Ageism in bar billiards

I am starting this thread in deference to a certain member who we have to thank for the very existence of this Forum (but with whom by his own request I am forbidden from having further communication !)

This is because amongst all the rhetoric and frivolity, he has made a serious point - where special competitions were once devised to help the minority groups - old codgers, at the time the over 50's - and under 21's (basically for a profusion of teenagers in the 1970s and 80s), the age balance of people playing the game has now shifted dramatically, the over 50's being the majority and the under 21's virtually non-existent.

The under 21's has been allowed to move with the times, and has become variously under 22's, under 23's, under 25's and under 30's (I speak generally across league and county) basically so as the same people could take part, without whom the competition would probably fizzle out.

The under 50's has (due to the nature of the beast: people age !) gone in the opposite direction and at national level resulted in a doubling up, with an over 60's being introduced. But instead of an over 55's taking over from the over 50's it was a case of 'join our club' for those reaching 50 - which I reckon must be over 50% of the bar billiards playing public.

They say that 50 is the new 40 and 60 is the new 50 and that many a good tune can be played on an old fiddle. When I started playing some of the old guard still around at the time were wearing dapper suits, sometimes even hats, and soon gave up the game when young upstarts came along and knocked them off their perches. But those same 'upstarts' are still playing 40 years later in jeans and t-shirts, and remain at the top of the game well into their 60s and even 70s !
(To underline the point, most of the Brighton and Worthing players I used to do battle against for Horsham as a 20/30 year old are still going strong now (which I think is totally brilliant, by the way)).

In the local leagues I play in, the over 50's often has an almost identical lineup to the 'normal' Men's Individual. And I can understand anyone who falls between the two stools of 30 and 50 feeling discriminated against - they are now in a minority, no question.

So, what's to be done ? I'm not advocating a new competition for 30 - 50 year olds. Those who have made it through from that age bracket tend to be exceptional players anyway and would probably favour any competition they take part in to be 'open' - and would be capable of winning it.

But I do think we should look at the top age bracket as being over 50 doesn't seem to mean much these days - you can't even claim part of your pension any more. So for me, "over 50's" and "over 60's" should now become "over 60's" and "over 70's" if they are to have any further relevance.

What do others think ?

[BB Warrior]

Nov 13, 2013 12:01:18 GMT tommo III said:

But I do think we should look at the top age bracket as being over 50 doesn't seem to mean much these days - you can't even claim part of your pension any more. So for me, "over 50's" and "over 60's" should now become "over 60's" and "over 70's" if they are to have any further relevance.

Some interesting points made here by Tommo, however I am really not sure about the bit above. At a time when numbers are often falling in competitions (at both local and national levels) do we want to further reduce the numbers by making less people eligible to play to start with?

My own view would be no, leave things exactly as they are.

Nov 13, 2013 13:09:03 GMT BB Warrior said:

At a time when numbers are often falling in competitions (at both local and national levels) do we want to further reduce the numbers by making less people eligible to play to start with?
My own view would be no, leave things exactly as they are.

I'm inclined to agree for that very good reason.

Perhaps if the word 'now' were changed to 'eventually'........

So for me, "over 50's" and "over 60's" should now eventually become "over 60's" and "over 70's"

Maybe 4 or 5 years down the line ?

[gandalf the untidy]

In my old cricket club we had an oldens v youngens match, we called it the "over and unders" and the cut off age was designed to ensure approx half the members were eligible for one team or the other.

very civilized i thought

regs cs

[Coleman Jnr]

I like the idea of a over 50's V Under 25's Match (or possibly 30)

As im sure I speak for the other usual culprits when I say that the other "young'uns" would be up for it also!

[The Chubbster™]

When I first started playing, we were very interested by the idea of England Youngsters vs The England Team. We made the age limit basically so that myself, Richard Wooton, Nigel Senior and Chris Reeves could all play (all in our 20’s at the time), and with players like Steven Sheard still in their teens, we thought it would be a good game.

My own perspective on this debate basically mirrors Tommo’s thoughts in many ways. The issue was raised when I was making a joke in the pub, and believe me it was a joke! It was based on the fact that when I was 23, there at the time was a prestigious Under 22 tournament that I could not enter. Then when I was 26, that tournament (at least I think) became the under 25’s. And low and behold when I came back after all these years having just turned 30, I was then seeing and hearing talk of Under 30’s. The joke of course was that these “Under” something tournaments basically followed my age, making me ineligible to play at all times. Warrior got the most laughs in the pub when I was campaigning for the Brighton Tournament to become an “Under 35”, to which he proudly proclaimed he would defiantly vote for that change on the Brighton Committee…. And he would do so the very day I turned 36……

But to take this point more seriously and now that I have thought about it in a serious light, Tommo makes some good points. It’s true that in other sports they have Upper Age tournaments (a good example being golf with their Masters Tour) but the reason for their existence is purely because it gives those who would not otherwise realistically win on the main tour/competition a chance to still play and be competitive. Now it’s true of course that occasionally one of those “older” players will do well and even win in a “main” completion (a great example is Tom Watson in the Open a few years ago) but you get the basic idea.
Of course, that’s not the case in Bar Billiards. There are plenty of players Over 50 in our game who could genuinely be considered World Class so to speak, if not the best players outright (I’m not going to guess and KT’s, Keith’s or Pauls, Warriors, Jim’s etc age, apologies if any of you are under 50 lol) hence making the need for that age bracket to have a selected tournament to make them competitive completely redundant. Once you admit that, then it’s a simple matter of fact that someone like me gets FEWER opportunities to play competitions as someone who is Over 50, and that I believe is unfair.

Under 25’s or whatever I can see the point of, as it encourages younger players to participate and win who have less experience than older players. But to me it does seem strange that we have an Over 50’s etc when those players in it don’t need Age Restricted tournaments to be successful.

That said, all of this matters not to me. It does not bother me nor annoy me, and when talking and discussion Bar Billiards with a view to moving the game forward, I believe this is a small if not tiny issue. For that reason I don’t mind. If people want to have an “Over” something tournament then fine, and if it gets players playing who would not normally enter a tournament then all the better. But my personal preference if I was absolutely forced to choose would be to up the age limit for the Over something’s, and lower the Age limit for the Under something’s.

One last interesting point though, and I address this because I found the follow quote from the Warrior interesting…

Some interesting points made here by Tommo, however I am really not sure about the bit above. At a time when numbers are often falling in competitions (at both local and national levels) do we want to further reduce the numbers by making less people eligible to play to start with?

With that comment in mind, if we are concerned about numbers, then that forces me to ask the question….. If you’re going to go to all the trouble of organising a tournament, why have any age limit? Would that not be the best way to increase participation?

Anyway again I will state, I’m really not that bothered about all of this. But I thought I would reply as it’s an interesting discussion, and seeing as I seemed to have inadvertently started it, I thought I would add my 3 pence worth.

[Coleman Jnr]

A similar thing happened in the Northants League, we had an Under's competition which started at under 18's and went up until under 21's, which inadvertedly followed the age of myself and another lad who unfortunately doesn't play anymore. This was done for a few reasons, obviously to keep the numbers up, secondly to help us get more playing time and hope to make us better players, and thirdly to echo Chubbster's point, to give us a chance of winning a competition. The same thing also happened with the Inter Area Under 22's, which has been changed to under 25's next year to help with numbers. With the obvious lack of younger generations starting, and ( ill be very careful with my words here, and no offence has been intended) the better players becoming older and being eligible to play in the Over's competition, surely if its a competition where you want to give other people a chance to win, age shouldn't come into it. I know before I started playing Kent used to have a minnows competition where no one in the top 50 (I believe) could enter, because its quite clear age has no reflection on ability.

Just a thought to add to this healthy discussion

Just to add that many of these Over 50 competitions started out as replacements for the Landlords Cup (true of Horsham, Mid-Sussex and S.C.B.B.A) due to dwindling numbers of landlords entering.

At the time I felt very sorry for the landlords losing their competition as it wasn't their fault in a changing industry. But it seemed a logical move to do something for the 'elder statesmen' at the time.

Now most of us still playing the game are 'elder statesmen' so it has all become rather meaningless.

I for one have never bothered to enter an Over 50's competition. (You won't find evidence of me in one anywhere !) Simply because if I can't win the main singles then for me winning a 'closed' competition would be a blunted achievement.

[The Chubbster™]

One small point I would like to add to this discussion, and I mention it purely because it highlights extremely well a fundamental problem that I believe we have in Bar Billiards.

We (at least in my opinion) tend to sometimes (and maybe the majority of times, although I can't speak for other leagues etc) focus on the wrong things when looking to enhance the profile of our game. And the changing over the "Under" something competitions I believe highlights this.

It has been mentioned many times that the Under 22's is being changed to Under 25's (just an example) to maintain the level's of competitions. Whilst I understand that and in many ways agree, that's only papering over the cracks of the problem and not address the solution. Rather than change age limits, should we not be working to ensure that more young players play so we don't need to change the age limits? It seems that such a measure is not actually addressing the problem at all.

One thing that re-enforces my opinion happened this week, when I was talking to Mario who was at the Rugby match this weekend. He was totally and utterly blown away by the Level of interest in Bar Billiards. He was pretty much bombarded with requests as to where they could buy tables, where they could play etc Groups of people wanted one for their pub/home. Unfortunately he did not know about Tommo's map, which he now kicks himself that he didn't have on the day as he could have directly literally dozens of new enthusiastic people to their nearest table.

As I have always, always says, the level of interest in bar Billiards is there, we just need to get to word out so to speak. If we did then we would not have to keep changing age brackets to ensure numbers of entrants, that problem would simply take care of itself. I was so, so excited by the proposal last year for a AEBBA Publicity officer, yet I highly doubt that particular post is going to be created.... yet in many ways it's probably the most vital post we could create.