criteria should change. I know players with three and four top half finishes who can not make 80% of the events and therefore can not be invited as touring pros, yet their performance is higher than others who are touring pros. Also, if you stop demanding that players show up 80% of the time, that will open up more spots for up and coming players to participate.

The next issue is what do you do with the remainder of the field? Presently there are active pros, pros, semi-pros and the related qualifying spots. I look at active pros and pros as probationary postitions. They are partially "there" and they have one year's time to either move up or move down. It's kind of like climbing a big, long staircase and stopping on a landing to catch your breath. You'll either continue to go up or you'll turn around and go back down. But you can't just stay on the landing. The system's not set up that way. Some people THINK that it's that way and that certain players have remained in the same position seemingly for years, but keep in mind that the system we now have in place is only a year old, and as far as I can tell, there is a lot of movement both upwards and downwards. It's working.

The thing that I see so often is impatience. The WPBA put what I see as a decent system in place (at least it's a good start) and everyone wants it to start reflecting change immediately. You have to go through at least one complete cycle in order to see if it's working and as Dr. D. so aptly worded it, the landscape is indeed changing.

Thanks for your comments, Mike. Always appreciated.


Fran

05-21-2002, 10:23 PM
Chris, I'm a big golf fan. As a fan, I want as much information about every player that I can get. Why? I think partially because of curiosity and let's face it, that's what we fans do. We suck up information about the thing the thing we love to follow and I'm right there with the best of them.

So I can certainly understand why you and others might not understand or appreciate the concept of witholding information about a player, because the more we give you, the more intimate with us you become, and that's good for a fan.

I think it's important that a sports organization, or any organization for that matter, understand the delicate balance between satisfying and building a fan base and looking out for the well-being of it's members.

Thanks for all your encouragement. Thankfully for me, it wasn't announced the last time it happened to me and I breezed through the rough spots quietly and the way that suited me best.

Regards,

Fran

05-21-2002, 10:47 PM
Thanks Patti. That's awfully nice of you. I've enjoyed reading your posts---I can see you'll be a great asset to the CCB family of posters. Instead of continuing to plaster my name all over this darn thread, I'd like to thank the others who I haven't responded to for their encouragement and postitve comments. Jim, Dr. D., Eric, cheeze, Barbara, Carol...I know there's more. Well, thanks all.

Fran

05-22-2002, 12:12 AM
Hi Fran.
I have no idea how the tour works. I hope those tournaments aren't limited to a total of 64 players. I can understand if the top 64 get rated as tourning pros or whatever they are called. And they should get to play in all the tour tournaments for the next year maybe. Or at least the next 6 months.

But then are the tournaments open to all comers? And maybe out of them another 64 get seeded. Then maybe the top 64 pros would play their first match against the other 64 that qualify. This would sort of give the pros a supposedly easy first match as a reward for making it to the touring pro ranks. Maybe someone could explain just how the tour tournaments and non tour tournaments work.

One more thing. If these tournaments pay as poorly or as low as I have been reading, maybe that 80% participation is too high. Since most of the top 64 players probably can't make a living off the tournament, the participation should probably be lower. Can they be realistically expected to travel and participate in 80% of the tournaments? How could they afford that? 50% would sound more realistic. At least until maybe the top 40 or more pros can make about $50,000 yearly in the tournaments.

05-22-2002, 07:38 AM
You've got the right idea, Eddie. BTW, (I don't think I was ever in Chicago in the early 80's, to answer your previous question.)

The tournaments are only open to a total of 64 players because any more players than that would require longer hotel stays and more expenses for the players. I'd like to see it opened to more players in the future too.

The top 32 touring pros are seeded and don't have to play each other their first match. You're exactly right in that the prize money doesn't facilitate demanding that the touring pros attend 80 percent of the events. Even if you cut down their participation time, as you've said, they still can't make a living. The only real solution is to get out there and find more money to pay the players. Until that can be accomplished, no one can really make a living, no matter how it all gets rearranged.

Fran

05-22-2002, 08:35 AM
Congrats to Melissa Herndon and Megan Smith. Keep up the good work! Fred

facets58
05-22-2002, 08:50 AM
Anonymous with no brain. Go crawl back under your rock.

I know Fran pretty well and she is one class act. You not too smart to make your post with little or no information behind it.

My origional post might be questionable in some eyes, but yours is not acceptable.

Fran can shoot, a lot better than her scores or results have been.

Mike--

AzHousePro
05-22-2002, 05:10 PM
We have met at least twice in Vegas that I can remember. I did not get a chance to say 'hi' this year as whenever I saw you, you were on the other side of the room or otherwise occupied.

(I did see you out relaxing at the pool one day last week when I was talking business inside at Kady's.)

It sounds like the current solution is a large step in the right direction. I think the last 10 tourneys should be a pretty good indication of someone's current ability.

I can see where there would be a problem if the WPBA didn't require a certain # of tourney appearances. They could easily have more than 64 players with legitimate right to play in any given event otherwise.

All in all, it sounds like the WPBA and other parties understand the situation and are looking for the proper solution. You can't ask much more than that.

Mike

05-22-2002, 09:17 PM
Mike, are you sure I was 'relaxing' at the pool and not falling off the lounge chair laughing my fool head off? I guess Carol wasn't there that day. LOL

The next time we meet, do something like pull my hair and remind me it's you, willya?

Anyway, I think the next thing that needs to be addressed in the WPBA is the ranking system. I think there's a lot of room for improvement there. For example, in the present system, all tournaments bear the same amount of weight in calculating the total ranking points. I've been told of a better ranking system whereby older tournaments decrease in value and more current tournaments have more weight.

Here's an example (I'm making up numbers here) for Player A:

This is their tournament point list for the last 10 events, most current being 1 and oldest being 10:

1. 100
2. 50
3. 40
4. 150
5. 100
6. 30
7. 70
8. 200
9. 200
10.200

Total:1140


Now, out of that 1140, 600 represents finishes in the oldest three events for that player. Unless Player A can earn 200 points in each of their next three events, their ranking will take a big hit when they drop off their last 3 tournaments, plunging them down in the rankings.

A solution to that is a gradual decrease in weight of events so that the person's status can remain more current and more accurately reflect their position. So that say for example, after the first 3 current events, each event loses a certain percentage of points, possibly a 10 percent reduction, giving more weight to the more current events. It would then look like this:

1. 100
2. 50
3. 40
4. 150 - 10% = 135
5. 100 - 20% = 80
6. 30 - 30% = 21
7. 70 - 40% = 42
8. 200 - 50% = 100
9. 200 - 60% = 80
10.200 - 70% = 60

Total: 708

Everyone's point totals would change and their rankings would change as well since the latest events would bear more weight than their performance in earlier events.

I think it's a good system and I'd like to see something like that implemented.

Fran

05-22-2002, 09:54 PM
Fran, that concept of proportionately weighting the more recent tournaments more heavily seems to make perfect sense to me - particular since in the past 2-3 years (with only like 6 WPBA tourneys a year) the last 10 events goes back closer to 2 years than one. When this last 10 tournament points system was developed a number of years ago, I'm guessing there was easily 10 or more tournaments per year.

Fran, the only other change in the current point system I would strongly recommend is that any player that goes 2-and-out (failing to win a match) in any tournament should not IMO earn any ranking points at all from that event. Why should a 2-and-out performance gain these players any advantage over anyone else that didn't make the field? This change would wean out certain marginal players whose tourney performance does not warrant ranking points, but yet (thanks to the minimal points given to a player just for showing up) they still manage to keep enough ranking points to stay high enough on the waiting list to keep getting invitations and clogging up the fields - preventing more skilled players an opportunity for a spot in the field. No disrespect to any veteran players that have supported the tour both financially and with their time and effort is meant here, but this IMO is a problem that has existed for a number of years on the tour and needs to be addressed. Any comments? - Chris in NC

05-22-2002, 10:01 PM
Well, rather than keep bringing up the veteran players, Chris, perhaps you should consider an up and coming player who fights hard to win a qualifier and finally wins a spot in a pro event, only to find that they draw into two very tough matches. Under your suggestion, they not only go home disappointed, but they go home with no points at all which leaves them with no reward whatsoever for winning the qualifying spot and right back where they started.

I don't think it's a good idea.

Fran

05-22-2002, 10:44 PM
Wow, 7 minutes - thanks for the fast response. I guess I'm not the only one that camps out on the CCB late at night waiting anxiously (for the last customer to leave, and) to see if anyone responds to my most recent posts! I am however going to bed immediately after this post, so I won't have the opportunity to respond again until tomorrow sometime.

Fran, I certainly see your point. However, I'm not really worried about those talented young players. If they have the skill and if they persevere and pay their dues (as most of you all had to do), they'll manage to win enough qualifiers and eventually perform well enough and win enough matches in the tour events to work their way up the points list - which they'll in fact do alot quicker IMO if the dead weight is not filling up all those spots and still gaining those valuable 10 or 15 or whatever points for every tournament they show up and go 2-and-out in.

Yeah, they may have a tough draw, but with the 64 player fields now there's only a 1 in 3 chance any unseeded player's first round match will be against a top 16 seeded player. Then, it's highly unlikely (if they do lose their first match and enter the one-loss bracket) that their next and/or even their 3rd round match would be against a seeded player - or at least certainly not one of the stronger seeded players as they rarely visit the left side of the brackets that early.

Yeah, I know there are alot of experienced quality unseeded players that can and will likely give these newer players a lesson. However, IMO it's only that very elite and short list of top seeded players that most of the others really fear and don't think they have much of a chance to win against. Fact is anyone else in the field can be beaten with good execution and managing to handle the mental game and pressure.

I'd like to hopefully hear some of the other female player CCB'ers opinions on this topic, as well as anyone else. - Chris in NC

05-22-2002, 11:12 PM
I lost my place reading a message. It said there are only about 10 women's tournaments a year. Can the women also play in the men's tournaments? And can they earn points for towards women's standings in men's or open tournaments? Just tossing out some thoughts.

05-23-2002, 01:18 AM
Chris if you happen to post something to me when I'm on line, you'll get a quick response. Actually, I don't camp out on the CCB waiting with bated breath for responses to my posts. I've been home sick and I simply log on and take a look.

Hope you had a good sleep.

Fran

Rich R.
05-23-2002, 04:21 AM
Eddie, Chris and/or Fran may give you a better answer later, but for now, I will give you what I believe to be the answer to your questions.
If a tournament is designated a "Men's" event, of course the women can not play.
If a tournament is an "Open" event, both men and women are welcome.
The points that Chris and Fran are talking about are a points system, set up by the WPBA to rank players. I believe points can only be earned by the women when they play in WPBA sanctioned events. Currently, there are only six or seven tournaments in the year.
I hope I have this right. If I don't, I'm sure some one will correct me.
Rich R.

facets58
05-23-2002, 01:22 PM
Rich,

I think you nailed it.

Mike--

05-23-2002, 01:31 PM
Fran, of course I was just kidding as I was shocked to see a reply that quickly that late at night - which is always a nice surprise.

After giving it a little more thought based on some of your comments and suggestions, I strongly feel winning a WPBA qualifier (especially these days as competitive and tough as they are to win) really ought to be worth some (maybe 5 or 10) tour ranking points - don't you think?

I'd like to describe a scenario of the problem I'm talking about with the current ranking system / waiting list and how tournament fields are currently filled. Fran please correct me if I'm wrong in any of these assumptions. I admit that this is an exaggeratted hypothetical in order to prove a flaw in the current system, but it could and does happen.

Player A is a veteran WPBA player who may or may not have actually held tour status for awhile, but generally has rarely been ranked in the top 30 for at least the past few years - maybe longer. In the current format there are 64 spots in the field. These spots are made up of the roughly 35 touring pros and probably somewhere between 10-15 qualifier spots from regional tour event qualifiers. Even considering a couple of additional spots reserved for the tournament sponsors and host site, there still remains another 10-15 players that make the Classic tour fields directly from the waiting list - which I assume is based solely on the points rankings. Those non tour status players with the most current points get asked first, and then they simply go down the points list until the field is filled up.

Well anyway, Player A over the last 10 tournaments has managed an invite from this waiting list to play in 8 of the 10 events. They've gone 2-and-out in all 8 events they've played in ( a finish of T49 in every event and a cumulative match record of 0-16 - most of those losses against unseeded players), earning the minimum (I think) 10 points for each event. This current 80 point ranking is generally enough to keep them high enough on the waiting list to continually keep getting invited back to nearly every event despite their dismal overall tournament match record, and without having to even bother attempting to go through the regional qualifiers.

Player B is an up and coming young player struggling to break through and playing in as many qualifiers (as a full time player on one or more regional tours) as they logistically can without spending a small fortune on travel expenses, and still somehow maintaining to hold at least a part-time job. This player has very impressively managed to win 3 qualifier events over the past year and a half, which has earned her entry in to 3 Classic tour events over that time period. In these 3 Classic tour starts, this player never went 2-and-out and managed a cumulative match won/loss record of 6-6 - finishing 33rd, 25th, and 17th. These 3 tourneys have earned her somewhere around 60 ranking points, but her 2 top half finishes falls short of the 4 she would need to earn tour status, so she must forfeit some of those finishes and essentially start over again.

Which one is more deserving of an invitation to an upcoming event, if any spots from the waiting list are available? The answer should be obvious, but under the current system the player with the 0-16 match record would continue to get the invitation (based on their higher points ranking) due solely to the guaranteed points they've been awareded for every event they've played in - despite going 2-and-out every time.

If the point system was changed to whereby player B was awarded additional points for winning qualifiers and player A was not awarded any points for their 2-and-out performances, this situation would quickly be reversed and rectified. Even if player B went 2-and-out in their Clasic tour starts, they'd still rightfully earn and keep more points than player A, just from having won a qualifier.

I hope this has not been too long and confusing, as it's very obvious to me (that after a certain time period) this system would result in a drastic improvement in the quality of the bottom half of the WPBA fields. - Chris in NC

05-24-2002, 05:31 PM
You asked for responses from other women, so I thought I'd chime in.

Your feeling (as I understand it) is: 2-and-out players shouldn't receive any points for "just showing up". They can easily just win another qualifier to get another opportunity to play in another pro event.

I respectfully disagree for a few reasons. Qualifiers are not plentiful; I would have to drive over 3 hours to get to the closest qualifier event.

A more compelling reason is this: In order to bring your play up to that level, you have to *play* at that level. When I played in a monthly regional tour (when there was one in my area), I found that my game improved tremendously because it gave me an opportunity to play at the level I aspired to. You say a player should earn her right to play in those events, but it is BY playing in those events that she hones the skills to "earn" the right.

Another reason: You may not realize it, but it is damn costly just to attend a pro tour event. When I last was interested in it, the entry was either $400-$500. (Keep in mind aspiring players don't have sponsors to help them offset that.) Also factor in the cost of the "approved" lodging for the event for 3 nights, airline travel, meals, and the loss of income in taking time off work to arrive on Thursday p.m. as required. There is a great deal of money and time invested in order to "just show up", and aspiring players do that knowing full well that they are unlikely to cash.

What they can do is earn a few points that hopefully will incent them to keep trying, and I don't think it's right to deny that.

Amanda

05-24-2002, 06:23 PM
My pool hero's are the Fat Man, Allen Hopkins, Karen Corr and Dawn Hopkins so a pool instructor ranked as high as maybe 16th in the WPBA has not a whole lot of interest or excitement for a pool fan like me. Also a blustering, posturing, loud mouth like Anonymous 2 has no interest for me what so ever. What is life with out a little bit of salt. Fran your pool playing isn't secret everyone can see it. That Knows POOL! You got to show me?

Anonymous

05-24-2002, 08:08 PM
Huh?

facets58
05-25-2002, 10:03 AM
It is not easy to win a qualifier, especially now. There were a group of scavengers (as I call them) who would travel to any and all qualifiers. There were 3 girls who did this, Kim Shaw, Sarah Ellerby and Ikumi Ushiroda. Sarah and Kim have "made it" on the Pro tour by playing at a very high level. Ikumi won the 2001 Brunswick Regional Tour Championships. If Ikumi hadn't won the RTC she would not be playing in the WPBA at this time.

There are over 600 players at the regional level. Only 9 players have made it to "Pro status" in the last 3+ years. The players (Kim and Sarah are the exception) need to rely on winning qualifiers and then after they have competed in those pro events get some help from their ranking in order to get more exposure on the pro tour. The odds of a player getting to the pro tour and getting Touring Pro status are about 1%, given the amount of players on the regional tour level. I think that is tough enough.

Your ranking should be your ranking, players should be able to at least count on that. Players that have gotten to that level have played for years to get to that spot.

The structure is a working model. The stronger players are rising up and the weaker players have and are dropping off. There are also some good players who haven't performed as well as they normally do.

Because there are only 7 tournaments...it takes time. Ten tournaments can take up to 20 months. The events have to play out before you can see how everything plays out. The structure WILL PUSH OUT THE WEAKER PLAYERS. Trust me, I know the structure very well, and I have seen it in action.

Focus. Reward the players coming from the regional tours. That is the structure that the WPBA has put in place to groom the next group of players. Don't discourage these players by diluting the points they have "earned".

Keep the ideas coming.

Mike Hurst--

05-25-2002, 09:00 PM
ALPHA you are an embarrassment to the human race. It's obvious you plagerized parts of someone else's post to try to disguise your butchery of the English language because none of it makes sense in context. The dead giveaway was ending it with your signature question mark that never belongs where you put it. I never met anyone who was as big a loser as you who gets cheap thrills out of destroying message boards and badgering people.

Your name is William Englert and you lost your right to be anonymous. I know you very well because I live near you and I will be watching you. Leave these decent people alone or someday you may turn around and I will be there in your face. This is the last and only warning you will get from me.

A REAL Anonymous Person

05-26-2002, 10:15 AM
oh, now I get it. It must have been late, I should have caught on right away.

05-26-2002, 01:04 PM
Mike,

You sure are a wish wash kind a like a wind chime. Fran
said her self she has never been ranked above 16th. I don't know if that is true as I don't follow her so I have never
checked.

Anonymous

05-26-2002, 01:26 PM
Mike,

You call great players like Kim Shaw and Sarah Ellerby scavengers because they are connected to great sponsors and can travel anywhere in the US to play in tournaments. Man you are a wind chime. Now you discriminate against people
who can afford to play. Man your are a waste of time.

Anonymous

facets58
05-26-2002, 02:23 PM
Hey anonymous.

When did ignorance become a chronic disorder for you. I think you just like to push the envelope without any basis of fact.

I'm not sure what your point was in your last post because there was a definite lack of any well thought out idea. As far as discriminating...get a life. I was the first person to congratulate both Kim and Sarah when they got their 4th pro points (Sarah in San Diego and Kim in Vegas). When they were playing in the qualifying system last year, they both sought out qualifiers like scavengers. They made it to the Pro level by hard work. I respect that.

All 3 of the ladies (Kim, Sarah and Ikumi) have played in my events. I welcomed all of them into my regional tour as well as the regional tour championships.

I run the largest WPBA regional tour in the country (SCWBT).

I put together one of the most prestigious amateur women's events ever held -- The 2001 Brunswick Regional Tour Championships.

Oh and by the way I also do the rankings for the WPBA.


It's best if you check both sides before you cross the street, you might get run over. SLAM!!!


Mike Hurst-

facets58
05-26-2002, 02:47 PM
What's your point...

Mike--

facets58
05-26-2002, 02:52 PM
I think the post you were referring to was actually written by Gremlin.

Mike--

05-27-2002, 04:46 AM
I would like to state "I Bill Englert haven't posted over here in more then a year."

facets58
05-28-2002, 10:27 AM
Anonymous,

Kim Shaw called me yesterday to find out what her ranking was and to get some other information. I asked her if she was aware of your post and she said no. When I mentioned what you said she just laughed. You couldn't be more off base (I think you already knew that).

For those of you who don't know Kim, she is one of the real good ones. A real class act.


Mike--