There is some discussion in the Bowling Green Am thread about an amateur who took a prize instead of cash for his finish in a pro division, and whether he is still an Am.

Here's the one-word answer: #$*&$!!!!

Under the old rules the answer was clear: "A player also relinquishes amateur status by accepting prizes in lieu of prize money for finishing in that professional division." Old 804.08(F).

With the new rules 804.08 has been abolished as a rule and the reader is referred to a document on pdga.com. The document on pdga.com provides, "Turning Pro A player relinquishes Amateur status by registering in a Professional division with the PDGA, or by competing in a Professional
division at a PDGA Tour event and accepting prize money based on place of finish." The new standard DOES NOT make a player turn pro for accepting prizes in lieu of money.

A disc is not prize money. That player is still an am.

Hoe
Lee
Cow!

:D

My post got some responses, but they were all in the tournament thread rather than the rules and standards thread, so I'm just copying them over to here:

Chuck Kennedy: Well, if that's the case, it's time to shout it from the rooftops and get more of those top Ams entering Pro and accepting merch in lieu of cash if that's allowed. We had several Ams in the late 90s in Minnesota who we encouraged to play pro for merch prizes (if they cashed) before the rule was changed. Sorry I missed that little tweak in the 2006 documents as a member of the Competition Committee.

Parkntwoputt: Heck if that is the case now, I would have played the pro tournament in Atlanta instead of the Am. I just hated not getting anything for playing well. If I knew I could have taken a prize instead of nothing....well.

Rooster: If this indeed another one of the brilliant rules changes by our Rules Committee, let me be the first to tell you what a stupid and horrible change it is. Thanks for nothing.

I'm curious why Rooster thinks it is a stupid and horrible change. It works for TDs. It works for top adv ams staying am for one more Worlds. It works for middle adv ams who would like to see those top adv ams go play pro right away. I'm not sure why it does not work for intermediates who play advanced.

I'm curious as to why you have been the only one interested in this topic.

Bruce, is there any legal difference between PDGA Amateur Competition and PDGA Professional Competition concerning the illegality you are so deftly afraid of in your own state?

Also why couldn't a Pro play in an amateur division and accept prizes in leau of cash?

Yes, my agenda is that there really is no difference between the two classifications other than one thinks it deserves protection for no substantial or decent reason and one gambles for each others cash with profits going to the Players while the other gambles for each others cash in the form of converted prizes with profits going to the Tournament Director.

I'll admit my agenda openly.


Will you?

Bruce, is your observation absolutely correct on this rule omission? Can the pdga clarify , please!! I think it's a great idea , by the way!!

I'm curious as to why you have been the only one interested in this topic.

All the action has been on the Bowling Green thread. And it is a nice March Saturday so I think a lot of people are out playing disc golf, or sleeping off their St. Paddy's observances. I just started a new thread so the Bowling Green thread could go back to being the Bowling Green thread. I think all five of us who post on pdga.com are interested in this, though.

I care about this because I run tournaments. I think some of my top ams would care about this. It could have a small impact on making a better competitive format for everyone.

I also care about the fairness issue for that one player who took a disc instead of cash. The PDGA changed the rule, intentionally or not. It certainly would not be fair to him to tell him that he loses his am status for taking that disc if he did it when the rule was abolished.

I think this format change was just an oversight and it will be corrected in a few weeks.

I agree with Bruce and the issue will be addressed soon. I don't expect this player will lose Am status over this issue.

The rule should be like it was in the old days.

You take cash, you are now officially a pro.

Back when I played Am Worlds in 1998, I played a few events as a Pro. I actually carried the article in the DGWN that had the rulling that a player did not loose Am status if he took prizes in lew of cash at a tournament.

The rule was changed a few years later.

Bruce, is there any legal difference between PDGA Amateur Competition and PDGA Professional Competition concerning the illegality you are so deftly afraid of in your own state?

Because of what I do for a living I have a higher obligation to follow the law than most people. It is not so much fear as it is obligation. I take my obligations seriously.

The gambling issue generally is addressed in the Waterford Junior Girls' Club thread "Why the Girls DQ'd Themselves." The link to the Michigan Gambling Document in the first post has become obsolete but there is a fresh link in the post made today that should work.

Yes, Michigan law applies to anything of value, so it applies equally to ams and pros. I've spoken to a judge, a judicial staff attorney, a prosecutor, an assitant attorney general, a lawyer who used to do gaming law before he semi-retired himself to traffic court defense work, an appellate criminal defense attorney and a criminal defense attorney. The first six all agree that what we are doing in this state is illegal. The last one just says, "Well, no one is prosecuting it."

The problem in Michigan is a misdemeanor problem that applies equally to the TD and all players, but does not seem to reach the PDGA.

Under the old rules the answer was clear: "A player also relinquishes amateur status by accepting prizes in lieu of prize money for finishing in that professional division." Old 804.08(F).

With the new rules 804.08 has been abolished as a rule and the reader is referred to a document on pdga.com. The document on pdga.com provides, "Turning Pro A player relinquishes Amateur status by registering in a Professional division with the PDGA, or by competing in a Professional
division at a PDGA Tour event and accepting prize money based on place of finish." The new standard DOES NOT make a player turn pro for accepting prizes in lieu of money.

A disc is not prize money. That player is still an am.

Hoe
Lee
Cow!

:D



so am.s can play pro and certain pros can play am.
am i the only one who finds that a little bit contradictory? :D

that said, i think i like it.
:eek: :D

unintentional or not, i think this is a great rule -- a great way to encourage a very good am to try pro. after all, if the person really wanted the plastic, it would be far easier to accrue a hoard of it in am. and if the person plays well and gets into the cash, at least they get some kind of a reward for taking the risk.

Ams entering Open at 1/3 the entry fee to play only for trophies is the current alternative. But not many TDs are familiar with the option yet. However, the 2006 TD report now has an easy way to report those choices and calculate the proper payouts for Open.

I LOVE IT , if this is correct ( that ams can play pro and take prizes ) . I would love to see this again . Along those lines it to me is ONLY fair that a low level pro ( player rating below 955 ) can play advanced and take prizes why cant a higher advanced player play in open and take prizes .

Maybe if enough people love it the competition committee or the board won't bother to change it back. It definately works for TDs if an am playing pro surprises them and says, "Could I take the equivalent in prizes?" It works for all the advanced players who moved up a spot on the payout chart because that guy played pro. It does not take anything away from the pros other than some of them got beat by a player who played a better game.

Speaking from the perspective of a TD's humorous sidekick and putting words in his mouth too, we both love it.

It does not take anything away from the pros



Does the value of the merch get deducted from the Pro's cash purse? If so, then there is, then the total cash payout for Pro's is diminished, and the guy who did so still gets to keep his AM status.

So I disagree with you.

He paid his full entry fee so he contributed fully to the purse and cashed. Why is that any different from a 950 pro cashing in Open one week then merching in Advanced the next? They still have to play well.

Under the old rules the answer was clear: "A player also relinquishes amateur status by accepting prizes in lieu of prize money for finishing in that professional division." Old 804.08(F).

With the new rules 804.08 has been abolished as a rule and the reader is referred to a document on pdga.com. The document on pdga.com provides, "Turning Pro A player relinquishes Amateur status by registering in a Professional division with the PDGA, or by competing in a Professional
division at a PDGA Tour event and accepting prize money based on place of finish." The new standard DOES NOT make a player turn pro for accepting prizes in lieu of money.

A disc is not prize money. That player is still an am.

Hoe
Lee
Cow!

:D



so am.s can play pro and certain pros can play am.
am i the only one who finds that a little bit contradictory? :D

that said, i think i like it.
:eek: :D



Yes, a total mess can be quite likeable.

Doesn't this beg the question "Why do we have two classifications then at all?" Aren't they really the same thing? They are in the eyes of Michigan law.

I think it would be kind of fun to have events where it is just Men's, Women's and Juniors divisions. Have payouts in cash and prizes and pour 50% of the entry fees into awesome event amenities like a first rate cook out, players party, a REAL players package with good discs, a sweet event shirt and raffle tickets for a decent portion of non-competition prizes to be given out following the awards ceremony (which should be infinitely shorter due to their only being 3 or 4 divisions).

Decent sponsorship could make this sort of event off the hook fun, but it would take a backing off of the "gambler" element. (Thought when our sport has a large enough player base and sponsors, prize money and merch should be no problem at all.)

Anything to distract folks from all this emphasis on everyone having to have a "chance" to win in 14 billion protected divisions. Make the main thing having fun and competition for competitions sake. And make the major goodies available to all players regardless of performance, through players packages raffle and final nine spectator prizes.

Why does everyone have to have a chance to win? What does it really mean to win in all of these protected divisions? What is the message it sends our members and guests at PDGAs? That we want you to come out to win your buddies cash in the form of piles of plastic or even straight up cash? There is just something wrong about this to me. Sure the great stuff about disc golf is all still there I guess; but the gambling element is all pervasive, and in the end I really do think it is detrimental to disc golfs image and ability to attract a wider variety of disc golfer.

Maybe those things aren't important if we can keep enough YMWTMTOTHs in the sport, eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and staying 8 to a hotel room...

Ams entering Open at 1/3 the entry fee to play only for trophies is the current alternative. But not many TDs are familiar with the option yet. However, the 2006 TD report now has an easy way to report those choices and calculate the proper payouts for Open.



Correction, not many TDs are willing to offer it because it is different and requires "more work" on their end, regardless of how easy the TD report makes it.

will this be an option at States Tony?? just curious!!

Regarding the trophy-only option, it does require more work from the TD. We offer a trophy only option for every division at our IOSeries in the Chicago area. The vast majority of our players would rather play for cash or prizes, but the few who choose not to appreciate having the choice.

It's not rule 8 0 something point something...

it's called the Chris Lee rule. Get it right!

will this be an option at States Tony?? just curious!!



No. Although I did ask for it.

And make the major goodies available to all players regardless of performance, through players packages raffle and final nine spectator prizes.



You are proposing the above option to take the gambling out of the sport. However, raffles seem to be more like gambling than competing with a specific set of skills.

If I play well, I should win. Winning because I hold a certain ticket number is absolutely gambling as it involves pure luck and not one bit of skill.

I see a lot of illegal raffles at disc golf tournaments. We don't do them at our events. In almost every state you have to have a license to hold a raffle.

This kind of stuff does not offend me. I'm just agreeing with Discette that it is almost always illegal. I don't see any way this sport can ever get from where it is to somewhere big when we are so devoted to game formats we couldn't talk about on TV.

For those of you joining us late, the first post of this thread is interesting, especially for Super-Ams. We aren't talking about it anymore.

You know, this whole thread started because I asked why a 968 rated played that accepted cash last month can play in Bowling Green Ams. I didn't know that the player accepted a disc in lieu of cash when I originally posted. TD's should know better than to post cash winnings, if the player didn't accept it. The "fact" that he accepted a disc hasn't been verified. There aren't many players that are this big of a sandbagger, but this is clearly one that drives the likes of Kevin McCoy crazy.

I'm an amateur, and have played some open events, but my PR is 934.......I'd think that whether or not a player accepted cash or a disc, if your rating is that high, your status has to be relinquished at some point, otherwise we will have 970 rated ams merching all the little tourneys around the country, and that just plain irritating. I really hope I get to play with Tod A. at Bowling Green, I'll be sure to share with him my opinions, in the most professional way possible, as I take it to him on the course. :D

It was my understanding that if you accept cash or cash equivalents, and your PR is >955, you're done in advanced....period. I would also think that this definately relinquishes his right to play in Tulsa, even if his rating was 934.....like mine. :D

What you're saying Bruce, is that if an am somehow won a pro tournament, and didn't want to accept the $500 (just a number, let's assume a small C-tier) he would still be entitled to $500 in plastic, and that cash wouldn't be distributed to the other cashing pros? And they get to keep their am status, regardless of player rating? That's @#*&$'in crazy!:confused: This new rule seems like a pretty good deal for TD's. Now they can profit from the am division and any am that cashes in open. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

What you're saying Bruce, is that if an am somehow won a pro tournament, and didn't want to accept the $500 (just a number, let's assume a small C-tier) he would still be entitled to $500 in plastic, and that cash wouldn't be distributed to the other cashing pros? And they get to keep their am status, regardless of player rating? That's @#*&$'in crazy



This is the best case for trophy only Amateur divisions.

If Am's at all levels only competed for trophies what motivation would a player who is that good have for retaining amateur status by denying all that cash? Because, if you were just paying out Am's in trophies/players packs, then the person who plays pro and denies cash will get nothing.

If you allow an Am to get all the am prizes for competing in the pro division, then you are not helping out the situation for all the other players.

Granted, this new rule does benefit me, as I could cash open at smaller C-tier events, but not being selfish I am looking at the broader picture for the sport.

Make a distinct line between pro and am.

No retail value placing prizes for am's or for am's who place in open.

Pro's get cash....
Am's get atta boys.

I'd like to hear a definitive answer/ruling from the Rules Committee on whether or not this rule was changed inadvertantly or intentionally, and what is the official Rules Committee ruling on whether or not this Pro is going to be allowed to compete at the BG Am tournament.

Sorry, Chuck, but your "I think they'll let it stand" response isn't the level of "official" ruling that I'm comfortable with.

I'd like to hear a definitive answer/ruling from the Rules Committee on whether or not this rule was changed inadvertantly or intentionally,


This is not an official response from the Rules committee, it is merely my opinion/memory.

Since the BOD (and not the RC) was redefining divisional classifications due to ratings (and age changes for Masters), it was decided to remove this from the Rule Book, and just refer to the proper PDGA document. This way the BOD could change the classification as often as they wanted without having to print new rule books.

and what is the official Rules Committee ruling on whether or not this Pro is going to be allowed to compete at the BG Am tournament.


I am 99% sure that this will be a BOD decision, not an RC decision, since the wording in question is not in the Rule Book, but in the 2005 PDGA Tour Player Classification & Divisions document (http://www.pdga.com/documents/05DivisionsGuide.pdf). The BOD may consult with the RC, but the decision will come down to the BOD, not the RC.

It's the Competition Committee that's involved not the Rules Committee and it's already in the process of being discussed. It appears to be an inadvertent omission and not an intended change from last year's policy which was no prizes for Ams cashing in pro. The intent for Ams in the past several years when the rule was changed was for TDs to offer the 1/3 discounted entry fee for Ams to play for Trophy Only in Pro. When it first started, the TD report made it harder for TDs to mess with it. Now, the way to handle it is built right in to the new TD report so hopefully more TDs will offer the option for high rated Ams to test Open without paying a large entry fee penalty to get nothing but expensive experience.

It was my understanding that if you accept cash or cash equivalents, and your PR is >955, you're done in advanced....period. I would also think that this definately relinquishes his right to play in Tulsa, even if his rating was 934.....like mine. :D

Your understanding was correct to the wording of the rules we played by last year. They did away with the rule regarding amateur status in the rulebook and published it in a separate document so that our rules would not become obsolete every time they tweak the format. However, the document omits the provision that you become a pro if you take a prize in lieu of cash in a pro division.


What you're saying Bruce, is that if an am somehow won a pro tournament, and didn't want to accept the $500 (just a number, let's assume a small C-tier) he would still be entitled to $500 in plastic, and that cash wouldn't be distributed to the other cashing pros? And they get to keep their am status, regardless of player rating? That's @#*&$'in crazy!:confused: This new rule seems like a pretty good deal for TD's. Now they can profit from the am division and any am that cashes in open. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

I'm just saying what the new rules say. The rule works for everyone, as far as I can figure. Obviously it works for the TD. It works for advanced players because it gets some players out of their division occasionally. It works for pros because if they beat the guy, they get his money. That guy is going to stay am until Worlds, no matter what. You know that. Give him prizes in the pro division and at least he is not winning advanced at that C-tier.

Thanks Chuck, and Bruce for getting this moved to the correct thread. It really opens up a few things.

1) Players ratings and at what point do you have to move up to pro.
2) Definitely some sort of cash alternative if an AM plays in pro division. Not to mention the rule structure that will go w/this new structure.
3) When I go pro there will be no turning back.

WOW is all I can say.

That's my recollection from when we discussed the rule change in 2004. But I don't know what they may have discussed since then.

I don't really care which way the issue falls, whether they change it back to the 2005 rule or keep it this way. TDs need to know what the rules are, and this is a rule that for now is not what it used to be.

SO what about the <955 player that accepts cash in 2005? His status was protected due to PR (except for majors) under the old verbiage. According to the new verbiage, now he's pro....period.

SO what about the <955 player that accepts cash in 2005? His status was protected due to PR (except for majors) under the old verbiage. According to the new verbiage, now he's pro....period.

If you are asking, "Did they also abolish the Pros Playing Am rule?" it certainly looks like it.

But here the documents conflict. The document that the rules point to omits the Pros Playing Am rule, but the 2006 Tour Standards document includes it. Since TDs are contractually obligated to follow the Tour Standards document and contractually obligated to follow the rules, it is pretty clear that the document that the rules point to must not be the document that the Board intended.

Perhaps this is just a small problem with website maintenance. Perhaps they never got around to posting the document they intended to post at the url given by the rules.

It's not really a conflict. The documents referenced by the rules specify the classification of the player (Pro or Am). I have to say documents because the rules reference the members page on which there are 2 applicable documents listed. The Classifications (http://www.pdga.com/player_class.php) link which connects to the 2004 version, and the Divisions Guide (http://www.pdga.com/documents/05DivisionsGuide.pdf) that links to the 2005 pdf document. Both of which contain the following:


Turning Pro
A player relinquishes Amateur status by registering in a Professional division with the PDGA, or by competing in a Professional division at a PDGA Tour event and accepting prize money based on place of finish.



The tour guidelines do not propose to alter the classification of the player, it just expands the options available to certain "professional" players based on player rating.


�Pros Playing Am�: Pros rated <955 may now compete in Amateur divisions offered at PDGA Tour A B C and D tier events, for which they qualify based on player rating, age, and gender:
2006 Tour Standards (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/06TourStandards.pdf)

Good point. I concede to your better argument. :cool:

where's the fun in that ?

And make the major goodies available to all players regardless of performance, through players packages raffle and final nine spectator prizes.



You are proposing the above option to take the gambling out of the sport. However, raffles seem to be more like gambling than competing with a specific set of skills.

If I play well, I should win. Winning because I hold a certain ticket number is absolutely gambling as it involves pure luck and not one bit of skill.



Suzette, if you play well, and you are a player with an scoring average in the top 10% or so of your division then you could perhaps say that you have a "reasonable expectation" of winning. I can only think of a handful of folks that could get away with saying that if they play well that they "should" win.

This brings up an interesting point though; what is "winning" in PDGA competition?

To the gambling point, if the ticket is part of the players package and the prizes only a fraction of the entry fee (all of the ones I've run have been totally 100% free), then it is certainly less like wagering that if you play well you'll go home with several of your buddies cash. Opinion perhaps, but makes sense to me.

And I don't care if the PDGA wants to continue to base its competitive system entirely on gambling, just make a little organizational room for an alternative. It's like we are stuck in this capitalist dog fight where those with would rather risk total and complete destruction than give up any part of their holdings.

The sad part is that a True Amatuer Class would only increase the Gambler Class' holdings in the end anyway....

I've been trying to get an answer to a question for years now to no avail, maybe you can help me out:

Why is a true amateur classification viewed as such a devastating threat to our prize and cash divisions?

Don't confuse True Amateur Class with this Trophy Only talk. True Amateur Class events could be as rich and amenity laiden as even a USDGC event. The difference would be that the richness of the event would go to ALL competitors based on participation rather than performance.

Yes, I can hear the calls for go do it yourself and then we'll follow coming already. I intend to, but can we really gamble another 25 years of no amateur competition in organized worldwide disc golf promotion? I'm not sneezing at our accomplishments, I just can't help but think that even with doing little more than putting the organizational elements in place and then part-timing the effort to promote and sell it that we could see quantum benefits in only a few years.

Then again, maybe it's just me...

Gary,
I know you well enough now to know, you ask me the same question on the other PDGA thread. Is CASH VALUE the same as MONEY. I also like the way you are point blank about the rules. I have learned a lot from you. Now I am referring this back to Chuck. I honestly believe you will, and the PDGA board, will handle this appropriately,(spelling) the situation. What this rule will do is right now, probably put the best AMs, if they read, all, in a precarious(spelling) situation for next year. My opinion, which is, very little, if you accept cash or equilvant(again spelling), you turn pro right there, and then. If you know you are going to play pro tourney, and have a possibility of cashing, (key)and know, you are going to world AMs, for the last time, why in the #$%^ would you accept cash UNLESS you were a frickent crazy. I know Mr. Brankel, because there is a loop hole. You are very respected in the understanding on the issue.

Talk soon Gary, I am going to BG, then Wimberly. If I do not see you BG definitely Wim TX.



Ron

will this be an option at States Tony?? just curious!!



No. Although I did ask for it.



I inquired about the trophy only option at states too. I mean how many Ams will pay $120 to play with the pros? I know at Waco last year there were 6 or 7 Ams who pitched in the $75 or whatever and I know if it were $40 then there would be a lot of people testing the waters. :confused:

I agree with the concept that prizes are similar to cash, but the bank won't accept my plastic deposits at face value.

I'm not committed to one side or the other of the question. I can see the benefits of both, but I think it should be limited to a one year period. You are allowed to compete in Pro and accept prizes in leiu of cash for one year prior to declaring as a Pro. If your intention is to remain an Am for more than one year, you must decline all winnings in the pro divisions.

This is just to allow those that are holding out to play in the majors as an Am based on the previous year's performance.

My take on this subject matter...

Earlier in this thread someone said that the AM that cashed in pro accepted A disc. If that is so, then I would consider that 1 disc a trophy for the guy finishing at a certain level. I don't see the TD giving out 01 rocs so any disc the AM did get probably didn't have significant value.

My take on this subject matter...

Earlier in this thread someone said that the AM that cashed in pro accepted A disc. If that is so, then I would consider that 1 disc a trophy for the guy finishing at a certain level. I don't see the TD giving out 01 rocs so any disc the AM did get probably didn't have significant value.



a valid point, but it also the responsibility of the player to know the rules.

I cashed in an event in pro and declined it a few times. I made sure I told the TD that I wanted nothing at all from him b/c I knew the rules.

My take on this subject matter...

Earlier in this thread someone said that the AM that cashed in pro accepted A disc. If that is so, then I would consider that 1 disc a trophy for the guy finishing at a certain level. I don't see the TD giving out 01 rocs so any disc the AM did get probably didn't have significant value.



a valid point, but it also the responsibility of the player to know the rules.

I cashed in an event in pro and declined it a few times. I made sure I told the TD that I wanted nothing at all from him b/c I knew the rules.



If I am correct, if you can accept trophies if you are an AM playing pro. If this is correct, then you can consider the disc as a trophy.

My take on this subject matter...

Earlier in this thread someone said that the AM that cashed in pro accepted A disc. If that is so, then I would consider that 1 disc a trophy for the guy finishing at a certain level. I don't see the TD giving out 01 rocs so any disc the AM did get probably didn't have significant value.



a valid point, but it also the responsibility of the player to know the rules.

I cashed in an event in pro and declined it a few times. I made sure I told the TD that I wanted nothing at all from him b/c I knew the rules.



If I am correct, if you can accept trophies if you are an AM playing pro. If this is correct, then you can consider the disc as a trophy.



THE DISC THAT HE RECIEVED WAS A TOURNAMENT FUNDRAISER DISC WITH THE CROSS CANYON CHALLENGE STAMP.

My take on this subject matter...

Earlier in this thread someone said that the AM that cashed in pro accepted A disc. If that is so, then I would consider that 1 disc a trophy for the guy finishing at a certain level. I don't see the TD giving out 01 rocs so any disc the AM did get probably didn't have significant value.



a valid point, but it also the responsibility of the player to know the rules.

I cashed in an event in pro and declined it a few times. I made sure I told the TD that I wanted nothing at all from him b/c I knew the rules.



If I am correct, if you can accept trophies if you are an AM playing pro. If this is correct, then you can consider the disc as a trophy.



IF that Am entered the pro division at a reduced entry. If he paid the full price, then that disc which does have value, is condisered payout for placing in a professional division.

Even if the new wording and loopholes play to my advantage, there needs to be a clear cut line. The fact that this discussion has gone on this long is ridiculous. I think there needs to be a decision before the next event and have it communicated to all TD's.

With the Advanced field becoming as competitive as it is, there needs to be more enforcement as to who and who cannot play in the Amateur ranks. I personally like the old ruling that if you took ANYTHING for placing in a professional division then you are a professional.

Don't want to be a pro?
1) Don't play in the pro division.
2) Don't take anything as a prize for placing in a pro division.

IF that Am entered the pro division at a reduced entry. If he paid the full price, then that disc which does have value, is condisered payout for placing in a professional division.

Even if the new wording and loopholes play to my advantage, there needs to be a clear cut line. The fact that this discussion has gone on this long is ridiculous. I think there needs to be a decision before the next event and have it communicated to all TD's.

With the Advanced field becoming as competitive as it is, there needs to be more enforcement as to who and who cannot play in the Amateur ranks. I personally like the old ruling that if you took ANYTHING for placing in a professional division then you are a professional.

Don't want to be a pro?
1) Don't play in the pro division.
2) Don't take anything as a prize for placing in a pro division.



Alright, John Chapman has posted the official views on Am's playing pro.

So they cannot take prizes. Good deal. They can take trophies.

My question then, since we cannot post on the announcement threads is this.

For reporting purposes, as I will have a lot of Am's playing pro at my event in April, if the Am's were given a trophy for placing in Pro, would they first have to enter as a reduced entry trophy only? And then on the TD report, the Am's recieved zero cash value for placing, therein stating that trophies have zero cash value?

Thanks for the clarification John.

Download the TD report.You can see how to handle it. No Am should be charged the full entry Open entry fee unless they plan to turn pro if they cash. Otherwise, charge them about 1/3 the Open entry fee and they will play for trophies if they end up that high in the standings. They may still win CTPs, ace pools and receive player packs if pros get them.
www.pdga.com/documents/td/06TDReportElectronicV6-0-3.xls (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/06TDReportElectronicV6-0-3.xls)

Yeah I understand the trophy only option, and it is really easy to figure out, just type Y in the box next to their name and the form does the rest.

However in my event, players entered in the Open division are not only competiting for cash, they are competiting for an ancilliary prize, all Alabama residents in the open division are competiting to become the Alabama State Rep for the USDGC. On August 1st the highest Alabama finisher at the Golden George who has yet qualify on their own will recieve a paid entry to the USDGC.

Considering players like Joe Thacker, Matt Orum, Tim Keith, Tom Monroe, and Worm are playing in this, it will be tough for amateurs to even cash. But there is an incentive for them to play because even if they do not cash, it is still possible for them to qualify for USDGC. We also have a number of local Am's stepping up and playing open to donate their entry to the payout. Like me, if I were to place I would deny all cash, and the USDGC prize as I will not an Alabama resident in October, but I am playing open for the cause.

John posted that opinion here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=524594&amp;page=0&amp;view=collap sed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=7&amp;fpart=1)

He did post that there needs to be a clear line.

With the current posted documents, there is a clear line. Accepting cash (not prizes with cash value) based on performance in a professional division is the clear line. The confusion comes from the fact that this was not recently the case (though it was true in the past), and the change was not specifically addressed in the 2006 rule change discussions.

There is no clear indication that this was an intentional reversion, and the posted documents are dated 2004 and 2005 when there was a rule in place that took precedence. Now that the rule has been removed, the divisional structure documents are again in force.

<font color="blue">I see now that he has posted on the announcement thread that the documents are being updated and that the loophole was not intentional. Still the incident in question should be investigated and the player's intention taken into account</font>

If you caught it on his post, he is going to initiate the changes in all appropriate documentation.

Recieving a zero value trophy for paying a reduced entry fee in the pro division I have no problem with. It is an acceptable way for top Am's to try out the pro divisions.

But if you pay the full amount, and you accept something for placing, then your a pro. Basically paying a reduced entry is saying that you just want to play with the big dogs and see how you measure up. Even playing the same teepads on the same course on the same day in another division cannot mimic the competitiveness as the pro division.

Reduced entry - trophy only = ok
Full entry - getting a disc or more = not ok

I would appreciate having up to date online documents.

The player in question should be queried as to his intention. With the current wording, what he did wouldn't make him a Pro player.

No Am should be charged the full entry Open entry fee unless they plan to turn pro if they cash. Otherwise, charge them about 1/3 the Open entry fee and they will play for trophies if they end up that high in the standings.


I disagree with the part that I bolded.

If you run an event that does not sell out, then yes that is a good way to fill the field. If you run a tournament that sells out well in advance, then I do not believe that it is a good thing to eat up spots with players that aren't paying full price. This option reduces the already small pro purses found in disc golf tournaments.

If you want to play in the pro divisions, you pay for the opportunity.

If the tourney is not full, then that is another story.

If you run a tournament that sells out well in advance, then I do not believe that it is a good thing to eat up spots with players that aren't paying full price. This option reduces the already small pro purses found in disc golf tournaments.



The total purse is smaller but the payout is better for those who cash. The reduced entry fees are treated like added cash to the purse and the Ams don't take a paid place if they end up "cashing". So actually, the pros fare better with more Ams at 1/3 entry.

If you run a tournament that sells out well in advance, then I do not believe that it is a good thing to eat up spots with players that aren't paying full price. This option reduces the already small pro purses found in disc golf tournaments.



The total purse is smaller but the payout is better for those who cash. The reduced entry fees are treated like added cash to the purse and the Ams don't take a paid place if they end up "cashing". So actually, the pros fare better with more Ams at 1/3 entry.


Please read my post before answering, the first line in particular. :)

I did and responded accordingly. Your post is misleading that the pros will fare worse if Ams are allowed into what would be a full field. They won't.

a tournament holds 90 pros and sells out

the entry fee is $100

the total purse is $9000

36 players cash and divvy up the $9k per the PDGA 40% paytable




now let's add some ams to the mix....

20 ams sign up early and eat up 20 of those 90 spots. lets be generous and say that they pay half the normal entry and pay $50 each

70 pros sign up at $100 each

now the purse is $7000 + $1000 = $8000

your pro purse just dropped by $1k

36 players still cash, and the money is still distributed per the 40% pay table.


how are the pros better off when 20 full price players were left out in favor of half-price players???

36 players still cash, and the money is still distributed per the 40% pay table.




That's where you missed it. The pay tables only count fully paid pro entries. We add one person to the field count for every three Ams entering at reduced fees. So the payout is never less than if one pro entered instead of three Trophy Only Ams. If the number of Ams is not divisible by three, the payout will be better for those who cash. It's automatically built into the TD report. Check it and see.

You still miss the point that if the pro portion of an event traditionally fills with full paid pros, offering discounted am entries takes away from the overall purse.

If there isn't a pro only flight/event then it makes perfect sense.

I didn't miss it. It was my first line of my post on this topic. The amounts paid are no worse, and 2/3 of the time it's better, than it would have been for the same net field size of only pros. Ask those who played at Las Vegas (maybe five years ago) whether they cared that the total purse was big but the payout was only 93% of entries.

Consider what the average pro pays and what the average pro wins, and you can see that the pros as a whole are better off with the trophy-only ams than without. It just depends on whether they are happy to merely play for each others' cash, or if playing in a smaller field works better for them when there is added cash. The trophy-only ams are added cash.

Based on an event filling wiht full price spots versus the event filling with discounted spots, the amount paid will always be smaller. Either you pay fewer players, or you pay the same number of players smaller amounts. In either case, the payout is worse.

If there is no set alotment of Pros (so it can't fill with fully paid players), then the overall effect will normally be positive because some players (and dollars) that would not have been in the pro field are added, and they take away no money.

It comes down to whether an event will fill it's allocated pro spots with fully paid players or not.

Again this only applies to pro only events, or events large enough to have pro only flights.

You're still missing it Gary. As Bruce points out, the Ams are pure added cash. Total purse is meaningless. If the event has no added cash, those who cash will fare worse if it's 90 pros versus 79 pros and 11 Ams paying 1/3 entry fees. If the full net entry fee is $90, the Ams contribute $330 dollars and there will be one more paid place among the pros than how many normally get paid out of 79. If that place gets $90, then there's $240 added cash for the rest of the places than what a 79 field would normally have for a purse at 100% payout.

So you will pay fewer places with less money, but lower number of paid places will get paid more than they would've gotten had you paid more of them?

That's only good for the top pro cashers. The 11 pros that don't cash in the "added cash" scenario probably don't think it's better.

11 pros you ask? 40% of 90 = 36 cashers. 40% of 70 = 28 cashers.

I don't think it's better unless you are one of the top pros.

No, I fully get it.

Ams at discounted rates are not purely added cash, they take away entry fee cash from spots that would have been filled by fully paying pros.

Again, this only applies to situations where there are a limited number of Pro spots, and they are guaranteed to fill with fully paying Pros. In any other situation, you are correct.

It just depends on whether your players would rather play for a bigger pot with no added cash or a smaller pot with added cash. That's all it comes down to. You'll find pros on both sides of that.

Not to be disrespectful but this discussion seems like saying the Titanic sank because it was painted black.

If we had a real amateur class, why would that amateur ever want to play in a professional class competition? Do college kids play in the NFL, NBA or any other professional competition regularly? And if they did would they be considered amateurs for very long?

All of these cross-classification options are a prolonging of the obvious and necessary development of a real and true amateur classification. If you want to say it is the same but for a real and true professional classification I won't argue. The important thing is to have some "MEANINGFUL" and significant deliniation between these classifications so that they don't ever have to compete for the same resources and create such friction.

Nick, please try to stay on topic. We all are quite familiar with your personal and contrary definition of "amateur".

If we had a real amateur class, why would that amateur ever want to play in a professional class competition? Do college kids play in the NFL, NBA or any other professional competition regularly? And if they did would they be considered amateurs for very long?




Ball Golf they do it.

It just depends on whether your players would rather play for a bigger pot with no added cash or a smaller pot with added cash. That's all it comes down to. You'll find pros on both sides of that.


11 fewer paying positions! There is a more than a philosophical difference in the outcome. Having discount-rate ams fill the field takes away paying positions. That is only good for the top pros, not the whole pro field.

You need to go ahead and come up with a better idea than making a 1000+ rated player pay a higher entry fee. THAT IS the biggest load of DISCRIMINATION, I as a white male, have EVER came accross. Your going to TAX me cause I'm good. What a BUNCH of MALARKY! :mad:

That idea belongs wadded up in the garbage can

Well, my mission was accomplished because I don't think people realized (Rhett) that we had taken this into account in the 2006 TD report and payout guides so that Ams are a benefit or at least a wash if they enter Pro divisions for Trophy Only. You can argue the merits whether the mix of players in a capped field of 90 is better if all are pros than a mix including Trophy Ams.

The 2 pros who theoretically missed out on cashing between 36 paid places with 90 pros and 34 paid places with 79 pros and 11 T.O. Ams were not guaranteed those places if 11 more pros played. Assume that the 11 "missing" pros have a similar ratings distribution as the 79 who played. Statistically, at least 2 of the missing 11 would have finished ahead of the two who you feel would have cashed and they wouldn't have cashed anyway. So, no pros lose out and those who cash fare a little better with the added cash from T.O. Ams.

If we had a real amateur class, why would that amateur ever want to play in a professional class competition? Do college kids play in the NFL, NBA or any other professional competition regularly? And if they did would they be considered amateurs for very long?




Ball Golf they do it.



Different, and you know it Rob. I couldn't just show up a the Masters, pay 1/3 entry fee and play. The Amateurs are invited in most cases and it is not a part of the normal PGA competitive system.

You need to go ahead and come up with a better idea than making a 1000+ rated player pay a higher entry fee.



You tell me why someone would want to continue to play you for money even up by spotting you 3-5 shots a round? Maybe if it was for a lesson, but that would have been the reason agreed to in the first place. You're not going to get them to play you by force, only by incentive. If you have an alternative incentive that's legal and effective then let's hear it?

Nick, please try to stay on topic. We all are quite familiar with your personal and contrary definition of "amateur".



This comment is the one that is not on topic Rhett (personal quips). My post was precisely on topic (amateurs playing pro). So I'll kindly ask you to stay on topic.

PS: Why do you assume that "your" definition of amateur is the less personal or contrary definition to the one the world accepts? (Different Topic) Besides, when did disagreement become unacceptable on this board?

You need to go ahead and come up with a better idea than making a 1000+ rated player pay a higher entry fee.



You tell me why someone would want to continue to play you for money even up by spotting you 3-5 shots a round? Maybe if it was for a lesson, but that would have been the reason agreed to in the first place. You're not going to get them to play you by force, only by incentive. If you have an alternative incentive that's legal and effective then let's hear it?



Chuck, this is absolutely true for a competitive system with no alternative to "Profit Motivated Competition". It should be emphatically false in one with an Amateur classification.

Outside the box: Disc golfers play organized disc golf for reasons beyond having a chance at "winning". Winning is the fun and competition itself, not the amount of cash or junk they get from their buddies entry fees.

Inside the box: Disc golfers play organized disc golf because they have a chance "winning" arbitrarily set protected divisions. If they don't have a chance to win other players entry fees in the form of cash or junk they will not compete.

Why do we only acknowledge one side of this discussion? Are we really that brainwashed that we have it right? Or that we are that trapped?

If we had a real amateur class, why would that amateur ever want to play in a professional class competition? Do college kids play in the NFL, NBA or any other professional competition regularly? And if they did would they be considered amateurs for very long?




Ball Golf they do it.



Different, and you know it Rob. I couldn't just show up a the Masters, pay 1/3 entry fee and play. The Amateurs are invited in most cases and it is not a part of the normal PGA competitive system.



Hey!! I am not Rob :)

In ball golf amateurs compete to qualify for Pro Majors. They do that becasue they WANT to play pro competition as an Amatuer. You asked why real amatuer disc golfers would want to play in a professional feild as an amateur. My answer is probably for the same reasons as BG. You also asked what other pro sport has amatuers playing in pro feilds. My answer was BG.

Yes it is different but they still WANT to do it and they DO do it in Professional BG.

Not arguing against you, just answering your questions.

Nick, please try to stay on topic. We all are quite familiar with your personal and contrary definition of "amateur".



This comment is the one that is not on topic Rhett (personal quips). My post was precisely on topic (amateurs playing pro). So I'll kindly ask you to stay on topic.

PS: Why do you assume that "your" definition of amateur is the less personal or contrary definition to the one the world accepts? (Different Topic) Besides, when did disagreement become unacceptable on this board?


Gosh Nick, it sure is nice to have you back posting the same things over and over and over and over and over again, again. We've all read your stance on amteurism a thousand times before. We all know where you stand.

Your definition of "amateur" is indeed contrary to the definition used by the PDGA. That is why I called it "contrary".

Get it?

How about PROS and ADV have the SAME entry fee so its not a step up financially. I understand why an AM doesn't move up when ADV is $60 and Open is $125.

If they are both $100 and you mix them together by score instead of division, some of these guys that are playing at 950+ level will get better playing with better players. They will then see themselves potentially cashing and the next time when they pay the SAME entry they might check the OPEN box so they can take home cash instead of merch.

And another THANG, when Adv player ratings are based on what other ADV players are doing doesn't those ratings compute lower than if they were compared to what OPEN players shoot?

example: Steve Mills shoots 62 on the Original Course at Hudson Mills, he rec'd a 1018 for it. A year before when the OPEN players played that course a 62 by 1033 Steve Rico was worth 1032.
So your ratings system doesn't even reward the AMs when they play great because they are based on what other AM and they're ratings are. Same course, and the same score shouldn't be that different. That in itself shows the prejudice between the ratings in AM and Pro. The ratings system itself is convincing AM's they aren't as good.

The 2 pros who theoretically missed out on cashing between 36 paid places with 90 pros and 34 paid places with 79 pros and 11 T.O.


Nice way to manipulate the numbers and compare apples to oranges Chuck.

Is there a deinition of exactly when you are supposed to switch from the 40% pro payout table to the 45% payout table, Chuck? Or do you just make the switch in calculation technique in mid-scenario when it helps your argument?

How about PROS and ADV have the SAME entry fee so its not a step up financially.



Already agreed with you on this. The discounted Open entry fees would be at or below the Advanced entry fee so the incentive to enter Open for someone at the same rating would be there.


And another THANG, when Adv player ratings are based on what other ADV players are doing doesn't those ratings compute lower than if they were compared to what OPEN players shoot?



Not any more. That anomaly has been accounted for with a small formula adjustment. I think I saw that Ams even got better ratings at Fountain than the pros one round, at least unofficially.

You disagree with my definition of "Amateur"; feel free to express your point of view.

If what the PDGA currently calls the Amateur Class were renamed the Prize Class but remained the same in all other ways how would this be detrimental to your disc golf experience?

I know the PDGA has been dedicated to the "Move Up Move Up" mentality ever since we attempted to bribe the first non-pro to come out to our events with the lure of prizes, but does that mean that we will never, or shouldn't, reach the point where we look at a new option? The option of folks playing organized disc golf, under the umbrella of the PDGA, with fun and competition as the sole and undisputed motivation?

The longer we wait to make this option available the harder it will be to ever give this option a fighting chance, and with such a vast upside if it succeeds, it would be a real shame for us never to have tried. Also the longer we wait the more convoluted will our attempts to "fix it" become (this topic).

PS: Local Organization gets what I am saying I think, with leagues, tags, etc. It would be encouraging if the PDGA, without doing more than acknowledging it, lent support to such efforts. It wouldn't cost them a nickle.

Those payouts are exactly how it's done for 40% basis. 36 get paid out of 90. And .4x(79+3)=33 places (not 34) with the 79 and 11 T.O. Ams. The 11 Ams pay for 3 more pro entrants and add one more paid place than the 32 that 79 would offer. It's still the same deal though. If 40% of the 11 missing pros would cash that's 4.4. So, the 3 who thought they would cash likely wouldn't have. So, the Am scenario is still better even with a capped field.

The 2 pros who theoretically missed out on cashing between 36 paid places with 90 pros and 34 paid places with 79 pros and 11 T.O.


Nice way to manipulate the numbers and compare apples to oranges Chuck.

Is there a deinition of exactly when you are supposed to switch from the 40% pro payout table to the 45% payout table, Chuck? Or do you just make the switch in calculation technique in mid-scenario when it helps your argument?



I hope you are kidding Rhett, that tone is inappropriate here.

How about PROS and ADV have the SAME entry fee so its not a step up financially.



Already agreed with you on this. The discounted Open entry fees would be at or below the Advanced entry fee so the incentive to enter Open for someone at the same rating would be there.



This is not a terrible idea. Take the Bowling Green Touranments for example.

Advanced players are paying $50 to play the exact same courses as Pros who are paying $130.

Make both entries $90!

Granted this may reduce the number of amateur players. But when you are looking at a demand of Ams at +500 many will still play. But also at that price, the top Advanced player would play Pro. The lowered entry fee for Open would intice more players not including the Advanced players.

This is a bold move, but not many tournaments have a drastic price increase as the BG tournaments do.

Where does "79+3" come from???

I hope you are kidding Rhett, that tone is inappropriate here.


Nick, did you really just post that statement?

I hope you are kidding Rhett, that tone is inappropriate here.


Nick, did you really just post that statement?


Absolutely. And your tone is now directed at me?

It just depends on whether your players would rather play for a bigger pot with no added cash or a smaller pot with added cash. That's all it comes down to. You'll find pros on both sides of that.


11 fewer paying positions! There is a more than a philosophical difference in the outcome. Having discount-rate ams fill the field takes away paying positions. That is only good for the top pros, not the whole pro field.



If I were running tournaments where we were filling with pros, I would give the slots to full paying actual pros and not amateurs that want to play in the pro division for a reduced fee. Bruce and I have never been in that position but I don't feel any different than if the Advanced field filled I would have any ams that are playing above their division to play down so that the Advanced players who don't have a choice can play. It only seems fair. I guess Bruce and I will have to hash out our feelings on this in case it ever happens...or we can tell Brett that we are stale mated and let Brett decide! :D

Where does "79+3" come from???




Every three T.O. Ams adds one more full paid pro to the calculation. 11/3 is 3.67 which is rounded down. The .67 amounts to pure added cash. It may not seem obvious but the pros really do have a better deal with more T.O. Ams even with a capped field size. I went thru these calculations back and forth when I was updating the TD report in January after I saw the potential problem if we didn't account for this in the payout calculator.

The player in question should be queried as to his intention. With the current wording, what he did wouldn't make him a Pro player.



The player in question has been playing in the Open division since 2002. I can't believe for the last 4 years, he didn't know exaclty what the rule was concerning going Pro.

Now, an amazingly important rule is changed inadvertenly, with no discussion or announcment. I know if I were in his shoes, and I was the one person who caught the change, and was planning on taking advantage of it, I would have brought it up and tried to get a clarification on it before hand.

I also think it pointless to ask him to clarify his "intentions" after the fact, now that it's been discussed ad nauseam --- he can simply cull his answer from this discussion so that his "intentions" were whatever keeps him an AM.

I think when you are making a rules call, intentions should not matter, unless the rules say they do. If the PDGA did not publish a rule with the rules changes, it is not a rule. When they publish the rule, it is a rule. Rules need to be objective like that, or else they stop being rules and become something squishy, like values. I think Roosters values are right on but they make for bad rules.

That is all that should matter. It was not the rule when he took the disc. He's not a pro.

Where does "79+3" come from???




Every three T.O. Ams adds one more full paid pro to the calculation. 11/3 is 3.67 which is rounded down. The .67 amounts to pure added cash. It may not seem obvious but the pros really do have a better deal with more T.O. Ams even with a capped field size. I went thru these calculations back and forth when I was updating the TD report in January after I saw the potential problem if we didn't account for this in the payout calculator.


Tell me again why I'm not using such a straightforward system for my tourney.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

I was just proving it works. The calcs are all there for you in the TD report. When you consider TDs can now pay 40, 45 or 50 percent, they just need confidence that they're operating in a range that is appropriate even if they don't want to do the math manually.

Just wanted to make the subject line more precise and clarify the source of conflict that prevades our competitive system top to bottom.

Just correcting the topic line to reflect the PDGA standard nomenclature as defined in the official PDGA documentation. :cool:

Just correcting the topic line to reflect the PDGA standard nomenclature as defined in the official PDGA documentation. :cool:



I can appreciate such total commitment to a concept; I just appreciate seeing beyond lables to the truth of the situation more.

The PDGA as it stands has no Professional or Amateur Classification only Prize and Cash divisions (and really very little division even between these two options)[Ironic that we think we have created all of these new competitive options, when the reality is that we have actually reduced the competitive options...]. I very much look forward to the day that is not the underlying reality. Moreso, I believe it will be a necessary revelation if we ever hope to make a quantum leap as a sport.

I would argue that what is missing is a true Professional division, and we are all amateurs at this point, some collect small amounts of cash, the rest collect prizes. I don't see what you propose being called anything other than scholastic or recreational. Both of which are Amateur by definition, but do not preclude another tier of amateurs that compete for prizes.

Just wondering Gary, do you support the initiatives Chuck got included in the competitive system to allow prize players to play in cash divisions and vice versa?

If so, what exactly is to be gained by calling them different names? What purpose does it serve? What is the benefit to our greater goals?

Lastly, would a player in a high school PDGA Amateur Program lose their amateur status for playing in a Prize class division?

What is to be gained by keeping the "Amateur" name for the Prize divisions? Entitlement, Protection or is it just familiarity and fear of change?

You have never answered the question I have posed to you repeatedly over the years.

Why do you require exclusive access to the title Amateur to further develop a "true Amateur" class?

The only problem I have is that the majority of current amateur players are not greedy profit making pros. The majority by definition are not making a profit (even if the only expenses considered are entry fees) from disc golf competition. We are amateurs, and most of the "Pro" players are amateurs.

You do not need exclusive rights to the amateur title to proceed with your plans, and you do not need to be sanctioned by the PDGA. You should be associated with the PDGA, but should have an additional rules supplement that governs the formats used for competition and the eligibility of players.

And I have answered your question repeatedly through the years even though you ignore mine.

Here it is again: Because the establishment and promotion of an entirely new, and never before seen in disc golf, classification will take a coordinated effort. That is why it is such a perfect topic for the PDGA (where so many other topics are not appropriate).

Will you now answer my question please?

Will you and other Prize players turn into pumpkins if the "Amateur" label is taken from you and placed on a new classification specifically for players with no consideration to monetary or possession gain?

A classification for schools and community groups completely devoid of the gambling aspect.

As you well know I could go on at length, but I'd honestly like for you to answer my question here. I have never gotten a straight answer from anyone here.

BTW I am working at it...

Why do you ALL argue this point still.....

It has been noted that the AM playing Pro and CASHING rule was MISTAKENLY omitted and is being reinstated.

Mute Point...End of Thread...

Take your views and misconceptions elsewhere (however right or wrong they may be) :p

Tell you what. You run for and gain PDGA office and I won't mention True Amateur Class, 2MR or Defend our PDGA BOD for a whole year. :p

Again, that does not answer the question of why it should be the only classification that holds onto the title Amateur. I agree that it is a valid use of the term, but so is any non-cash classification.

Yes, I will turn to a pumpkin because I am not a professional player. I doubt that I will ever be consistent enough or be able to dedicate enough time to practice to consider myself a professional player. I play for fun and prizes when I play very well. I know that I will never win enough to ever break even on the sport, and have never even entertained the idea that I would make a profit.

I disagree with the concept that players can't move freely between one classification of amateur and another. These city leagues are going to need ringers if they are to really get off the ground. :cool:

Don't get me wrong, I am all for a true amateur competition system and one that can be adopted successfully for schools and city sponsored league play. We as the PDGA need to focus special attention on making this happen all across the country. I just don't see the need to give it exclusive access to the Amateur name.

And this thread has wandered far from the Am playing Pro title, since this question has already been definitively answered by the Competition Director it is no longer beng discussed here.

The elected PDGA office I already hold is quite enough for me for the time being. I may consider more involvement after I retire and have more time to dedicate to the sport.

Gary, I appreciate your attempt to answer my question. Let us continue the dialog in good faith, shall we?

Again, that does not answer the question of why it should be the only classification that holds onto the title Amateur. I agree that it is a valid use of the term, but so is any non-cash classification.


When a player in disc golf says they �cashed� does that make them part of a �cash classification�? You and other, what I call, Prize players often speak of cashing. More than that you speak of having a chance to �make something� or �win something� in order to compensate you for your travel expenses. That 95% of all disc golfers lose money in the process neither makes you Amateur or Professional, that you have any chance of making profit makes you Professional or at least not Amateur however.

The reason we should give exclusive rights to the name Amateur to the class that does not cash and does not play for any thought of compensation in any form other than experience is because that class of player would be really and truly Amateur.


Yes, I will turn to a pumpkin because I am not a professional player. I doubt that I will ever be consistent enough or be able to dedicate enough time to practice to consider myself a professional player. I play for fun and prizes when I play very well. I know that I will never win enough to ever break even on the sport, and have never even entertained the idea that I would make a profit.


And this is precisely why Prize and Cash players should not be considered Amateur, because to have either included in the definition denigrates the meaning and importance of the term, concept and reality of Amateur Sport.


I disagree with the concept that players can't move freely between one classification of amateur and another. These city leagues are going to need ringers if they are to really get off the ground. :cool:


Not sure what to say other than I 100% disagree. Just as you wouldn�t want Ken Climo showing up to compete in the Prize Worlds, having him or you show up at the Amateur Worlds would be equally repugnant and inappropriate.


Don't get me wrong, I am all for a true amateur competition system and one that can be adopted successfully for schools and city sponsored league play. We as the PDGA need to focus special attention on making this happen all across the country. I just don't see the need to give it exclusive access to the Amateur name.


Fair enough, and hopefully you now see why I DO. To have top Prize players touring around the country playing PDGA Prize events then suddenly drop in on community and scholastic competitors national or world championships would be as inappropriate as having Barry Schultz drop in to win the Prize Worlds. There simply must be separation. The lack of that separation is the root of all the conflicts and dysfunction within our competitive system, or at least most of them. (I mean, imagine if Prize and Cash players were suddenly all on the same team, with the same goals?)


And this thread has wandered far from the Am playing Pro title, since this question has already been definitively answered by the Competition Director it is no longer beng discussed here.


Since when has staying on topic ever been enforced on this board? Certainly it is directly related (Definition of Pro and Am that is.)


The elected PDGA office I already hold is quite enough for me for the time being. I may consider more involvement after I retire and have more time to dedicate to the sport.


I completely agree and understand.

Gary, I appreciate your attempt to answer my question. Let us continue the dialog in good faith, shall we?

Again, that does not answer the question of why it should be the only classification that holds onto the title Amateur. I agree that it is a valid use of the term, but so is any non-cash classification.


When a player in disc golf says they �cashed� does that make them part of a �cash classification�? You and other, what I call, Prize players often speak of cashing. More than that you speak of having a chance to �make something� or �win something� in order to compensate you for your travel expenses. That 95% of all disc golfers lose money in the process neither makes you Amateur or Professional, that you have any chance of making profit makes you Professional or at least not Amateur however.
<font color="blue"> Amateur:
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports. An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.
I think that I meet every requirement of every definition. Why does your definition trump the accepted definition.</font>

The reason we should give exclusive rights to the name Amateur to the class that does not cash and does not play for any thought of compensation in any form other than experience is because that class of player would be really and truly Amateur.

<font color="blue">I agree that they are amateurs, and have no problem with them being called amateurs. I don't agree that they are the only amateurs in the sport.</font>


Yes, I will turn to a pumpkin because I am not a professional player. I doubt that I will ever be consistent enough or be able to dedicate enough time to practice to consider myself a professional player. I play for fun and prizes when I play very well. I know that I will never win enough to ever break even on the sport, and have never even entertained the idea that I would make a profit.


And this is precisely why Prize and Cash players should not be considered Amateur, because to have either included in the definition denigrates the meaning and importance of the term, concept and reality of Amateur Sport.

<font color="blue">No more than having NBA and NHL players in the Olympics competing in the sports that they get paid to play.</font>


I disagree with the concept that players can't move freely between one classification of amateur and another. These city leagues are going to need ringers if they are to really get off the ground. :cool:


Not sure what to say other than I 100% disagree. Just as you wouldn�t want Ken Climo showing up to compete in the Prize Worlds, having him or you show up at the Amateur Worlds would be equally repugnant and inappropriate.

<font color="blue">If there is not profit, why would Ken be there, and if the thing is just for competition, what's wrong with a little better competition ? Besides, I never said Ken, I said the top amateurs, but really imagine the city leagues and scholastic competitions.[/blue]


Don't get me wrong, I am all for a true amateur competition system and one that can be adopted successfully for schools and city sponsored league play. We as the PDGA need to focus special attention on making this happen all across the country. I just don't see the need to give it exclusive access to the Amateur name.


Fair enough, and hopefully you now see why I DO. To have top Prize players touring around the country playing PDGA Prize events then suddenly drop in on community and scholastic competitors national or world championships would be as inappropriate as having Barry Schultz drop in to win the Prize Worlds. There simply must be separation. The lack of that separation is the root of all the conflicts and dysfunction within our competitive system, or at least most of them. (I mean, imagine if Prize and Cash players were suddenly all on the same team, with the same goals?)
<font color="blue">Again, what incentive would there be for a top prize player to steal the poor true amateurs candy ? Plus I see the opportunity more for team competitions than for singles comeptition. For that you would need to be part of the league for your scores to even count. Not much chance for a swooping prize player to jump in and walk away with the prize</font>

And this thread has wandered far from the Am playing Pro title, since this question has already been definitively answered by the Competition Director it is no longer beng discussed here.


Since when has staying on topic ever been enforced on this board? Certainly it is directly related (Definition of Pro and Am that is.)
<font color="blue"> This was for Magilla's benefit</font>

The elected PDGA office I already hold is quite enough for me for the time being. I may consider more involvement after I retire and have more time to dedicate to the sport.


I completely agree and understand.

Tell you what. You run for and gain PDGA office and I won't mention True Amateur Class, 2MR or Defend our PDGA BOD for a whole year. :p



OOOO Thats tempting..BUT..You see the people in my local area actually like me and the things Ive done for this sport..So I dont need to take a position with the PDGA to attempt to make myself feel better about the way I think. :p

In the future I will...but for now I have courses to build. :D

Tell you what. You run for and gain PDGA office and I won't mention True Amateur Class, 2MR or Defend our PDGA BOD for a whole year. :p



Wierd thing is I actually agree with you on the Am Class thing, but your banter is challenging my support.....

NO ONE has yet to give me a VALID reason why dropping the 2MR is such a good thing...... :p

AND... NEVER have I EVER questioned the PDGA Board as I have been a VOLUNTEER for MANY years and understand the issues (and the idiots) that the Board deals with..........

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Well, Gary, seems like we have come to a complete impass here on the definition of "Amateur". Perhaps we both see each other as being evasive in our answers.

The noticable difference that I can find between the two is that your definition could fit anyone, whereas mine creates a clear and total divide between the two. Also I look at your arguements as all clearly non-Amateur considerations; specifically considerations of compensation for performance to offset costs. Don't deny it, it has been echoed time and again by others in opposition to the creation of a true amateur class in disc golf.

I am not sitting in judgment of you, Rhett or others who fear the creation of a true Amateur classification (and fear is the only word that really fits since no rational explanation has ever been forthcoming). You're not greedy. You're not dumb. You're not bad. You are just incapable of understanding the concept or potential of true amateur disc golf.

I hear things again and again like, "Well they're just a bunch of super recreational players anyway." and "They don't like our kind of events anyway." or "What does a definition matter, different folks have different ones for everything." It is just overwhelmingly clear that these folks just don't get it. I can accept that, I really can. But I can't accept the idea that disc golf will never have a true amateur class nor the rewards that I so clearly see it bringing to even the Prize class.

So pardon my intrusions as I do what I can to promote it. I don't do so to threaten or denegrate what you believe is amateur competition.

That's a terribly condescending tone, Nick.

Taking positions on unpopular issues is not for everyone Mike. Sometimes there simply is no avoiding it. Being on the PDGA board I am sure is similar just more extreme than local or regional organization and as many have pointed out, correctly, you can't please all the people all the time.

If you can, or think you have, then you are fooling yourself Mike.

If you agree with my stand on true amateurs then speak up so that I don't have to be the only person on here voicing it, I'll gladly step aside or just post simple agreement. It wouldn't be the first time.

Thankfully the battle over the 2MR has been won so there really is no reason to continue it. Since you can still include it at your events you have won in a sense as well, right?

Well, Gary, seems like we have come to a complete impass here on the definition of "Amateur". Perhaps we both see each other as being evasive in our answers.
<font color="blue">my definition came from websters, yours may come from the NCAA or something similar, but does not apply very well to adult amateur atheletes.</font>

The noticable difference that I can find between the two is that your definition could fit anyone, whereas mine creates a clear and total divide between the two. Also I look at your arguements as all clearly non-Amateur considerations; specifically considerations of compensation for performance to offset costs. Don't deny it, it has been echoed time and again by others in opposition to the creation of a true amateur class in disc golf.
<font color="blue">I'd like to include everyone that can throw a disc into a basket. I'd have a clear line between team.league competition and PDGA sanctioned individual competition.</font>

I am not sitting in judgment of you, Rhett or others who fear the creation of a true Amateur classification (and fear is the only word that really fits since no rational explanation has ever been forthcoming). You're not greedy. You're not dumb. You're not bad. You are just incapable of understanding the concept or potential of true amateur disc golf.
<font color="blue">I have no fear of a true amateur class, quite the opposite, I feel that it is the only that this sport will ever gather the numbers it needs to attract serious sponsors. The only thing I don't understand is why you insist on such a narrow definition of amateur that even the IOCC does not go by any more.</font>

I hear things again and again like, "Well they're just a bunch of super recreational players anyway." and "They don't like our kind of events anyway." or "What does a definition matter, different folks have different ones for everything." It is just overwhelmingly clear that these folks just don't get it. I can accept that, I really can. But I can't accept the idea that disc golf will never have a true amateur class nor the rewards that I so clearly see it bringing to even the Prize class.
<font color="blue">Why does the lack of exclusive use of the term amateur preclude any of the good that can be accomplished from spreading disc golf to the people that would be interested in competition for the sake of competition ?</font>


So pardon my intrusions as I do what I can to promote it. I don't do so to threaten or denegrate what you believe is amateur competition.


<font color="blue">I hope you are successful, and will do what I can (short of being called a professional disc golfer) to help you get it going. I have never seen a need to segregate amateur players from each other. The types of competition and rewards offered by each type of competition will let everyone play where they see the rewards they are in search of.</font>

Taking positions on unpopular issues is not for everyone Mike. Sometimes there simply is no avoiding it. Being on the PDGA board I am sure is similar just more extreme than local or regional organization and as many have pointed out, correctly, you can't please all the people all the time.

If you can, or think you have, then you are fooling yourself Mike.

<font color="blue">True, Its impossible to make EVERYONE happy, BUT Id venture to say that my "Approval Rating" is quite high. Sure, I have had people upset with some of my actions, I was the first person to Draft and get "Bump Rules" approved within the PDGA. </font>

If you agree with my stand on true amateurs then speak up.

<font color="blue">I agree in principle with what you see as the "Big Picture" , I think. Sometimes its had to decipher your banter.

We do need to structure the PDGA in order to expand to the masses not just the Competitive players.
A "True Amateur" class would do that. How we would deal with EVERYONE who is already a member is what would be the biggest hurdle.
If all current players were considered "Pros" and either made the decision to play for "Cash" or "Prizes" the issue could be done quite easily I think.
We have put such a strong precident into place already by "paying" Ams with such LARGE quanitys of Plastic & Merch. , that we will NEVER be able to change that or it would be detrimental to our existing membership.

Adding a new classification that pays LOW ENTRIES and plays only for "Ribbons or Trophies" is the logical solution to involving schools.(ie. leagues, intermurals, etc.) </font>

Thankfully the battle over the 2MR has been won so there really is no reason to continue it. Since you can still include it at your events you have won in a sense as well, right?
<font color="blue"> I wouldnt sat that the Battle is OVER by any means, BUT yes , the major opposition has been "quieted" by the fact that the rule CAN still be used.
I still have not heard a reasonable or logical explination as to why the rule should be dropped to begin with.
"BAD LUCK" isnt a reason. "You had your way and now we get ours" isnt a reason </font>

At the risk of flaring up the 2m discussion again, do you believe it's OK if baskets are swinging or spinning? If so, then it would just be "bad luck" if a player's shot misses because the basket was swinging in the wrong position at the time? Most of us try to have uniform and non-damaged baskets and no twists in the chains. The chains are heavy so it takes a lot of wind to make them even sway. Why? So the basket catches the same for everyone who throws the same type of shot. Players get nervous putting when the basket is tipped a little or a nub is bent upward.

Trees act just like swinging, spinning or damaged baskets, or ones where the chains were left twisted from the previous player. They reduce the fairness and increase the luck element. We can control the luck with consistent and well mounted baskets, and control tree luck with no 2m penalty.

At the risk of flaring up the 2m discussion again, do you believe it's OK if baskets are swinging or spinning? If so, then it would just be "bad luck" if a player's shot misses because the basket was swinging in the wrong position at the time? Most of us try to have uniform and non-damaged baskets and no twists in the chains. The chains are heavy so it takes a lot of wind to make them even sway. Why? So the basket catches the same for everyone who throws the same type of shot. Players get nervous putting when the basket is tipped a little or a nub is bent upward.

Trees act just like swinging, spinning or damaged baskets, or ones where the chains were left twisted from the previous player. They reduce the fairness and increase the luck element. We can control the luck with consistent and well mounted baskets, and control tree luck with no 2m penalty.



Are you serious Chuck, "Trees swaying in the Wind" that is REALLY LAME.

Its similar to the counter arguement...

2 discs are thrown into the basket and Spit out the back. One falls to the ground and stays, the other falls and rolls 30' and goes OB.(or 20' if your at the Memorial :eek:) Thats BAD LUCK, nothing we can do about it. BUT if I dont want to get stuck in a Tree, then I wont throw into it :p No LUCK involved, its pure SKILL. If you dont want to get stuck then dont throw in the Tree. There are not any baskets up there anyway. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[2meter drift on]

Truly doesnt matter to me either way really. The only issue I see with not having the 2 meter rule is that a player gets a free better lie most times closer to the basket, and sometimes WAY closer to the basket then the disc actually ended up. Yeah I know, one meter in off an OB line does the same thing, but in the 2 meter rules case it can be much more then that.

I am sure this can be explained away somehow. Like I said though, truly doesnt matter to me either way.

[two meter drift off]

do you believe it's OK if baskets are swinging or spinning?



No that is not a Fair situation at all, the course should be "Uniform" for all players. Trees swaying in the wind is a "Natural" situation. I have played quite a few events where a "Hanging Basket" was used. In ALL cases the player has the option to have the Basket stopped from any motion caused by previous play. The wind causing the basket to move is a different situation, but even in severe wind it (the basket) didnt seem to move that much, let alone spin.
;)

My point is that we don't accept inconsistent baskets as appropiate so we can reduce controllable "luck." Allowing the 2m rule is like taking a bar out of the bottom of the basket and risking a drop out every so often just for kicks. You can see the place where the missing bar is located and it's always the one in front. It's an avoidable hazard no different from avoiding a tree in the fairway. Even a twist in the chains or a swinging basket is a visible risk that can be "managed" and yet most don't consider that acceptable luck.

My point is that we don't accept inconsistent baskets as appropiate so we can reduce controllable "luck." Allowing the 2m rule is like taking a bar out of the bottom of the basket and risking a drop out every so often just for kicks. You can see the place where the missing bar is located and it's always the one in front. It's an avoidable hazard no different from avoiding a tree in the fairway. Even a twist in the chains or a swinging basket is a visible risk that can be "managed" and yet most don't consider that acceptable luck.



When and if they ever decide to take the "bottom" bar from a basket, then the arguement will hold water.

UNTIL then, it is still "Skill Involved" to NOT throw in a tree. Sure, there is a "Luck" factor as to if your disc will fall or stick, BUT throwing into trees are not apart of the game, AVOIDING the trees and making good shots are.

It takes SKILL to avoid the trees, then LUCK doesnt play into it. By eliminating the 2MR, you reward those who's SKILL is lacking by ELIMINATING the possible penalty for a BAD SHOT. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

How wide of a fairway is wide enough? That cannot be defined and in many cases a well designed fairway will still involve trees. Hitting the center of the fairway is perfect, slightly clipping the leaves/branches on either side is not as good and you loss some accuracy and distance, a little wider and you lose more distance and sometimes stick above 2m. No need for the random bonus penalty because the fairway was already designed with relatively uniform variable risk/reward without a random step change penalty being needed.

As I said, no need to get into it again (although this thread is dead), but you make blanket statements like there aren't good arguments for avoiding 2m as if it was a frivolous change. While some will be bullheaded and continue it no matter what, at least some are now using it selectively where merited, even if they were against the change.

It's now the other way where those who want it have to scramble for justification for using it, just like deciding whether certain asphalt patches should be OB for the tournament. Some designers like myself still apply 2m in very specific design stituations for specific trees on specific holes, so it's not dead. It's controllable risk, not buckshot risk by using the blanket rule. There's no critical design thought in that, just tradition.

That's a terribly condescending tone, Nick.



I agree. Please warn Nick about his inflammatory comments, and that individuals who persist in this behavior may be barred from future posting.

That's a terribly condescending tone, Nick.


I'm not going to flame with you Rhett.

That's a terribly condescending tone, Nick.


I'm not going to flame with you Rhett.


There you go again.

Would you please consider limiting your repetitive "true am" propaganda to a single thread? I call it propaganda because you are about the only one who doesn't discuss the issue, rather you say the same thing over and over and over and over and over. Then you throw out little gems "you can't see past your own sense of entitlement" and "just because the entire universe has it backward doesn't mean that I Nick Kight should bother reconsidering my position."

In any event, there is no good reason for you to post that same stuf over and over and over and over on more than one thread. Is there?

That's a terribly condescending tone, Nick.


I'm not going to flame with you Rhett.


There you go again.

Would you please consider limiting your repetitive "true am" propaganda to a single thread? I call it propaganda because you are about the only one who doesn't discuss the issue, rather you say the same thing over and over and over and over and over. Then you throw out little gems "you can't see past your own sense of entitlement" and "just because the entire universe has it backward doesn't mean that I Nick Kight should bother reconsidering my position."

In any event, there is no good reason for you to post that same stuf over and over and over and over on more than one thread. Is there?



There is no need to be condesending or insulting Rhett. If you disagree feel free to express it; but don't tell me not to question "Propoganda" just because you support it. It is on you do defend the things you hold true, just as it is up to me to defend the things I hold true.

If you don't like it, or disagree, oh well, that is on you, entirely.

I do however recognize a good misdirection when I see one, and this is the same old tired one pulled out time and again when the discussion clearly is moving towards a conclusion you fear in some way.

I think it may be more of a monitor requesting that you limit a certain topic to a single thread.