What’s the value of structure?

It’s a word that’s been the focal point of a lot of discussion in pool circles of late. Structure in the development of America’s youth players. Structure in a system for determining players for Team USA. Structure in rankings. Structure in formats.

Structure is a pattern of organization. And organization is certainly something lacking in a large portion of the pool world. That’s not a knock, it’s just a reality. And it’s understandable. It takes people and money to provide structure, and pool has always been a sport that’s had to take care of its own. We don’t get much outside help.

Now, much of the structure needed in pool is pretty involved and complicated, like structure in the training of youth players in the U.S. That’s certainly a topic worth discussing, and we’ll delve into that in an upcoming issue.

But sometimes structure is something small and easy, yet it can have a big impact.

I recently got into a debate about whether or not the Derby City Classic 9-Ball division is a “major” title in the sport. I argued that it is not. The others in the debate disagreed.

The actual debate over that particular event isn’t relevant here. And I’ll get into the process by which a major title might be determined in a bit. But to me, the point of having the discussion was to try to help establish various levels of achievement in our sport that give some real perspective as to who the very best players are.

Why is that important? For me, that structure is an important element of giving the sport credibility and visibility outside our little circle. I don’t golf, but I know what the four golf majors are, and I know that those major titles give me perspective as to the success of a golfer’s career. The same with tennis. I know the difference between a tennis Grand Slam event and the Miami Open.

We don’t have that in pool. Heck, even horses have a more structured measuring stick, with the Triple Crown!

Pool has always been its own worst enemy in giving structure to a player’s resume. In the 1980s, any promoter who felt like throwing the word “world” onto their tournament flyer allowed the event’s eventual winner to list “world title” on his or her resume. There were literally years that had three or four “world 9-ball champions.” And any tournament that featured more than five top pros and had a top prize over $1,000 was called a “major title.” When player resumes were handed to sponsors or writers or tournament directors or television crews, they often claimed that the player had won “over 100 major titles” in his illustrious five-year career.

In the end, it doesn’t really help the player. And it doesn’t help the sport. It makes us look silly.

For me, there is renewed hope that we can rectify this calamity. (A little strong? Maybe, but we go for effect here!) Matchroom’s efforts to bring some structure to 9-ball tournaments around the globe, and Predator’s commitment to 10-ball events and world championships in 8-ball and women’s 9-ball may well give us an opportunity to establish some structure to the professional game.

I’d love to see pool have a Grand Slam or a Triple Crown. I don’t even care if we come up with our own tag — Pool’s Quintuple Crown. Or if the sport would prefer to simply create distinction between “majors,” “tour titles” and “regional titles,” that’s fine too. Pool may well need to take that approach since events come and go so frequently.

The final determination of what qualifies events as majors or tour titles or regional titles is not nearly as important to me as the opportunity to establish benchmarks and a list going forward to help give the sport more credibility, and to eventually give a better historical perspective to the professional side of the sport.

I certainly don’t claim to have the answer here, but I do have some thoughts as to what needs to be considered in making these determinations.

First, if pool wanted to boast a Grand Slam, say, how would we determine the four events? WPA World Championships would appear to be obvious, right?

Not so fast. The World 8-Ball Championship was just staged for the first time in a decade. The World 10-Ball Championships have been staged for men in the past two years but was sporadic before that. So, be careful what you include. For me, the events that make up a Triple Crown or Grand Slam absolutely must take place every year.

What about prize money? Surely the amount of money added to the purse as well as the top prize should be a consideration. As must the size and strength of the field. As must the format. Short races? Out. Invitationals? Out.

History is important to me. An event like the U.S. Open and its stepbrother, the International Open, have history and credibility on their side. And I like that they are produced by different promoters. A list of “past champions” plays a big role.

Should there be separate Grand Slams or lists of majors based on the discipline? Perhaps. Maybe 9-ball’s Grand Slam is the World Pool Championship, U.S. Open, International Open and, say, the Asian Open (assuming that will be an annual event). Then your Grand Slam takes in the three main continents in the sport.

And maybe then you call the World 8-Ball, World 9-Ball and World 10-Ball the World Triple Crown.

Again, I don’t have the answer, but let’s start this debate. If nothing else, it will prove that we can actually add structure to something in this sport!