It is reported that the International Billiards and Snooker Federation (IBSF) has made a decision which will allow professional players to play in amateur tournaments.
In what has been described as a history making decision, the IBSF will open up the 1995/56 World Amateur Championship and the 1995/56 World Under 21, to players ranked 129 or lower on the official WPBSA ranking list. This is of course in regard to snooker. They don't seem to have made clear just who will be permitted to enter the championship, and as the snooker rankings get well into the six-hundreds, there would presumably have to be some kind of competition to find the entrant, unless, of course, as is most likely, players ranked 129 downwards were allowed to enter the National Amateur Championship. In 1996, professionals ranked 97 or lower will be eligible. In 1997 the cut-off point will be at 65 or lower. Thus, professional snooker players who never make into the top 64, will still be eligible for World Amateur Championships. Entry to the World Amateur has always been via the National Amateur and so it does seem obvious that from 1997 onwards the Amateur Snooker Championship will be open to any player not in the top 64 of the WPBSA ranking list. The Chairman of the IBSA, a Dr. David Barron from Zimbabwe, is quoted as saying that:-
"This is a major step forward for our federation and reflects the growing co-operation between the IBSF and the WPBSA"
He is also quoted as saying:-
"The decision whether to allow these professionals to take part will still be in the hands of the individual countries."
The English Association of Snooker and Billiards (EASB) has, as yet, made no announcement as to whether or not they will accept this ruling. We shall see.
BQR thinks that it could describe Dr. Barren's, "major step forward," in rather different terms.
All the above refers to snooker so what has it to do with us? I'll tell you.
The same thing will apply to billiards, that's what! Players ranked outside the top eight, No.9 and below, are likely to be eligible for the next World Amateur Championship which is provisionally scheduled for 1996, possibly in Australia, eligibility via the Amateur Championship. Take the case of David Causier. David will play in the next series of Grand Slam and World Professional Championship preliminaries. He is good enough to carve out a successful professional career, but with a ranking system awarding one point per win from the last sixteen onwards in any tournament, it will take him a couple of seasons at least to break into the top eight and probably longer than that - the opposition is very strong. This means that, though playing professional billiards, Causier would still be eligible for the Amateur Championship. David Causier is an honest sportsman and I do not think he would play in the Amateur, but the point is that he would be able to do so if he chose. As would Chris Shutt were he to turn Pro.
There is a good case for abolishing the distinction between amateurs and professionals. This happened in cricket - of all games - years ago. I think that the distinction should be abolished. There would still be a need for some kind of Championship barred to, for example, the World Professional Champion and other top ranked players. But we do not have this situation, though it does seem that the IBSF ruling is the first step along the road. We do have a distinction between Amateurs and Professionals, and it seems to me that, as things stand, a player is either one or the other, you can't have it both ways.
A necessary revision and re-printing of the rules has been on the cards for some time. A further suggestion of the IBSF is that, in future, all competitions will be played to the rules established by the professionals. Professional billiards is played to a 100 point baulk-line rule. This was brought in as an attempt to cut out the perceived monotony of long runs at the spot end. It has to some extent succeeded in doing this. It has also succeeded in alienating what billiards public there is. Long runs at the spot end by a Russell, Gilchrist, or Sethi, with the resulting big breaks, are precisely what the spectator wants to see on those rare occasions when he or she is able to watch the star players. There cannot be an amateur in the world who would want to play under a baulk-line rule, and especially those who find it difficult enough to make the occasional hundred break without having to bother with the hassle of a baulk-line crossing.
Professional play has abolished the coup though for the life of me I cannot see why. The coup is a traditional part of safety play, little used, easily countered, but which can sometimes come into play as a tactical move.
Professionals also play with one yellow cue ball. The new sets of balls are said to be slightly heavier and slightly larger than the traditional ball. Think of the implications if it were insisted that all future official amateur competitions had to be played with these new balls. I'm not one of those who think we ought still to be playing with ivories, but, as regards the new balls, from where are we going to be able to get the darned things? And, if as seems the case, the balls are made to metric measurements, why should the game suddenly and arbitrarily have foisted upon it these balls which, from all accounts make quite a difference in play. I am a little surprised that the professionals have accepted this change with hardly a murmur. Not a professional tournament passes without players, and very well known players at that, making all sorts of scathing comments about the cloths that they have to play on. Some of the comments made about the tables used at Bellingham in the recent UK and British Open are quite unrepeatable. Yet these tables were used at Blackpool for World Snooker preliminaries. They can't have been that bad. For one reason or another they were totally condemned. They were cited as the main reason that no player could top the 400 mark. And yet, the players, seemingly without a second thought, cheerfully accepted a rule which was designed to stop them from scoring, and balls quite different to those which they had played all of their billiards lives. Well, what is there to make of it?
There are many implications in such possible changes as described above. I think they might cause a loss of interest amongst older players. Younger players would accept them, and grow up with them as part of the game. What younger players?
As regards the IBSF ruling, BQR asked the opinion of a number of well known personalities in the game. One very well known professional snooker player thought that the idea was quite ridiculous and was emphatic in saying, "either you are a professional or you aren't. You can't have it both ways."
Albert Hanson has said that he would not be interested in helping to organise Amateur championships if they were going to be open to professionals though he thought it unlikely that any professional would enter the amateur championship.
It seems that the feeling in the Yorkshire Billiards Association is very much against and there has been talk of a breakaway should the EASB accept the proposals.
The view of the billiards fraternity in general is summed up well by Jack Karnehm. Jack, also of the opinion that you can't have it both ways, thinks that the opening up of the professional game to anyone prepared to pay has badly damaged the grass roots of the game. Professionalism should be earned not bought. Allowing professionals to enter amateur tournaments and still retain their professional status sums up the true spirit prevailing in the international hierarchy. Readers opinions please.