The PDGA continues to blur the boundary between professional and amateur. Two years ago I initiated the thread �Meet the Fair-Weather Pro� to protest the policy of professionals playing as amateurs.. Late last year the PDGA went even further, creating a new class of �amateurs� reclassified with no questions asked. I will call these players �prams�. Although well-intentioned, these policies are bad for the sport for several reasons.

Fair-weather pros and prams are symbols of the PDGA�s inability to come to grips with consistent standards of professional behavior. If our governing body can�t even tell us who the pros are, how could we possibly know how they should behave? We have all these players shifting around like chameleons for the short-term advantage. And we have all these shameful and embarrassing incidents constantly happening in the professional ranks, incidents that would be virtually impossible and certainly intolerable in other sports. A good example is the recent and regrettable �waiting for Kenny� incident at Melbourne. It is wonderful to read the resulting swirl of finger-pointings and justifications. Who can blame Kenny for taking advantage of an opportunity that he may not have requested or expected? Ron is praised for helping a friend and refusing to apply a penalty he thought was excessive. Some have criticized the Open players for not protesting immediately and decisively -- a classic example of �blame the victim�. The PDGA appears to be washing its hands on that basis. No doubt Alexsei will even suffer some for having had the guts to tell it like it was.

It is this simple. Standards for professional behavior will always be a joke until the governing body rigidly defines and enforces them. And it will never be able to do that until it can rigidly define who the pros are.

The effect on the true amateurs is even worse. The pros are our thoroughbreds, and we spotlight them. They get to sit at the big table. But the amateurs (and recreational players) are the heart and soul of the PDGA because there are so many more of them. Few people think this through, but probably 80% (and possibly more) of the dollars that end up in the pockets of the pros come from the wallets and bank accounts of amateurs, as they pay PDGA dues, buy discs and ante-up tournament entry fees. And now we encourage disaffected pros to go back to the little table and snap up the crumbs we used to reserve there for amateurs. This is shabby treatment of our core group.

Both these policies seem to be very popular. The PDGA says, �We have rejuvenated all these players and now they are paying dues and entry fees again�. The fair-weather pros and prams say, �Oh golly, this is great. Just the thing for my career. Now I have a better chance to beat somebody.� Everybody is focused on the short-term gain. Instant gratification is the order of the day. Nobody is concerned with the boring bricks and mortar of integrity it takes to build a credible career or organization.

This has got to stop. The PDGA must first decide who gets to sit at the big table, and stick with that. Then it must define and enforce the ways in which those players must behave. When it does, one of the items on that list must be, �Professionals do not play against amateurs for profit.�

So with regard to �Pros Playing as Amateurs�: I have nothing against it. I would even remove the 955 restriction and let Kenny and Barry do it. Contact between pros and ams on the field of play is good for the sport. But only in the nature of an exhibition. No professional should be allowed to win a title, a trophy or a prize that might otherwise have gone to an amateur.

And with regard to �amnesty�: Never again. It is a license to steal. There are reasons why a pro might legitimately be reclassified. But only after evaluation on an individual basis. Never without question, and never for short-term benefit. Reclassified pros should not be allowed to win amateur prizes for at least two years, and they should never be allowed to return to professional status.
<font color="red"> </font> <font color="black"> </font>

Pete,

I agree with 95% of what you have said here.......

I think the "Amnesty" rule was a GOOD thing overall....BUT I also think that AFTER the amnesty was offered THEN the "Pro playing AM rule" should have been dropped......

The main intent of the "Amnesty" was to bring players BACK into the sport that have been GONE for awhile...

For example...My wife, #10654, hasnt played since early 2000(when our daughter was born). She was a PRO at that time and a former "ROY" runner-up. Her "skills" have diminished greatly in that time.....Is it fair to her that she MUST return and play as a PRO when she wouldnt be able to compete at all???

The "Amnesty" actually created a desire in her to RE-join the PDGA because she could "start over" and wouldnt be forced to play PRO. :D

In my case, I could have taken the Amnesty, but then why would I want to play AM after 14 years as a PRO??? :p

My rating SUX and a have NO chance at cashing in the OPEN division, typically. As a Master I do OK but nothing great...
I think that the "amnesty" was also geared toward people like me...those who "Cashed" or turned PRO early in our sports growth and are (were) STUCK as a PRO.
There are multiple people in every region who fill this group.....

My $.02
:D

Heres what I think happened with amnesty (purely speculation)....

The guys on the board or whoever made this decision wanted to give the players a better chance at getting thier am card back.

They said "anyone under this rating can do it"

Someone replied "what about if someone has above that and only played one sanctioned event and it was like 3 years ago and they havent been able to play for various reasons"

Then someone wanted this stipulation and then that stipulation. Every time, someone said "well, what if this or what if that"

So finally they just said screw it, anyone can do it.

"Surrendered Pro" AM.

SPAM

If your unhappy now...just wait until they add the new EXPERT AM division between Adv and Open :(

Peter, there is more than just a kernal of truth in much of what you write. i do not know you and dont have the benefit of understanding completely where you are coming from, which leaves a lot of questions to ask.

please do not take the following personnally, as that is not my intention... the Divisional structure seems pretty popular (you seem to like it well enough) but there are plenty who believe it hurts Pros longterm by segmenting our top tiers, it not as credible as other structures given our limited player base, and hurts Ams in the short term by allowing players to play "pro" even though they really truly have an Am rating.

hey, btw, what is the �waiting for Kenny� incident at Melbourne? (or where can i read an account of it)

thanks!

With all due respect Peter, how do you respond to the fact that there are less than 120 players rated over 1000, and that even a 1000 rated player looses 4 strokes a round to a Ken Climo? Placing a 960 rated player in the same division with a Climo is a travesty, no matter how they got there! Even placing a 960 player with a 1000 rated player is very unfair. The simple fact is that Disc Golf isn't big enough to support a Pro Class, and many young players move into the Pro ranks thinking they're going to set the world on fire with no concept of reality.

Something needs to be done to make the system equal/fair. Ideally, there'd be 200 or so 1020 to 1040 ranked players that would be our real Pro Class and the rest would be up and comers. We're still a long way from that. So, one way or the other you have to do something about the situation, you have to either move those low rated Pros, or give them something to play for. Remember, when you say that it is the Ams supporting the Pros and the sport you're not 100% correct. At Texas States if there are 30 Pros, if we pay five deep, those five winning guys are getting a $2,500 donation from those low ranking Pros. That happens tournament in and tournament out.

There are a couple of ways to move the money from the bottom up but they all have the same problem. You're still asking the lower ranked players to support the top guys in a sport that doesn't have enough cash flow to do so. There are two possible solutions. One, the manufacturers decide the Pros are to their benefit and pay them to play with no take home from tournaments, that is, sponsored players get no payout. Two, the PDGA recognizes the Pros are good for the sport and supplements their pay. Three, we continue to fudge around trying to find a way to keep the low ranked players who are paying for the top ranked players to play without chasing them off. Four, we go back to what we should be given our size, an Amateur sport.

There is no ideal solution here, but the notion that we hold the lower ranked Pros to some ideal is wrong. Market forces have already proven that it won�t work.

hey, btw, what is the “waiting for Kenny” incident at Melbourne? (or where can i read an account of it)




Melbourne Open - RR Tier (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=666840&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

What is the relationship between "shameful and embarrassing incidents constantly happening in the professional ranks" and amnesty?

I think most everyone agrees that the first should not occur, but what does it have to do with amnesty?

As for amnesty, you seem to have some inconsistencies in your argument. If being a "true am" was a burden, scrambling for crumbs and supporting the pros and all, why would anyone want to be an am?




Few people think this through, but probably 80% (and possibly more) of the dollars that end up in the pockets of the pros come from the wallets and bank accounts of amateurs, as they pay PDGA dues, buy discs and ante-up tournament entry fees.



Serious? How do you derive at that figure?

With all due respect Peter, how do you respond to the fact that there are less than 120 players rated over 1000, and that even a 1000 rated player looses 4 strokes a round to a Ken Climo? Placing a 960 rated player in the same division with a Climo is a travesty, no matter how they got there! Even placing a 960 player with a 1000 rated player is very unfair. The simple fact is that Disc Golf isn't big enough to support a Pro Class, and many young players move into the Pro ranks thinking they're going to set the world on fire with no concept of reality.



So putting Ted Purdy in the same division as Tiger Woods is a travesty? You can't blame Ken Climo for being as good as he is...It wasn't an accident. He put the time in to get as good as he is. Why punish 1000+ rated pro's that have put in the time to get as good as they are by creating another AM division that starts eliminating the Open division because some can not compete. It's the OPEN division...it's OPEN to anyone who wants to get some.

It's the OPEN division...it's OPEN to anyone who wants to get some.



Exactly. Players should never be forced into pro. It should always be a choice, or better yet, a qualification process. So, apparently that's an indirect support of the Expert division so that those who choose not to play Open have an appropriate place that doesn't poach the lower rated Ams. Is that correct, Kevin?

click, click, back, back.......wtf?
I think he means "Ams pretending to be Pros".

It's the OPEN division...it's OPEN to anyone who wants to get some.



Exactly. Players should never be forced into pro. It should always be a choice, or better yet, a qualification process. So, apparently that's an indirect support of the Expert division so that those who choose not to play Open have an appropriate place that doesn't poach the lower rated Ams. Is that correct, Kevin?



NO that is NOT an indirect support of the expert AM division. If you want to call it the Expert division and it be a PRO division I will be 100000% for it. And don't give me any of that pro's don't pay their way stuff neither :p

click, click, back, back.......wtf?
I think he means "Ams pretending to be Pros".

:Dat least i tried to be diplomatic :D

With all due respect Peter, how do you respond to the fact that there are less than 120 players rated over 1000, and that even a 1000 rated player looses 4 strokes a round to a Ken Climo? Placing a 960 rated player in the same division with a Climo is a travesty, no matter how they got there! Even placing a 960 player with a 1000 rated player is very unfair.



(975 player speaking here from the toughest area of disc golf in the country)

Please explain to me why this is this the fault of the better players? Please explain to me why the upper players should be punished for being good at disc golf?

To go along with my prior post...

its like when they wanted to make a ratings cut off for masters, grandmasters, etc forcing those players to not play in those divisions.

Why should those players be punished for being the best? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Des is dominating the womens ranks but not a single person would ever say Des I don't think you should play women's open anymore. It is the exact same thing!

With all due respect Peter, how do you respond to the fact that there are less than 120 players rated over 1000, and that even a 1000 rated player looses 4 strokes a round to a Ken Climo? Placing a 960 rated player in the same division with a Climo is a travesty, no matter how they got there! Even placing a 960 player with a 1000 rated player is very unfair.



(975 player speaking here from the toughest area of disc golf in the country)

Please explain to me why this is this the fault of the better players? Please explain to me why the upper players should be punished for being good at disc golf?



Ever heard of the saying, "its lonely at the top"? :cool:

You are twisting the "unfair" statement to make it say that it is the "fault of better players". :confused:

It is really very simple. You put force a player to have to remain in a division where last cash is 30-40 points above his average and force him to pay $50-125 per pop in events he wants to play......and eventually he will smarten up and decide not to spend his money this way. Maybe he will hang around if he is improving, but if he is not (due to a myriad of factors), he either has a lot of discretionary income, or loves losing.

I guess you could argue that forcing a 960 player to have to play with a top level Pro is unfair to the top level Pro since you are forcing a perpetual winner to have to play with a perpetual loser. :eek: :D :D

Peter's comments on the Melbourne tournament seem to assume that before the fact there was something the PDGA could do, to prevent what happened from happening. That doesn't seem to have been the case. He also seems to think that what happened is in some way related to a blurred distinction between Ams and Pros. It's hard for me to jump that logical gap, given that the player allegedly accommodated and the TD of the event who alleged accommodated the player are both among our most experienced and highest-rated Pros.

I don't want that incident to take over this thread, so my opinions about that incident that go further will be on that thread. However,
The PDGA must first decide who gets to sit at the big table, and stick with that. Then it must define and enforce the ways in which those players must behave. When it does, one of the items on that list must be, �Professionals do not play against amateurs for profit.�

On this much, Peter and I agree.

To further clarify how much we do or don't agree, Peter: Should (a) a player be allowed to decide to become Pro without any external judgment of his abilities and demeanor, (b) a player have to meet strict standards for behavior and quality of play to become a Pro, or (c) is there a happy place in between?

I don't like to argue with Dr. Shive because he is venerable.

So I'll just observe that Pros Playing Am turned out to be not the end of the world as we know it. It was a big stink on the message board but practically odorless when implemented at actual tournaments. What were the big pro-playing-am controversial moments last year? I never heard of any.

I've played against two amnestied pros so far this year. One of them was a better player and he whupped me. The other was lower rated, although I think of him as a better player, and i beat him. Pro Master is a meat grinder in this state. We have a half dozen 1000 rated pro masters. If the amnesty keeps them in the game, I'd rather they stay in the game.

As an aside to Dr. Shive, no pro is making a profit off an am by playing in the am division. I won in an am division at a B-tier Saturday. I have no doubt that their payouts exceeded PDGA minimums. For winning I got my entry fee back in merch at wholesale values and a modest trophy. Since I can buy merch at wholesale prices, [and so can anyone else who shops the message boards], and cannot sell the trophy, I'm not sure how there is any profit in that.

You force a player to have to remain in a division where last cash is 30-40 points above his average and force him to pay $50-125 per pop in events he wants to play



Two problems with this....

1. The player was never forced to go pro.
2. The player is not forced to play the event.

I bolded the key word....

It's the OPEN division...it's OPEN to anyone who wants to get some.



Exactly. Players should never be forced into pro. It should always be a choice, or better yet, a qualification process. So, apparently that's an indirect support of the Expert division so that those who choose not to play Open have an appropriate place that doesn't poach the lower rated Ams. Is that correct, Kevin?



As long as Expert doesn't include pros, or includes pros only (where ams could choose to play on occasion)

Ams should not be forced to play pro, nor should they be forced into a division where they have to play against pros.

Chap

Every amateur from rec on up is in a division where they might have to compete against pros, under our current format. The lowest rated pro in Michigan did not play 800 rated golf on Saturday but she went home with 150% of her entry fee. If the TD had not offered a division of one she would have had to play Rec, and most of them would have whupped her.

I think you can keep the ADV division as is and wouldn't force people to play pro. But offering these guys a Semi Pro, I would think THE PLAYER would choose to be in this division....even if it blows their am status, cuz most of the Semi-Pros will be 930-990. The 990+ rated player would be playing for the added cash everytime.

Chappy, I respect your thoughts about divisional structure more than just about anyone, over and over again you seem to hit the nail on the head. What do you think the problems Semi-Pro would face?

Half the entry fees and let them play within the Open division to cut their teeth and to get them acclimated with the Pro-Style game that takes their game to the next level so they truly are ready for Pro when they make the next step to Open

Reply to NeedMoPowNow: Michael, your wife didn't need amnesty. She could have applied for reclassification using protocols already in place. I can't imagine anyone would have objected.

Reply to James: The simplest way to think about the "ams supporting the pros" issue is to ask yourself the question, "How much would pro earnings decrease if no amateur (or recreational player) bought any discs, entered any tournament, or joined the PDGA?" After you've thought that through, then you might ask, "How would things change for the ams if the pros disappeared?"

Now here's the long answer. The ams provide financial support to pros in three important ways:

1) Disc manufacturers give large amounts of money, discs and other equipment to professionals. They also give cash and in-kind donations to large professional tournaments, of which the USDGC is perhaps the best example. This money comes from the profit they make selling discs, and they are selling a lot more discs to ams than pros, because there are so many more ams and because many pros don�t have to pay for their discs. I know because I'm one of them.
2) Am entry fees find their way to pro payouts, through the magic of creative bookkeeping. Let�s say 50 ams enter an event paying $50 each, for a total of $2500. They each get a player's package with some sunscreen, two cans of Red Bull, a couple of discs, a small pile of minis and a nice tourist map of the area. The TD values this at $25. And let�s further say that the average am prize is three discs, valued at $10 each. So the ams are told that they actually came out ahead by $5, even if they didn�t need sunscreen, don�t drink Red Bull and don�t throw those discs.
But wait a minute. The TD got all this stuff for next to nothing. The Red Bull was promotional, the minis and discs were steeply discounted, and the Chamber of Commerce was happy to donate the maps. Maybe it all cost $500. So what happened to the other $2000 from the am entry fees? Hmmm.
3) The PDGA makes much more money from am dues, even though they are lower, because there are far more ams. The PDGA spends a considerable amount supporting professional divisions in tournaments (cash support of NT�s, Marshall program, etc), so a disproportionate amount of this support comes from the ams.

I�m not saying this is wrong. Professionals in any sport are always supported, ultimately, by nonprofessionals. Certainly I have made a great deal of money in my career. I know that most of this came from amateurs and recreational players, and I am deeply grateful that this strong base of support exists.

What I am saying is that the pros should leave the crumbs at the small table alone. The ams have done enough, and they fully deserve their titles, trophies and prizes.

So I'll just observe that Pros Playing Am turned out to be not the end of the world as we know it. It was a big stink on the message board but practically odorless when implemented at actual tournaments. What were the big pro-playing-am controversial moments last year? I never heard of any.

THe pro playing am thing was for players rated below 955 in the year past ( or below 915 in adv master and so on )
THe point of it is , OBVIOUSLY to get players of LIKE ABILITY to play together ( even if one is a pro and one is an am )
HUMMMMM players of like ability being able to play together in the same division
OMG WHAT A CONCEPT
If only all players of all abilities , NO matter what destinction they have for themselves ( or what people call them am pro bagger master whatever ) could compete against like players at all levels of compition
I say again what a concept

I dont care what age you are , what division you beleive you belong if you shoot 1000 golf , 950 rated golf , 860 rated golf you should be competing against others at that level .

Pros don't need to leave the ams' crumbs alone. Ams need to wake up and quit accepting that all they deserve is crumbs.

Peter's scenario is exaggerated but essentially true. When I explain it to a lawyer friend of mine he says, "Well, why do the ams play those tournaments then?" And I say, "They smoke a lot of dope." :D

Without entering into the more involved debate about where the pro purses come from, I suspect that most of the guys seeking amnesty had financed a much, much greater share of the pro purse than any amateur has. Most of these guys were playing for less than crumbs and were simply looking for a way to play the sport they enjoy.

If I am wrong about their motivations and they were simply sharks smelling blood, who is really at fault, the shark, or the structure that puts blood in the water?

There are probably a lot of women out there who once upon a time played at the Open Pro level but who have had to drop out or cut back due to child-rearing responsibilities ... its a great thing that the policies of the PDGA do NOT require them to return as Open Pros but allow them to play at the level appropriate to their rating. Please let your wife know this, so that she can get back into the game in a way that is compatible with her current situation.

(Oh yeah, and of course this applies to all the others, of both genders, who have kids or other responsibilities that draw their attention and limit their opportunities to practice their skills.)

There's no blood for them to smell in the am divisions. We're walking around pale and dizzy haviong been bled from beginning to end to make added cash for the pros.

If I am wrong about their motivations and they were simply sharks smelling blood, who is really at fault, the shark, or the structure that puts blood in the water?



I love your analogy, You probably could have got a better laugh factor if you would have gone with....They were simply pigs smelling &lt;excrement&gt;, who is really at fault, the pigs, or the asses that put the &lt;excrement&gt; in the pin :D

j/k I couldn't resist

:D:D:D:D:D:D

Really.........just ask yourself, "If being pale and dizzy is my alternative, why on earth would I choose amnesty?"

You really can't have both sides of the argument.

There are probably a lot of women out there who once upon a time played at the Open Pro level but who have had to drop out or cut back due to child-rearing responsibilities ... its a great thing that the policies of the PDGA do NOT require them to return as Open Pros but allow them to play at the level appropriate to their rating. Please let your wife know this, so that she can get back into the game in a way that is compatible with her current situation.

(Oh yeah, and of course this applies to all the others, of both genders, who have kids or other responsibilities that draw their attention and limit their opportunities to practice their skills.)



True...Since she has NO RATING, because she last played BEFORE ratings, a TD could allow her to play where they felt she would best fit in, by rule.
:D

Really.........just ask yourself, "If being pale and dizzy is my alternative, why on earth would I choose amnesty?"

You really can't have both sides of the argument.



He's got a point Bruce, there is one group that is getting bled worse than the Ams. The perpetual donor Pros.

Reply to several, but especially to Terry: Many posters don't see the connection between bad professional behavior and amnesty. I tried to be specific about this in my original post. Here are the relevant passages:

"Fair-weather pros and prams are symbols of the PDGA's inability to come to terms with consistent standards of professional behavior. If our governing body can't even tell us who the pros are, how could we possibly know how they should behave"

"It is this simple. Standards of professional behavior will always be a joke until the governing body rigidly defines and enforces them. And it will never be able to do that until it can rigidly define who the pros are".

Those statements seem to be pretty clear. So the likelihood is that you don't agree.

So Terry, I believe that the PDGA could have done something, but it would have to have begun long ago. The continuous waffling on the issue of professionalism has created a climate in which everyone -- pros, TD's, amateurs and anyone else watching this sequence of amazing events -- is encouraged to believe that professional standards are a joke. We smile and wink and look away and make excuses and tolerate just about anything. And we end up saying, "Oh, that's just the way things are in disc golf. Too bad there's nothing we can do about it."

Have you ever tried to explain some of this stuff to someone closely connected with another sport? It's a good reality check.

So, right now, today, Board policies are encouraging players to turn pro for absolutely the wrong reasons. "OK, why not be a pro," they say, because there is zero accountability. "And if it doesn't work out I can play as an amateur pretty much anytime I want, or even go back and forth as the spirit moves me".

And two years from now the Board will look at the new spectacle of the day and say, "Well, there was nothing we could have done about that before the fact."

And in answer to Terry's specific question: It is (b) for sure. We've got to stop letting people turn pro just because they feel like it. Especially now.

And finally, an apology to Aleksey for having butchered the spelling of his first name in my original post, particularly because he seems to be one guy who understands what I am talking about.

MTL and Kevin Mac,

While your arguments are logical, if taken literally it would mean that everyone should be in one division. For example, Why should Kenny Climo be penalized because he is better than a 600 rated Junior? He shouldn't, but I don't think anyone would suggest that the sport will thrive by making 600 rated juniors pay $100 to play in a tournamnet when they have to compete against Kenny Climo. After all, Little Leaguers don't play against the New York Yankees - but neither do those in the minor leagues. In fact, Major League Baseball actually subsidzes minor league baseball.

The reason for different divisions, while admittedly being an "unfair" handicapp is to encourage participation. Seen in this light, the "protected" divisions i.e. everything but Open, should be organized in a way that maximizes participation, i.e. by giving participants in that division some reasonable hope of doing well given adequate practice, etc.

Being a professional in disc golf these days is IMHO nearly impossible. I'd define a professional as someone whose "profession" is that sport, i.e. they don't have to hold down other jobs to earn a living, but earn their living by playing that sport. There are lots who want to be professional, but the money just isn't there. While it is tempting to get the money there by playing against "little leaguers" in the short run, in the long run that will not lead to increased participation and growth which has been shown in other sports to be the thing that ultimately supports a professional class.

In summary, yes any amateur class is inherently a handicapp, but may still be desireable. If it is desireable, then it would only make sense to arrange things in a way that maximizes the assumed advantages of this amateur class. I think that is why the "expert" amateur class is being suggested - to maximize participation in the amateur ranks. And anyone can stay amateur, but in that case they should be in a division of appropriate skill level where their ability gives them both the hope of doing well and also prevents them from taking that same hope from others (to an excessive degree) Admittedly, where the lines are drawn is a subjective area.

There will always be those who want to challenge themselves by 'playing up" and they should not be discouraged from doing this except in cases where it will damage the reputation of the event or prevent other more qualified players from participating. Participants should be encouraged to challenge themselves by playing up, so it should not be a one way street if they find they were not ready for that yet. They should have the option of being "sent back to the minors"and playing against players of their own ability as reflected in their player rating.

The Professional Class in most sports is a segregated class where entry is limited by ability (the equivalent of player rating in the PDGA more or less). Thus I am an advocate of some sort of qualification to play Pro in events that are in enough demand to fill so that only the best players are eligible for that. Because of the higher abilities of the Pro class, outsiders and amateurs will pay more to this class of players for the right to spectate, endorse, etc, and amateurs will be more likely to buy equipment and products endorsed by this class. At this time, though, there is not enough money coming in to support this professional class in disc golf, but when there is, the amateurs will not have access to it unless they can qualify to enter the professional segregated ranks. The flip side of this, is that the ranks have to be segregated which does create some sort of handicapp for the amateurs.

In the long run, it benefits the Pros by encouraging this handicapp, this amateur class, because it increases participation and that ultimately grows the sport and the money allocated to only the professionals. Trying to get too much from the amateurs in the short term will harm participation and the returns to Pros in the longer term.

all of the above, it should be understood is polite discourse among friends and certainly IMHO.

Mr. Shive, what's your definition of a "Fair-weather pro"?

O M G did you just lump me with _MTL_ ? I'm ruined j/k

I am not trying to undermine the Amateur ranks at all, especially not age protected divisions.

We all agree that its the 940-990 players are the ones getting hosed. I'm for putting them in their own Pro division kind of like the minor leagues with smaller entry fees. Sliding them in with us in the tournament structure so that we can help them out. They will only be competing with other Semi-Pro's which will have similar ratings but will be playing with Open players. In return we will teach them how to deal with pressure, how to call the rules, how to behave or NOT-to behave on the course.

I am 1000% sure that us current Open players can help make the 940-990 rated player that chooses Semi-Pro get much better at all aspects of the game. We all know you play better when you play with better players. It just prepares these players for the Open division with a much greater learning tool than sticking them in another AM division.

All I really seeing this Expert AM division proposal doing is moving the hypothetical line of ratings that it is before your supposed to turn pro. Right now it's 955 that is "suggested" that you should look at the Open division, now it's just going to move it up to 985 when it is "suggested" that you start considering the Open division.

Thus making the Open divisions much smaller. The Semi-Pro can fill the void for 940-990 golfer as well as help them to get better.

"Fair-weather pros and prams are symbols of the PDGA's inability to come to terms with consistent standards of professional behavior. If our governing body can't even tell us who the pros are, how could we possibly know how they should behave"

Hard to disagree, Peter, our perspectives on the issue are so differing, but I think we agree at base: I think we're seeing the same thing, but from 180 degrees apart - you as a Pro and me as an Am-for-life.

For example, your "prams": I think they were symbols of "the [sport's] inability to come to terms with consistent standards of professional behavior" even before the amnesty. Think of them before as "players stuck in amber." People who once, when they were younger, excitedly declared Pro and later realized that was not such a good idea.

Bringing them back into the Am fold as a group doesn't change their status as "symbol," so much as momentarily shine a light on the the problem they represent: The traditional expectation that players self-decide to turn Pro as soon as they start winning in Advanced. [If there are any who should have stayed Pro, they will be unable to resist the lure of dollars and will eventually cash and lose their Am status again.]

That doesn't solve the remaining problem: That we need to define the skills, demeanor, and other expectations of Pros, and certify them as such in a way that goes beyond self-declaration or a player rating.

My only caveat is: That reveals another problem: I don't know if we are where we can, as a sport, support "real Pros" without letting them play against real Ams (masquerading as Pros, based on self-declaration) for money. We just might not be there yet.

I think you should run for the PDGA Board of Directors, Pete, get a good "inside" look at the current the realities of the sport, and figure us a way out of this. [Hint: I think a way out is going to require a lot of volunteer time from the "real Pros." My opinion: They need to be the face of the PDGA in being out there and getting the outside sponsor dollars that would let this happen.]

I think the concept of ever being a "pro" in disc golf is what's suspect. There's no indication the sport has any interest for spectators including our own players who would be expected to have the most interest. So implying that we have "pros in training" in a semi-pro division just prolongs the myth of a pro future via playing well (versus teaching which is viable already). Most will always be Ams for life and our divisions should support that to the highest level.

I think the concept of ever being a "pro" in disc golf is what's suspect. There's no indication the sport has any interest for spectators including our own players who would be expected to have the most interest. So implying that we have "pros in training" in a semi-pro division just prolongs the myth of a pro future via playing well (versus teaching which is viable already). Most will always be Ams for life and our divisions should support that to the highest level.



Why are you trying to decipher how the word "PRO" is defined, because the Disc Golf's version of "AM" is SO FAR from the true definition of Amateur and EVERYONE KNOWS IT!

It REALLY comes down to Semi-Pro's can't make any money for TD's or the tournament so it can't work. It's more important to me that the game gets stronger, not the profitability of a tournament.

Kevin,

No argument there. Oh yes, and my sincerest apologies about the MTL thing. How could I ;)

I'm not against age divisions....mainly just more divisions based on skill.

Why are you trying to decipher how the word "PRO" is defined, because the Disc Golf's version of "AM" is SO FAR from the true definition of Amateur and EVERYONE KNOWS IT!




Exactly. You do such a great job making the points for me. Our version of Am is certainly not the traditional version of amateur. But divisions with that structure work well and are growing because TDs can offer them without going broke.

Our pro divisions are also not like traditional pro divisions with players making a living at playing. But unlike our version of Ams, they are not economically justified other than TDs doing charity work or being propped up by Ams.

Thank you for the excellent post. i hope the new ED and the BoD have ears to hear ;)

Maybe the PGA should follow our lead and offer guys like Tiger amnesty :eek:

It REALLY comes down to Semi-Pro's can't make any money for TD's or the tournament so it can't work. It's more important to me that the game gets stronger, not the profitability of a tournament.


IMHO, that's not it at all.

"Expert" needs to be an am division because if it is a pro division paying cash it will totally and completely gut and displace the Open Pro division. Kevin likes to whine about how everyone will bail on the Pro Open division to play for plastic coins, but the reality of the situation is that there are many donator pros who have not yet quit playing tournaments who refuse to play am for plastic. Those guys will still be in the Pro Open and Pro Masters divisions if Expert existed as an Am division.

Make the Expert division the Semi-Pro division where pros can play for cash, and every single pro who qualifies based on rating will go there and leave almost no one left in the Open Pro division. The ams will not flock there as the few who are truly ready for pro but stay am will, like now, still be waiting for "one more Am Worlds".

All of this is IMHO. But as has been pointed out here, the donator pros are the real players getting bled by the current system, and IMO every single one of them would run to the Pro2/Semi-Pro cash playing divisions because they would be playing for cash.

Pros don't need to leave the ams' crumbs alone. Ams need to wake up and quit accepting that all they deserve is crumbs.

Peter's scenario is exaggerated but essentially true. When I explain it to a lawyer friend of mine he says, "Well, why do the ams play those tournaments then?" And I say, "They smoke a lot of dope." :D



you attorneys are so funny :D(actually that was pretty good)

isn't this discussion missing the point if hung up on whether having many divisions promotes participation or on whether the am.s are subsidizing the pro payouts? (obviously the answers are yes). but the point, it seems to me, is that the top Pro division is not well served by our current structure, nor is the definition of what a PDGA Pro Player is. This has serious ramifications in terms of our marketability.

keep all the divisions you like but separate that from what the true Open division is -- open to all genders and ages and consisting of the top Pros in the game of disc golf.

if you want the pseudo-Pros and am divisions to support the top Pros in order to further the validity with which our sport is viewed -- by all means go for it. But hasn't the PDGA -- haven't we -- gotten sidetracked worrying about mere numbers and forgotten to think of what is in the long-term interest of our sport in terms of the top professionals and their exposure to the non disc-golfers out there?

Agreed- actually I assume I agree with you in that divisions based on skill are actually better than those based on age.

...but the point, it seems to me, is that the top Pro division is not well served by our current structure, nor is the definition of what a PDGA Pro Player is. This has serious ramifications in terms of our marketability.


Please, oh please, tell me how the top pro division "is not well served by our current structure."

They seem to be extremely well served by our current structure. More so than market forces will bear. They are subsidized by volunteer labor and propped up in hopes of generating sponsor interest that is simply not there.

Please explain your rationale. Thanks.

Why are you trying to decipher how the word "PRO" is defined, because the Disc Golf's version of "AM" is SO FAR from the true definition of Amateur and EVERYONE KNOWS IT!



There's little reason, at present, to believe that DG is capable of supporting a professional class in the same way that sports like tennis, golf, bicycling, NASCAR,etc do. I'm not talking about the same scale, but about the same methods (i.e. viewership and advertising).


It REALLY comes down to Semi-Pro's can't make any money for TD's or the tournament so it can't work. It's more important to me that the game gets stronger, not the profitability of a tournament.



While growing the game may be more important to you, how does the game grow except by TDs running tourneys? Open players take home cash because Ams take home plastic. Are you saying Pro players are well and good to expect cash for their 'work' but TDs shouldn't expect to be compensated for their actual work?

I think Peter, while making several excellent points, misses the true reason behind the "amnesty." It wasn't to help out guys who weren't as good as they were three years ago when their wives had kids, or got lucky and ca$hed at a "C" tier one Sunday in Toledo, but to cushion the blow to low end pros with regards to the 2007 membership fee increases. This way these players might pony up $50 to be an "Am" while they might not pay $75 to remain a "Pro." The figure I heard was a little over 100 members opted for this amnesty.

The question I have for Peter is what he thinks about age protected divisions vs. true competition against similarly rated players. As a multi-time senior grandmaster champion I suspect he will say that age protection is legitimate while many of us see it much as he does the sub 955 pro bouncing in and out of Advanced depending on his opposition that weekend.

...but the point, it seems to me, is that the top Pro division is not well served by our current structure, nor is the definition of what a PDGA Pro Player is. This has serious ramifications in terms of our marketability.


Please, oh please, tell me how the top pro division "is not well served by our current structure."

They seem to be extremely well served by our current structure. More so than market forces will bear. They are subsidized by volunteer labor and propped up in hopes of generating sponsor interest that is simply not there.

Please explain your rationale. Thanks.



look at the progress over the last 4 years in terms of the number of PDGA NT events that have been broadcast on ESPN2. Look at the increase in major corporate sponsorship over the last 4 years of the top events and the top ten Pros. [/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif] Look at the posts of Kevin McCoy and hear where he is coming from.

TD's like you Rhett do an awful lot -- there is no question about that... what i am questioning is the focus of the PDGA money and energy and imo that should unquestionably be on showcasing and enhancing the *top* players in our sport.

why don't we have an event like the USDGC but which instead only allows 25 entrants (based on world rank at year's end)? the purse should be heavily subsidized by a $1 per player per event as a portion of the PDGA fee. we could have it at the new IDGC. we the PDGA membership could be the spectators. the galleries would be enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and into it! ok, that is just a small dream -- where are the bigger ones and why aren't we making them happen? oh yeah /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif , instead we need to have more high entry fee am. events so that baggers can court plastic and so the politicians amongst our leadership can court where the votes are (aka: amateur constituents) :confused:

it seems to me the "semi-pro" option is a shortened version of a sliding fee tournament structure? am i reading this correctly? why stop at 940? take it down to include all competitors. one division tournament? 1/4 entries, free?

i feel the problem is having open as a division within a tournament rather than having an open tournament. make an expert division, just make it go all the way to the top of the ratings. a tournament should be divisionally structured or open but not both. the consumer will decide. no need for pro or am labels.

i feel the problem is having open as a division within a tournament rather than having an open tournament. make an expert division, just make it go all the way to the top of the ratings.



I agree Kevin. How about that? If the Expert division gets added, the smart thing to do for TDs would be to stagger the divisions held on a weekend such that Expert and Open were not at the same time, just like Advanced and Intermediate are not the same days in several locations.

is this (old tournament structures) what is holding back change?

how about a sliding fee option for these open tournaments that aren't filling up?

why are the fees so high anyway? should we lower standards?

chuck, it happens more than i care to admit.

"Expert" needs to be an am division because if it is a pro division paying cash it will totally and completely gut and displace the Open Pro division. . . . the reality of the situation is that there are many donator pros who have not yet quit playing tournaments who refuse to play am for plastic. Those guys will still be in the Pro Open and Pro Masters divisions if Expert existed as an Am division.

Make the Expert division the Semi-Pro division where pros can play for cash, and every single pro who qualifies based on rating will go there and leave almost no one left in the Open Pro division. The ams will not flock there as the few who are truly ready for pro but stay am will, like now, still be waiting for "one more Am Worlds".

All of this is IMHO. But as has been pointed out here, the donator pros are the real players getting bled by the current system, and IMO every single one of them would run to the Pro2/Semi-Pro cash playing divisions because they would be playing for cash.


Great insight.
I'll also add that I've seen many more events (in the last 5 years) where Ams are NOT squeezed for higher open payout. I am a donor ProMaster by choice, but would probably love to play in a SemiPro or ExpertAm.

But if that case, lets think of what else might change.
The Open Division would need to become just the Pro division, totally based on ratings.
It should also be dependent on sponsors other than the major disc manufacturers and increasingly dependent on paying spectators.
Would Semi-Pro players be eligible for sponsorship $$ ? Would Semi-Pro feature age-based versions like Semi-Pro Female Masters?
Oh yeah, and since even the best female players don't have 1000+ ratings, they'd either HAVE to move down or possibly form the LPDGA rating system. :o

Reply to 28003: Colin, I initiated a thread entitled "Meet the Fair-Weather Pro" on 2/07/05 (probably before you joined the PDGA) to protest the then new policy of allowing pros to play against amateurs. I didn't mind the playing (and I still don't) so much as I objected to the fact that the pros were allowed to win amateur titles, trophies and merchandise.

There were hundreds of responses, which rather quickly lost sight of the fact that I was really making a plea for higher ethical standards for professionals. The same sort of drift is occurring here, and quite likely we are already nearing the end of the really useful responses.

I don't want to resurrect that thread here. You can easily do a search for it using the engine provided by this DISCussion Board.

If Peter's point is simply that there ought to be standards for calling yourself a pro, I'd agree with that. Obviously in the big money sports you have to earn the right to call yourself a pro. Do other small potatoes sports let you call yourself a pro at will? Can anyone pay the pro entry fee and ride in the pro rodeo? Or play pro badminton? I have no idea.

Maybe some of us ams would have a little more respect for pros if they had to earn it. I know i don't have much respect for some chick who has never beat my daughter but can cash every time in a division of 1. Ditto some dude who has never beat me but did pay $25 more for a pro card.

I was really making a plea for higher ethical standards for professionals.



Why do you keep saying that?

You keep referencing "consistent standards of professional behavior" and "higher ethical standards for professionals" which implies to me that you think there is less ethical behavior in the amateur ranks.

What makes a "Pro" a Pro? What makes up "higher ethical standards?" What does "professional behavior" consist of?

Since no one makes a living from tournament play in disc golf, the "professional" term is all but meaningless to me. The winner of the advanced division wins a polehole in some tournaments, usually worth more than what all the "Pros" make in the same tournament, with the exception of the Open winner. There is extremely little distinction in my mind between playing for merchandise and money.

When we have major sponsors and $500,000+ purses at every tournament and real professionals in our sport, then maybe this is something relevant. Until then we are all playing for each others entry fees and the amateur vs. professional thing is meaningless.

With what JL said , once again what difference does it make if someone ( THE PDGA , Yourself , some guy in the stands ) calls you a pro or an am . IT basically SHOULD come down to how well you play ( based upon ratings ) and those like players should play together at a tourney to compete for whatever prizes ( cash for so called pros and merchandise for so called ams )

I like K Mack's concept of a semi pro, where you are lumped in with the "Pros" but not battling them for the money. Why not lump the Masters players in in the same way if they are so inclined? So basically, all of your top pros are playing against one another based on SCORE, but payout is dependent on placement within your division. Sure you are eliminating the traditional "lead card" concept from 2 of the divisions, but what you are doing is pitting these people against the players they most match in skill on that day. That should make everyone better.

I also think it might be worth investigating some sort of rules test for all players who desire to play in the Pro ranks. Make it more of a flippant decision, make it an EFFORT. Wouldn't that improve our pro players potential rule calling procedures, if everyone took a test and had to pass to play in the pro ranks? I mean, as it is, most players only know the rules they have had an issue with on the course, very few know the right answer to a rule question they have not encountered on the course in their career.

I know it would be a pain to have the PDGA office process all of these tests, so maybe that becomes a state coordinator role. And yes, I think if we require new pros to take the test, ALL PROS should be required to take the test.

If Peter's point is simply that there ought to be standards for calling yourself a pro, I'd agree with that. Obviously in the big money sports you have to earn the right to call yourself a pro. Do other small potatoes sports let you call yourself a pro at will? Can anyone pay the pro entry fee and ride in the pro rodeo? Or play pro badminton? I have no idea.



Here in Oklahoma if you pay your $35 They will put you on a Bull, and boy is it funny to see a greenhorn on raging bull :)

2. Participation in a profession, as organized athletics, for pay

-------------

Comments

The last definition of each word verifies that current PDGA Pros are Pros by definition.



It also verifies that PDGA Amateurs are also Pro's since it does not specify what currency is used "for pay". :eek:

Reply to bruce_brakel: Yes, Bruce, I�m �only� asking for higher ethical standards for professionals.

Reply to Jeff_LaG: The ams are fine. The worst and most embarrassing incidents occur in the pro ranks. The pressures of playing for money can bring out truly astonishing behavior, and the damage to others is greater because of the higher stakes.

Reply to PDGAOffice: Brian, I agree that playing for money is the simplest operating definition for a professional.

And perhaps we are not yet capable of implementing a qualification procedure for becoming a professional. But we are (or better be) capable of implementing meaningful standards of professional integrity. There are many areas that should be addressed here. In my threads I am highlighting only one:

We have got to stop allowing (actually encouraging) players to turn pro with every expectation of being able to continue to win amateur prizes. Programs like �Pros Playing as Ams� and �Amnesty� attract players to the pro ranks who shouldn�t be pros. We are cheating the ams and degrading the reputation of the pros.

So yes, pros are players who win money. But there is much more that should go along with this. For example, pros should behave politely, should follow and enforce the Rules of Play, and should willingly submit to discipline from their peers and from the PDGA when unable to comply.

And then there is the standard I�ve been talking about. Pros may play against amateurs for sport, but not for gain. Pros may not win any titles, trophies or prizes that would otherwise have gone to an amateur.

Won't the IRS be surprised when they receive twenty discs from the PDGA as the 1099 withholdings for several Am Worlds winners... :eek:

I can say that the behavior of the OPEN players have been a lot better recently than two years ago. Some may argue a certain Master players' behavior has been a little schotty.

I wonder what happened the past two years that changed?

I can say that the behavior of the OPEN players have been a lot better recently than two years ago. Some may argue a certain Master players' behavior has been a little schotty.

I wonder what happened the past two years that changed?


About $280,000 in extra PDGA Tour Purse.

Although very nice......I don't think that's it ;)

Won't the IRS be surprised when they receive twenty discs from the PDGA as the 1099 withholdings for several Am Worlds winners... :eek:



good one!!! :D

I think Peter, while making several excellent points, misses the true reason behind the "amnesty." It wasn't to help out guys who weren't as good as they were three years ago when their wives had kids, or got lucky and ca$hed at a "C" tier one Sunday in Toledo, but to cushion the blow to low end pros with regards to the 2007 membership fee increases. This way these players might pony up $50 to be an "Am" while they might not pay $75 to remain a "Pro." The figure I heard was a little over 100 members opted for this amnesty.

Wrong. The one-time overall amnesty proposal came from me and was focused like a laser on players who had turned Pro when they shouldn't have and, yes, who then experienced jobs, wives, kids, and more mature responsibilities and simply could not maintain the competitive edge.

It had nothing to do with the dues increase. If anything, concern over lost revenue would have been an argument against it. In fact, I first began proposing the general amnesty more than five years ago, long before the latest dues increase was even conceived of.

I still do not fully understand Peter's position - I am working at it - but he was right about that, for sure.

I wonder what happened the past two years that changed?

The growing purse is no doubt a contributing factor.

PDGA Marshals are probably a factor, also. They've been around for a little more than two years but I would bet that having someone closely watching the final round top cards at top events has had an impact.

Another factor might be the PDGA disciplinary compromise reached with a former top Pro that resulted in his paying a several thousand dollar fine. (That was a little more than two years ago but its impact probably has some legs.)

Finally, I have heard for some time that the larger sponsors have been working to inculcate more professional behavior from their players. That could be very important.

Why are ams even allowed in the "PROFESSIONAL disc golf association" anyway?

"Why not have a PDGA and an ADGA"

That way you "Graduate" to the PDGA...

It had nothing to do with the dues increase. If anything, concern over lost revenue would have been an argument against it. In fact, I first began proposing the general amnesty more than five years ago, long before the latest dues increase was even conceived of.



That may be, but I am fairly certain that avoiding the fee increase was exactly why amnesty was taken in many cases. For example, there are 980+ rated amateurs, many of who played almost exclusively in professional divisions before this year. (and were very sucessful in those divisions, taboot) Including a 1000+ rated player!

PDGA Player Ratings - Amateur Men (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&division=M1O&order=rating)

Including a 1000+ rated player!



Who, BTW, has cashed in a Pro Masters event this year already! Should the PDGA be expecting a check for the difference between Pro renewal & Am(nesty) renewal?

PDGA Player Ratings - Amateur Men (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&division=M1O&order=rating)

wooooo... go NC

Why are ams even allowed in the "PROFESSIONAL disc golf association" anyway?

"Why not have a PDGA and an ADGA"

That way you "Graduate" to the PDGA...

Because ams pay for everything.

Wrong. The one-time overall amnesty proposal came from me ...It had nothing to do with the dues increase.

no, that would be wrong, Terry. it absolutely was done with the dues increase in mind.

I've avoided addressing your typical propoganda, cause it was irrelevant to the poster's main theme, but your assertion is bs. Firstly, most pro purses are almost entirely financed by other pros . Second, TDs finance the added money either through sponsorship they generated through their hard work, or through the retail/wholesale markup. You imply that that the retail/wholesale markup is some am gift to the pros. If it exists, it is the TDs gift to the pros, not the am's gift .

There is no market where ams buy at wholesale prices. It does not exist. Therefore, they are not "giving up" anything. One cannot give away what they do not have.

If you were honest in your debate, you would continually stress that TDs finance a small part of the pro purses through the markup, and like Rhett points out, TDs finance much of the overhead associated with pros through the markup on am payout.

Is this the best way to finance things? It's probably a very complex problem/issue in itself, where useful discussion will be hard to have as long as propaganda poses as truth.

If you truly feel that markup is an injustice, you should be lobbying for low entry am events where markup costs are reduced, or proposing rules that TDs cannot use a markup at all. Instead, you choose deception to rile up a mob.

Because ams pay for everything.


Word.

Yeah, that word is bs.

Agreed.

Yeah, that word is bs.


No, if there were only "pro" events, 99% of events would be C-tiers with little or no added cash. Most TDs generate added cash through donations from sponsors for players packs, merch. sales, and am payouts. Take away the ams and TDs have to work exponentially harder to generate added cash.
Take away the ams and all pros are literally playing only for each other's money.

Because ams pay for everything.


Please explain specifically. Would you use IOS 2007 as an example?

Very good point Colin.

If a TD had no interest in making money, he could easily add 3 - 500 dollars to every purse just off of Am profit.

That is more accurate. However, pros basically play for each others money right now.

Like I told Bruce, if the markup is such an injustice, why not lobby to outlaw it, or charge $20 per event, where the markup/player will be more tolerable.

Well, why isn't that happening now? Might it be that the system works prety well for the class we mislabel as "ams." Most, or some at least, like high fees, because they can "win" more without facing those of greater skills.

Or he could add it to the ams, which is why we have 150 to 160% payouts in our amateur divisions, and why we ran three of the 20 best attended tournaments last year.

At IOS 7 last year ams would have paid for the pros' pro rata share of sanctioning and insurance. We did not deduct that from the pro purse. Ams would have paid for the yellow rope. They paid for our printing and cutting costs for scorecards, leaderboard cards and flyers. They paid for the leaderboards too. They paid for the bins we keep the discs in. They paid for those nice overall dyed discs and plaques. Thanks to Dr. Dye for donating the dye work; he's an am. They paid for the pros' tournament trophy discs. I donated the dye work. I'm an am. Ams paid for the funny money except Discraft chipped in the custom die and setup charge to have their logo on the $10 coin. Ams paid for the Sharpies, the baggies, the CTP flags. At Fairfield we don't have a course use fee, but at the courses we do, ams pay for it. They pay for the whole freaking show!

Our am payouts would be 180% if we did not have the dead weight of pros.

I take so much crap from freeloading pros, I'm not offering their divisions anymore when it is my decision to make.

If a TD had no interest in making money, he could easily add 3 - 500 dollars to every purse just off of Am profit.


That is simply incorrect and it mis-charaterizes all TDs as "making $500" off each event!

Maybe you have some TDs that run am-only events around there and make a profit. I would love it if someone were doing that here because it would mean more tourneys to play.

As for your $500, that money is used to pay for park permits, sanctioning fees, insurance, and any other tournament expenses there are. If there were no ams and no retail/wholesale markup to cover those fees, every one of those expenses becomes a deduction from the pro entry fee and comes out of the "100% payout" purse for the pros.

That is the way it is. That's why it's hard to hit your 110% payout requirement for pros at a PGA b-tier without ams playing, because you have to raise enough sponsorship to cover all the associated expenses of getting the park and running the tourney, and then you have raise even more money to add to the pro purse to get it to 110%.

My EIEIO tournament is like a "pro only" event because I pay full price to the pro shop for the am payout, dollar for dollar. (We shut down a successful ball golf business for a whole weekend day, and this makes having a disc golf tournament there a reasonable business decision.) I have been very fortunate to have a great facility and a great player base that step up and chip in for all the sponsorship opportunities.

So, you're perpetuating the problem which you are complaining about?

Websters Dictionary definitions of Professional:

1. Of, pertaining to, typical of, or practicing a profession

2. Engaged in a specific activity as a career

3. Engaging or engaged in for pay

And under Professionalism:

1. Professional standing, techniques, attributes, or ethics

2. <font color="red"> Participation in a profession, as organized athletics, for pay </font>

-------------

Comments

The last definition of each word verifies that current PDGA Pros are Pros by definition.

Who is to say that some guy who works in a factory Monday-Friday for $12/hour and plays 18 PDGA Tour events in a year as a Pro cashing for $2500 is not playing disc golf as a career ('a chosen profession or occupation?"). Or does he/she have to formalize this further by say reporting disc golf on their IRS return, in order for this be a career and he/she to be a "Pro" ???

Re qualifying standards for being able to call oneself a PDGA Pro - at some point in the future this will happen, in one way or another, as it did at some point in the development of other sports. The qualification system for the USDGC is a point along that line. The nascent designation "PDGA Touring Pro" is another. But it is hard to see how the work involved in the building and management of a PDGA Pro qualification system today would be justified in terms of the practical differences and impacts this would amount to, given the relative small size of the sport. So, yes, this too will come, when the time is right ...

My .02



I think the intent of this definition would apply to professional salaried contract athletes like baseball players, NASCAR drivers etc. I'm not aware of too many salaried or contracted disc golf pros, and no getting x number of discs from Innova each year as a sponsored player wouldn't count. Disc golfers play for prizes. That's where 99.9% of their disc golf related money comes from. Everyone always wants to compare this to golf. Yes Tiger plays for prize money but the vast majority of his earnings come from endorsements etc. How many disc golfers make more from endorsements than winnings...five?

Chuck's cute comment about the IRS implies that ams are really pros too, so then it would be OK for pros to take their prizes.

That is an insult to ams. The total dollar value of the prizes for our 8000 ams is miniscule compared to the amount of money won by our 3000 pros. Perhaps the trophies and titles are priceless. All the more reason to leave them for the ams.

Now here's something else to think about. There is nothing to prevent any pro from taking amnesty, snatching an amateur world championship at Milwaukee, turning pro again and going for a title at Highbridge. Can you imagine? What a hero! Two world championships in the same year! Run the table.

Can you imagine Kenny or Barry doing this? Of course not. Never in a million years. Do you believe that someone else might try it? Of course. Why? Because the PDGA has invited them to do it.

And when they do, even just the amateur title part, maybe the ams will wake up to what is going on and the rest of us will think a little harder about what makes a "pro" a pro.

Wrong. The one-time overall amnesty proposal came from me and was focused like a laser on players who had turned Pro when they shouldn't have and, yes, who then experienced jobs, wives, kids, and more mature responsibilities and simply could not maintain the competitive edge.

It had nothing to do with the dues increase. If anything, concern over lost revenue would have been an argument against it. In fact, I first began proposing the general amnesty more than five years ago, long before the latest dues increase was even conceived of.




Right. No one sitting around a conference table or in a hot tub ever said,


We're going to lose a lot of these low rated "pros" with the dues increase. Let's let them bail back to "am." Getting $50 is better than not getting $75 from the suckas.



Much guffawing then ensued.

Well, why isn't that happening now? Might it be that the system works prety well for the class we mislabel as "ams." Most, or some at least, like high fees, because they can "win" more without facing those of greater skills.


Dude, you are delusional!

Do you want ot know the real reason why ams continue to play disc golf tournament even though they know that it only costs the TD 55%-60% of their entry dollars to pay the ams out 100% retail value?

1) Because the $30-$45 entry fee is considered a "great value".

2) Becaue they like to compete against each other as long as #1 is true.

3) Because as long as #1 is true, they don't mind some of that retail/wholesale markup helping out the pro payout because somehow it just seems fair AS LONG AS THE AMS AREN'T GETTING REAMED.

Why are ams even allowed in the "PROFESSIONAL disc golf association" anyway?

"Why not have a PDGA and an ADGA"

That way you "Graduate" to the PDGA...



STOP making sense -- it carries little weight around here ;)

I make a statement that it works well for ams. You give me three reasons why ams like it, all of which probably apply to higher entry fees (at least around here because tourneys fill). So, Where is the delusion? You seemed to call me delusional and support my original position that the structure must appeal to ams.

Witness the numbers of ams to pros playing disc golf. Witness the original amnesty issue: people wanting out of pros. THEY WANT TO BE AMS . Well, if I am delusional and the system doesn't work well for ams, why are there so many more ams, and why would people want to leave pros to become ams?

Oh, and for the more obvious elephant-in-the-living-room question:

If the motivation of winning prizes is just my delusion, why are you and some others around here so opposed to flat payouts?

The fundamental mistake in the beginning that has lead to this was naming the original organization the PDGA versus ADGA. But since everyone was volunteering in those days and there weren't TDs with merchandise and hotstamps, it was easier to run events with cash payouts. Now here we are.

If we had Ams from the beginning, first for mostly trophies and minis, and then added the wider variety of hotstamps and discs, there would be no pros and everyone would be paying their way. There would have been no need to generate sponsorship cash and several promoters could maybe make a living running events by now. Many more events would have been charitable fundraisers since keeping cash for payouts would have been unnecessary. There would be no shortage of bidders for Am Worlds and no drain on resources for Pro Worlds since it wouldn't exist.

Would Kenny have won as many Am World titles? Probably. We just might not have seen the top players in our neighborhoods as often since few would be living on the road unless they were running clinics to pay the tab or maybe came from money. Ratings would still have come along since a way to identify skill levels would have been needed and Expert would already be in place with Open above it.

At the appropriate time, sponsorship might get to the point where developing a pro tour would be viable. Even with that idealized evolution, I doubt we would be much closer to that today.

Nothing but pride and self interest is preventing every current "pro" from reverting to the Amateurs that most of us are except our handful of product endorsers and teachers. Explain why that wouldn't be better for the health of our sport and our future?

Bruce had mentioned a while back that soccer did something similar when they stopped all pro activity for 5 years or so to focus on building the base of their sport so the possibilty of supporting pro efforts could eventually be realized.

But James, you're still missing the point. Without the Ams, the Pro game would be significantly different! Despite your assertion that Pros essentially play for Pros money, All of the infrastructure, some of the added cash, and some of the sponsorship support is due to the Am dollar. The Pro game changes significantly without that money.

Bruce, if you think that stronger AMS make good Pro's how come Illinois doesn't have A Pro that could beat my girl??? you still haven't answered this question.

I don't know what planets you guys are playing tournaments at but the AM's DO NOT feed the Pro purses in my part of the country. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas the TD's and clubs go out and get sponsorship or run fund raisers that account for the added cash for Pro's.

All of you ought to check out the definition of Amateur. In the real world of Amateurism they should be paying their entry fee, and get a disc and a t-shirt and be playing for a trophy. THAT'S IT!!! I understand that disc golf has created AM's into something that is not very Amateur. But for all of you AM's saying your entitled to 100% of your money back when it comes to payback is ridiculous and is contradicting the TRUE definition of Amateur.

I have been a TD and honestly I don't mind paying out plastic to Ams' cuz it's what disc golf has always done. This is where it makes it worth while for TD's to be compensated for their efforts. Prizing discs out at Retail is for the TD's not the PRO's quit lying to yourselves and saying that the Pro's are getting all this cash from AM's. cuz it's not true ;)

Nothing but pride and self interest is preventing every current "pro" from reverting to the Amateurs that most of us are except our handful of product endorsers and teachers. Explain why that wouldn't be better for the health of our sport and our future?



yeah, and you explain why on earth those five guys would exist in your little disc golf utopia, or why people would aspire to be one of those non-existant five guys, and how your "sport" would ever grow. It would have trouble attracting real compeitors.

btw. Why don't you just try to acheive your goals by having two classes, true ams (or not true ams) who are members of the organization and that other group that plays outside the organization. Of course, anyone and everyone should be allowed to play in both.

The fundamental mistake in the beginning that has lead to this was naming the original organization the PDGA versus ADGA. But since everyone was volunteering in those days and there weren't TDs with merchandise and hotstamps, it was easier to run events with cash payouts. Now here we are.

If we had Ams from the beginning, first for mostly trophies and minis, and then added the wider variety of hotstamps and discs, there would be no pros and everyone would be paying their way. There would have been no need to generate sponsorship cash and several promoters could maybe make a living running events by now. Many more events would have been charitable fundraisers since keeping cash for payouts would have been unnecessary. There would be no shortage of bidders for Am Worlds and no drain on resources for Pro Worlds since it wouldn't exist.

Would Kenny have won as many Am World titles? Probably. We just might not have seen the top players in our neighborhoods as often since few would be living on the road unless they were running clinics to pay the tab or maybe came from money. Ratings would still have come along since a way to identify skill levels would have been needed and Expert would already be in place with Open above it.

At the appropriate time, sponsorship might get to the point where developing a pro tour would be viable. Even with that idealized evolution, I doubt we would be much closer to that today.

Nothing but pride and self interest is preventing every current "pro" from reverting to the Amateurs that most of us are except our handful of product endorsers and teachers. Explain why that wouldn't be better for the health of our sport and our future?

Bruce had mentioned a while back that soccer did something similar when they stopped all pro activity for 5 years or so to focus on building the base of their sport so the possibilty of supporting pro efforts could eventually be realized.



Chuck hits the nail on the head!

This comes up over and over and unsurprisingly enough the Pros ignore the point. The simple fact is that we work a lot harder to support the Pro than we do to support the Am. The reality is there would be more Promoters making a living if we eliminated the Pro game.

The question is, would the game be better off for this change? Would it grow faster? I suspect yes. Simply because while the Pros do a lot on the side, few of them actively promote the sport the way a full time Promoter would; they don't have the time.

Why are ams even allowed in the "PROFESSIONAL disc golf association" anyway?

"Why not have a PDGA and an ADGA"

That way you "Graduate" to the PDGA...

Because ams pay for everything.



Is that why YOUR dues were 75 bux this year?

Ooooooo, Just wondering

Bruce, if you think that stronger AMS make good Pro's how come Illinois doesn't have A Pro that could beat my girl??? you still haven't answered this question.

I don't know what planets you guys are playing tournaments at but the AM's DO NOT feed the Pro purses in my part of the country. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas the TD's and clubs go out and get sponsorship or run fund raisers that account for the added cash for Pro's.

All of you ought to check out the definition of Amateur. In the real world of Amateurism they should be paying their entry fee, and get a disc and a t-shirt and be playing for a trophy. THAT'S IT!!! I understand that disc golf has created AM's into something that is not very Amateur. But for all of you AM's saying your entitled to 100% of your money back when it comes to payback is ridiculous and is contradicting the TRUE definition of Amateur.

I have been a TD and honestly I don't mind paying out plastic to Ams' cuz it's what disc golf has always done. This is where it makes it worth while for TD's to be compensated for their efforts. Prizing discs out at Retail is for the TD's not the PRO's quit lying to yourselves and saying that the Pro's are getting all this cash from AM's. cuz it's not true ;)



Kevin, I don't know what they do in Oklahoma, but I guarantee that here in Texas, without the Am purse, the Pro game changes in our biggest tournaments. The simple fact is that sponsors are much more willing to give merch than cash (ask Chris Himming about this) and that merch allows the TD to move money from the Am pool to the Pro payout.

BTW - Lets not forget that utopic method of raising money for the biggest tournaments... specialty discs. Don't tell me the top Pros are snapping up the Champ Rocs, Star Wraiths and other goodies that fund these events.

Bruce, if you think that stronger AMS make good Pro's how come Illinois doesn't have A Pro that could beat my girl??? you still haven't answered this question.



Let me take a crack at that:
I see no girls in OK or any of the bordering states (TX, AR, MO, KS, CO, NM) that could beat your girl. In fact I notice only one rated over 900 in any of those 7 states. And....your girl is not even listed in the ratings (understandably ;)). And, she would not even be in OK if not for your mojo! :D

I do not think tournament formats or divisional structures has anything to do with your assertion. :confused:

Every dollar that makes up the added cash for ALL of the Oklahoma Open's is money that was made by fund raisers not AMS.

We take 20% of entry fees from our weekly events that add up for our annual event. 10% goes to our club the other 10% goes to our events. We sell $5 worth of mulligans at our monthly events that raises near $2500 to add to the purse.

I am pretty sure that TULSA just ran one of the most successful AM WORLDS ever! So maybe you guys should take a look at our state and make a model for yourselves cuz the people of Oklahoma seem to be very happy campers.

And we have GREAT PLAYERS that can compete anywhere in the country.

While it's true the Ams do not directly pay for the Pro purse or added cash, it is the money generated from the participation of the Ams at the event and throughout the year that allow the TDs to have some cash to donate. The direct donations from the Ams in time, merch, and money should not be overlooked either.

If the Ams were completely removed from the equation of Pro events and they had to foot the entire bill themselves, they would be in for a rude awakening. Out of the $100 entry they paid to play, maybe 50% would come back after expenses. My guess is that only 80% of the cash sponsorship would make it into the purse as well.

The Pros would start getting players packs full of sponsorship merchandise that they don't particularly want or can't use because of their own sponsorship deals. Maybe the TDs would get tricky and use the donated merch as incentives to ticket purchasing spectators.

I do know that the presence of the Ams at the event, and fundaraisers, and work days, and minis is what allows the TD to put on an event and give the PROs back every dollar they pay in plus some.

BTW - Lets not forget that utopic method of raising money for the biggest tournaments... specialty discs. Don't tell me the top Pros are snapping up the Champ Rocs, Star Wraiths and other goodies that fund these events.



Champ Rocs? Holy Cow I get like 15-20 a year, of course I am a Roc Fiend :D

We take 20% of entry fees from our weekly events that add up for our annual event. 10% goes to our club the other 10% goes to our events. We sell $5 worth of mulligans at our monthly events that raises near $2500 to add to the purse.



Do those numbers only account for 20% of Pro entries and mulligans that Pros purchased ?

Bruce, if you think that stronger AMS make good Pro's how come Illinois doesn't have A Pro that could beat my girl??? you still haven't answered this question.



How about, some people would rather have 100 middle-of-the road players in the sport rather than 1 great player? 100 middle-of-the-road players are going to do much more for the sport in some peoples eyes.

Who cares if Illinois does not have a great pro player?? I would much rather see 100s of long term amateurs coming up in the ranks than one great player. They are going to buy more merchandise, volunteer at courses, and introduce new people to the sport.

It is more about the strength of the sport than the strength of a player...

yeah, and you explain why on earth those five guys would exist in your little disc golf utopia, or why people would aspire to be one of those non-existant five guys, and how your "sport" would ever grow. It would have trouble attracting real competitors.



Why in your world are pure amateurs competitors and true pros competitors, even those in age protected divisions, but no other type of player who plays for merch or in a skill based division a competitor? Wanting to become better or the best is a personal choice. I believe Kenny and Barry are players who want to become the best and would do so regardless of the competition format. Our quasi Am-Pro structure has made the process a little easier for them financially than if we just had Ams only, with or without merch.

We take 20% of entry fees from our weekly events that add up for our annual event. 10% goes to our club the other 10% goes to our events. We sell $5 worth of mulligans at our monthly events that raises near $2500 to add to the purse.



Do those numbers only account for 20% of Pro entries and mulligans that Pros purchased ?



They are all of the divisions, BUT 100% of players here in Tulsa that play ADV in PDGA tournies play PRO at our local minis...this just an example why these players would much rather see Semi-Pro than Expert AM.

100 middle-of-the-road players are going to do much more for the sport in some peoples eyes.



Which would hurt the sport more, if you lost the top 100 players or the top 100 volunteers, leader and promoters (only some who are in both groups)?

Every dollar that makes up the added cash for ALL of the Oklahoma Open's is money that was made by fund raisers not AMS.

We take 20% of entry fees from our weekly events that add up for our annual event. 10% goes to our club the other 10% goes to our events. We sell $5 worth of mulligans at our monthly events that raises near $2500 to add to the purse.

I am pretty sure that TULSA just ran one of the most successful AM WORLDS ever! So maybe you guys should take a look at our state and make a model for yourselves cuz the people of Oklahoma seem to be very happy campers.

And we have GREAT PLAYERS that can compete anywhere in the country.



I'm not saying that doesn't happen, I'm just pointing out what I've observed. Also, what do you do with the cash differential between merch donations you get and what you have to pay out? Just curious.

I do like the fact that Innova makes you buy your own Rocs! :D On the other hand, I'm willing to bet that more go to Ams and donating Pros than to players who are ahead in the entryfee/winnings game.

If you believe the position is wrong Kevin then say so. I still believe that the Pro Game would be very different if it weren't for the Am base. I'm not saying non-existent, just different.

Nothing but pride and self interest is preventing every current "pro" from reverting to the Amateurs that most of us are except our handful of product endorsers and teachers. Explain why that wouldn't be better for the health of our sport and our future?


if you really believe that, Chuck, then why arent you pushing for a stoppage or at least a major slowdown on the Pro side of our activity?

one could make as much sense to that as one could for any 50+% increase in the overhead. its for the good of the sport.

^^^ the above is for discussion only - i am not currently proposing to break the Ams and Pros apart into seperate orgs ^^^

the difference from the wholesale versus retail prices goes to the TD, staff, and costs of event such as scorecards, porta-potties, and other expenses.

The TD is very deserving to line his pockets for the thankless job he has, cuz the TD has to make difficult calls and deal with Yahoo AMS griping about their payouts &lt;------- JUST KIDDING :D

I would NEVER say we don't need the AM RANKS!!!!!

we just don't need them in the 940-990 range cuz all these players play Pro at their local mini events

Nothing but pride and self interest is preventing every current "pro" from reverting to the Amateurs that most of us are except our handful of product endorsers and teachers. Explain why that wouldn't be better for the health of our sport and our future?


if you really believe that, Chuck, then why arent you pushing for a stoppage or at least a major slowdown on the Pro side of our activity?



He is......It's called EXPERT :o

Like i said to Chuck, if you ever make that proposal, there is no point in having a Pro DGA. Just let anyone and everyone play in your ADGA. Others who wish to play for money can hold their own events, and play for whatever they can muster, through whatever means they have.

By the way, the above scenario will solve little: it will highlight the hypocrisy of our "amateur" structure, and of course end the debate that pros owe everything to ams. The sport won't be healthier, but ironically, better players will be better off as they feast off two tables.

Eventually, the ADGA will be faced with essentially the same issues we are faced with today, and if people like Chuck and Bruce are influential, the ADGA can rinse and repeat one more time. Alternatively..............

the difference from the wholesale versus retail prices goes to the TD, staff, and costs of event such as scorecards, porta-potties, and other expenses.

The TD is very deserving to line his pockets for the thankless job he has, cuz the TD has to make difficult calls and deal with Yahoo AMS griping about their payouts <------- JUST KIDDING :D

I would NEVER say we don't need the AM RANKS!!!!!

we just don't need them in the 940-990 range cuz all these players play Pro at their local mini events



I completely disagree with this position Kevin. And I've argued this in the past. I think the TDs should get a break on this and should make money. If the Pros and Ams alike realized this and insisted that the TD take a cut, there'd more more and better events!

Full acknowledgement of the job Oklahoma is doing in running it's events. Kevin also demonstrates what a Pro can add to the sport. However, I might say that I suspect this is not the norm... wish it were though!

I think we completely agree then :D

I know it's not feasible but I would like to see the TD be able to make at least $500 per event, cuz I have been TD and will do it again and again even though it kinda sucks

You are funny, James.

You always use inflammatory language whenever you post about ams on here. From the post I was replying to, you once again talk about how ams are profiting while hiding from tougher comeptition. There is so much wrong with that sentiment that I don't know where to start.

First off, I don't know of any ams that profit from tournaments. There are also very very very few pros who profit.

And secondly there is the little fact that James hides in the Pro Masters division so that he can cash in PDGA tournaments without having to compete against more skilled players, the very thing he hates about the current am structure.

Like i said to Chuck, if you ever make that proposal, there is no point in having a Pro DGA. Just let anyone and everyone play in your ADGA. Others who wish to play for money can hold their own events, and play for whatever they can muster, through whatever means they have.

By the way, the above scenario will solve little: it will highlight the hypocrisy of our "amateur" structure, and of course end the debate that pros owe everything to ams. The sport won't be healthier, but ironically, better players will be better as they feast off two tables.

Eventually, the ADGA will be faced with essentially the same issues we are faced with today, and if people like Chuck and Bruce are influential, the ADGA can rinse and repeat one more time. Alternatively..............



It depends on the structure of the ADGA. I've posted this before but the running model is the ideal comparison. 99% of the runners in all of the running events held in this country are Ams, they get a package of gifts at the events they run in (usually a t-shirt) and the top ams get gift certs, usually to local running shops, but they all do it for the glory.

If we went to an am only format the PDGA would probably crash and burn, but the sport might come out of it a lot better off than you think.

Re PDGA and ADGA - Can someone MAKE SENSE of increasing overhead costs by 50% + which is one aspect of what dividing into 2 orgs would entail ?



It shouldn't be too hard to get someone to volunteer to run a roughly 10-person PDGA with a $750 annual budget and just continue with the ADGA in place of what we have now. To join the new PDGA, you would have to show that more than half your net income is from playing DG, teaching DG and/or endorsing DG products plus your rating is over 1000 for men and 900 for women.

I think we should offer both.

You are funny, James.

You always use inflammatory language whenever you post about ams on here. From the post I was replying to, you once again talk about how ams are profiting while hiding from tougher comeptition. There is so much wrong with that sentiment that I don't know where to start.

First off, I don't know of any ams that profit from tournaments. There are also very very very few pros who profit.

And secondly there is the little fact that James hides in the Pro Masters division so that he can cash in PDGA tournaments without having to compete against more skilled players, the very thing he hates about the current am structure.



Age divisions and skilled divisions are SOOOOOOOO different...you want funny?

James is SOOOOOO old, when he was a kid he had to use Wooly Mammoth ear hair to floss his teeth

J/K James :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:o

Actually, I never call ams baggers. Most are simply making sound financial decisions. It's not their fault those decisions are available. And by the way, I am all for removing all protections, just make it one division that plays for money (with affordable bets) and one (or many) divisions that play as true ams.

And I must have missed your answer upthread, if there truly is no motivation for prizes, why are you and others so opposed to flat payouts?

if you must know Rhett, or should I call you dude, I think most ams, as least the ones I know, are in the sport for the right reasons, they are the "true competitors" in my terminolgy, and are great for the health of the sport. Additionally, I bet that everyone of these people I am describing would continue to play with flat payouts and smaller entry fees. If they were given more affordable options to play up, many would also do that. But hey, they got it pretty good, I don't blame them for keeping mum about things.

http://www.nyworms.com/images/groupcrickets.jpg

Come on that was funny :D

If you must know Rhett, or should I call you dude, I think most ams, as least the ones I know, are in the sport for the right reasons, they are the "true competitors" in my terminolgy, and are great for the health of the sport. Additionally, I bet that everyone of these people I am describing would continue to play with flat payouts and smaller entry fees. If they were given more affordable options to play up, many would also do that. But hey, they got it pretty good, I don't blame them for keeping mum about things.



I agree with this. Too bad the HQ won't make Trophy Only a required option for all divisions. Then maybe we'd start getting an idea if the full concept would work or not.

As soon as you say "flat payouts", you invite trouble because there is no universal definition.

If you mean what I assume you mean, then it is just a code word for "no payout for ams". I happen to like playing for something. I also much prefer the "top third" payout model because it means you did well when you when you beat two-thirds the field.

I like "flat payouts" when you use my definition: you kill the curve and put a straight line with a limited slope such that 1st gets a little more merch than 2nd, 2nd a little more than 3rd, etc etc. No need for $300+ paydays for 1st.

So James, dude, if you are simply using "flat payout" as a code-word for "no payout", than I am against that. I like to compete against my similarly rated peers and I like to bring home some merch if I did well. But I have never "played for profit" in the am division and it has never been my motivation.

I really really don't understand why you question the motives of ams who compete for plastic when you choose to ride the gravy train in Pro Masters for the easy cash, though.

Too bad the HQ won't make Trophy Only a required option for all divisions.



By making Trophy Only optional for TDs, it gave them a new option to try for their events to potentially get more participation. However, if the cost-benefit of offering it is not worth the effort for some TDs, it would serve no purpose to force the issue with a mandatory policy to burden TDs further. If they have not filled their event and there are 8 players willing to play for Trophy Only, we would hope the TD would find that worthwhile to consider accepting them under those terms.

gary's right.

i have one small request. can we stop comparing the growth of disc golf to the growth of the most popular sport in the world? it's embarrassing. what's disc golf, like, number 3 in the world?

So, you're perpetuating the problem which you are complaining about?

I'm working from within and making change incrementally. :cool:

Now here's something else to think about. There is nothing to prevent any pro from taking amnesty, snatching an amateur world championship at Milwaukee, turning pro again and going for a title at Highbridge. Can you imagine? What a hero! Two world championships in the same year! Run the table.

I fully expect the Am Master title to be won by an amnestied pro. The dude is good, but he's not going to cash at Highbridge. I don't know about the other divisions.

If we went to an am only format the PDGA would probably crash and burn, but the sport might come out of it a lot better off than you think.


actually, if we (the Association) were forced to choose just one, going Am-only would represent the best chance for success. going Pro-only and discarding today's Ams would spell certain and instant death.

not that we have to choose. but it is good to ponder which turf to protect with the most urgency

is this a summary? some hate pros for playing for their entry fees and want them to get reamed by the wholesale/retail merchandise racket like the am players too? is that right?

Former pro Pete May switched to Adv Sr GM and certainly has a shot for the Am Worlds title at a 956 rating, even the Adv GM title. He's likely to come up short at Pro Worlds though if he plays there with much higher rated Monroe, plus Kirkland and Shive in contention.

If we didn't have these artificial distinctions between "Ams" who play for plastic and "Ams" who play for cash, there would only be one World Champion in an age bracket, but much less fun arguing about it on this D-Board. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

hmmm... ya got me... who said anything about hating pros or wanting to ream them like ams?

Not sure I ever said anything like that or what you are referring to since you aren't replying to one of my posts.

I think I could name 20 Illinois amateurs who could beat your girl, let alone the pros. She has about the same rating as a certain fat, arthritic, old man I know. She just looks better doing it.

Illinois has not produced a lot of good players because where the population lives, the courses suck.

is this a summary? some hate pros for playing for their entry fees and want them to get reamed by the wholesale/retail merchandise racket like the am players too?



Ams appear to like getting "reamed" since it's their free choice. Obviously our pros must be really be getting pampered if they view converting to merch payouts as getting reamed.

i see what you're saying, but i'm a registered am. a quick check on my stats shows that i'm in the once a year, maybe, pdga event category. i guess i can't stand all that pampering. is there a movement afoot to convert pro payouts to merch?

It's all a value judgment that is determined at the local level. If it's perceived that Ams are getting a good value for a certain entry fee in terms of player pack, payouts and event amenities, then players enter. If not, then the formula needs to be tweaked at the local level. Some places sell out at higher entry fees, some at lower. At this point, more TDs than not have determined the best balance of fees, amenities and payouts for sanctioned events or the PDGA wouldn't be growing. If the Board does anything at all, it should be to do the best job possible to allow TDs the flexibility to run events that players want to play because the perceived value is there.

i guess i don't automatically assume that what is best for the player is best for tds and vice versa. let alone for the moment, what is best for the sport in general. it would certainly be better for tds to pay out all players in merchandise, right? is the expert division an incremental move toward merch payout for all entrants?

If we didn't have these artificial distinctions between "Ams" who play for plastic and "Ams" who play for cash, there would only be one World Champion in an age bracket, but much less fun arguing about it on this D-Board. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



If you are implying that everyone should just be AMs (including current Pros) then how would you only have 1 World Champ per age bracket? I mean the way you think about things we would need 5 more ratings breaks which would bump us up to 22 divisions.

i'll agree with that last sentence wholeheartedly. standards are about quality of event, not rigid and arbitrary divisions. offer whatever divisions work in your area and for your event. standards can address event structure disclosure, rules adherance, reporting,all that stuff that makes the experience top notch.

I use the term Am loosely. I think few believe our players are truly ams, or pros in terms of making a living. We're just players who like to play for payouts whether cash or merch. Truly the Players Disc Golf Association.

Why are ams even allowed in the "PROFESSIONAL disc golf association" anyway?

"Why not have a PDGA and an ADGA"

That way you "Graduate" to the PDGA...



STOP making sense -- it carries little weight around here ;)



---------------------------

Re PDGA and ADGA - Can someone MAKE SENSE of increasing overhead costs by 50% + which is one aspect of what dividing into 2 orgs would entail ?



progress sometimes entails costs. more importantly, there is no reason the ADGA could not be a subsidiary of the PDGA. That way many of what you are calculating as doubled costs would retain the same advantage they have under the current structure. While one of the drawbacks might be the need for additional energies being directed to the individual interests of each organization -- it would simultaneously entail the advantage of allowing the NT and ADGA to each have their own advocates and focus. Again, the ADGA could still support and promote the PDGA and both organizations could pool resources. most amateurs want to support the Pros and also aspire to one day be (true) Pros themselves (as do i as a "Pro" Master).

one of the best things such a structure would yield is a new incentive for am.s to become Pros. no longer could they say "i competed for a PDGA World Championship" unless they were competing against the big boys and girls of our sport.

obviously am.s would prefer to be called Pros just as a Master like me would rather have a card that says i am a PDGA member rather than an ADGA member (or a WDGA member -- World Disc Golf Association -- as another visionary proposed).

short term there will be hemming and hawing over such a change. but it would really highlight our Pros in a way the current association's structure does not. Outsiders looking in must shake their heads when a newbie and Ken Climo are both playing in the same tournament...

comments?

comments?


Split up into separate am and pro DGAs and you will quickly see the opportunities for pros to play dwindle to about 20 tourneys a year.

Would that be "progress"?

by that logic you are directly agreeing that Ams are supporting Pros

by that logic you are directly agreeing that Ams are supporting Pros


Have I ever said otherwise?

The funny part is that the ams don't seem to mind this relationship nearly as much as the pro seem to.

hmmm... Ams dont seem to care for it all that much but understand it is the only way at the moment. Pros (some) seem to think the world owes them the riches that their "peers" in the NBA and the PGA get.

hmmm... Ams dont seem to care for it all that much but understand it is the only way at the moment. Pros (some) seem to think the world owes them the riches that their "peers" in the NBA and the PGA get.


Well, around here the ams don't seem to mind one bit as long as they get good value for their entry fees. If a TD has access to the wholesale/retail markup (something I really miss for funding a tourney!) and uses that markup to pay for all the event/park fees and provides a reasonable retail am payout, the ams around here seem glad to see the pro division have okay payout without having to deduct all those event/park fees from the pro purse.

So please don't assume that all ams don't like the current system.


As for the pros.....you might be on to something. I'm pretty sure we're all doing what we can for them, and that's all there is. I know of no TDs that are out to "screw the pros". They all put as much as they can into the pro payouts.

In places where the TDs fleece the ams in order to prop up the pro payout even more, that is where you see unhappy ams and you get some ams stepping up to run am-only tourneys that don't try to fleece.

Split up into separate am and pro DGAs and you will quickly see the opportunities for pros to play dwindle to about 20 tourneys a year.

Would that be "progress"?



it might be the perfect formula. a true Pro class with credentials above and beyond the mere name. Something ESPN could actually understand and investigate. something that would highlight and focus upon the very best and therefore it would be far more spectator friendly. of course members of the affiliate/subsidiary WDGA (world disc golf association) or ADGA (amateur disc golf association -- choose your preference) would make up a large portion of those who follow and are fans of the Pros who frequent these 20 events. :cool: some of them could also showcase a certain somewhere in Georgia ;)

comments?


Split up into separate am and pro DGAs and you will quickly see the opportunities for pros to play dwindle to about 20 tourneys a year.

Would that be "progress"?

You know, it might be. Each one of those tournaments would fill to capacity. Payouts from the pooled entry fees would be huge. For whatever reasons clubs and TDs add cash to the pro payout, they'll still add cash to the pro payout. More ams might spectate if they weren't busy playing the tournament. Offering pro divisions at far fewer tournaments could have lots of positive benefits.

Pros (some) seem to think the world owes them the riches that their "peers" in the NBA and the PGA get.


Pat, as a decisionmaker and BOD member, I expect a little deeper and honest thought from you. Kevin has advocated a system that is sure to take money from him. Unless he is making Lebron type cash, your statement is way off base. I advocate a system that would eliminate most of the markup, give cheaper options, and pay deeper. I hardly see how pros are going to get richer under that scheme. I'm not sure what other pros are on here advocating some get rich scheme, but I can't recall any.

I only bring this up because it seems like you use your terribly misguided observation to dismiss these ideas out of hand. I only want a system that encourages, and financially allows people to progress. Our system fails badly in that regard, and is one of the reasons we aren't looked at as a real sport, but a weekend activity catering mostly to people who have no burning desire to improve their skill, but still want payment for their lack of achievement. No other sports are this way, and no amount of purposely misstating that position will change that basic fact.

Pat, as a decisionmaker and BOD member, I expect a little deeper and honest thought from you.





Amen Brother!

Please don't be offended, in other words you are about to be offended, but I don't think most of you have any idea what is good and bad for the sport. Just look at our current political system. We all want change. We all want something different. We are all disgusted with the current system. So what do we do? We elect a bunch more career politicians who continue to work in the exact same manner.

The pdga does the exact same thing. They continue to promote big, beneficial changes and it ends up being more of the same and usually it means lining their pockets.

Amnesty was a great idea, however it needed to coincide with other radical changes to the pro division. I'm not going to say what the solution is because most of you won't get it, and those that do won't like it because you lack the foresight to see how much better the sport would be in the near future.

We are supposed to elect leaders who have the backbone to make unpopular changes for the betterment of the sport. Remember how much NASCAR drivers hated the points race? Could that sport grow any faster?

It's just like politics. If I tell you that a federal sales tax would be the greatest thing since the beveled edge most of you would come up with reasons you don't like it or don't think it's fair. Those people have to see the results. Until the pdga is willing to make unpopular changes we will be stuck with the status quo.

i'm not sure what you are talking about james. i dont have anything against kevin's idea, in fact i think its a good one. if he wants to do it, he should be able to. as for being a bod member, i am under no illusion that a bod member's ideas are wonderful by definition. it's almost as if they were real people. :cool:

one nice thing about this discboard, you can throw something out for input regardless of how well-baked it is.

The pdga does the exact same thing. They continue to promote big, beneficial changes and it ends up being more of the same and usually it means lining their pockets.


Who the heck is the "they" of the PDGA that are "lining their pockets"? That's absurd.

Yeah, I'd first need work a few more thousands of volunteer hours to maybe earn a snazzy pair of PDGA slacks before any lining would even be possible... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif