Most readers will be aware of the recent decision of the IBSF (International Billiards and Snooker Federation) which will allow professional players to compete in World Amateur Championships via their National Amateur Championships. Most readers will also be aware that at a meeting held in Birmingham, the Management Committee of the EASB (English Association for Snooker and Billiards) voted unanimously to reject this proposal. A week or two later (7th August) and as anticipated, the members of the Management Committee, together with Area Representatives, were invited to a further meeting to be held to be held in conjunction with the Executive Committee, at the WPBSA headquarters in Bristol. The Birmingham decision was reversed. It seems that it was a case of, "e who pays the piper calls the tune. "s far as I can gather, Area Representatives were left in little doubt that the WPBSA would be reluctant to fund the EASB unless they were prepared to accept the IBSF proposals. The end product of the meeting was that the proposal was passed - though not unanimously - after which the members of the EASB Billiards Committee resigned.
The secretary of the EASB Billiards Committee, Albert Hanson, wrote to EASB Coordinator Freya Broad:-
Dear Freya
"It is with regret that I tender my resignation as secretary of the Billiards Committee. The decision taken on Monday to accept the IBSF ruling to allow professionals into the National (Amateur) event is one that I fundamentally cannot accept."
Those concerned with (particularly) the organisation of the Amateur Championship have been accused of, "ackwoodsmanship", anti-professional bias, wanting to be, "big Fish in Little Ponds," and worse. I don't think that there is any truth in this, and in any event, these unpaid administrators, by standing down, have given up the chance of being even bigger fish in an even bigger pool. No; I think that there is a genuine feeling that, under the existing set-up, this ruling is wrong. I have spoken to many people in both billiards and snooker and, with a few exceptions, all have stated their opposition. The BQR position is unequivocally against. Under the present arrangement, those players who pay their fee to be members of the WPBSA are said to be professionals and eligible for WPBSA ranking events, and those who pay their fee to be members of the EASB and are eligible for EASB tournaments, are said to be amateurs. These form two quite different categories of player. It is true that there are now a number of Open Tournaments (Tour Events) but this is, I think, another question and not relevant to the point at issue. I believe I am right in saying that these events fall into the category of Pro-Am, and are open to any player whether a member of either of the two organisations or not. As regards anti-professional bias, I can justly claim that the BQR has done everything it possibly can to try to promote interest in the professional game. I can claim that interest in professional tournaments has increased as a consequence of increased awareness of what is happening in the game, an awareness generated through the pages of this magazine.
I cannot but feel that, given that there is a distinction between members and non-members of the WPBSA, acceptance of the IBSF decision is wrong. If the IBSF, together with the ruling bodies of the game in various countries, had come up with some form of proposition aimed at abolishing altogether the distinction between amateur and professional; if they had worked out a structure designed to accommodate all grades of player; then that would be quite a different matter. Given the necessary requisite period of time to consider all the implications of such a move, I believe that virtually all players could have been satisfied as to the fairness of such a system. I believe that this will eventually be the case and I would support it, but cannot support the latest
situation. There is, of course, and especially in snooker, a very grey area. More than a few of the entrants to the Amateur Snooker Championship are young full-time players, many of them just boys, who are sponsored in one way or another, but I do not think that this invalidates the basic premise that there is an official distinction between amateur and professional/If it were considered to be a good idea to be rid of this distinction then be rid of it, but let's be rid of it in an above-board, even-handed manner.
As it is, "you pays your money and you takes your choice." or, as one very high-ranking snooker professional remarked to me, "you're either an amateur or a professional. You can't have it both ways. "nd their is not the slightest shadow of a doubt that the great majority of players agree with him.
Just a day or two after the EASB decision to accept the IBSF ruling, members of the EASB received a newsletter dated the 15th August which included an entry form for the various tournaments. I quote from the first item of the newsletter: -
"The EASB has adopted and approved the IBSF ruling which will allow WPBSA members ranked outside the Top 96 to participate in EASB tournaments. This also applies to the IBSF World Championship and European Championship."
EASB members are not informed that this is a reversal of a previous decision not to accept the IBSF ruling. There is no mention of how the decision affects billiards. The entry form states,
"These tournaments are open to WPBSA members ranked outside the top 96 who must state their current ranking position."
Again there is no indication of how the ruling applies to billiards, but entries are invited for the, "Strachan English National Championship." And so it seemed that the oldest tournament of them all, the English Amateur, would no longer exist. However, a number of enthusiasts including Albert Hanson, and Malcolm Lax of Rugby, are making strenuous efforts to keep the English Amateur Championship alive. They claim to have a lot of support from enthusiasts from all parts of the country. Bit it looks increasingly as if there will be a return to the days of three or four years ago and that the game will once again be fragmented. It all seems so unnecessary and such a pity. Just a little bit of foresight, the willingness to take time enough for the matter to be sorted out to the satisfaction of all concerned, and the almost inevitable chaos and recriminations could well have been avoided. It is a very strange thing, but anyone who has made only a superficial study of the history of the game, will marvel that such a gentle game involving hardly any money, seems to have the capacity to arouse quite intense emotions and controversy.