I know the subject has come up many times before on many different threads, but.....

I'm just wondering why the PDGA will not allow someone who is registered as a Pro to play in an Am event if said Pro has never cashed. I knew going into this year I wasn't planning on playing singles events as an am, so I renewed my membership as a Pro--mostly to go ahead and give the PDGA an extra $25 now, as opposed to waiting until I cash in an event (I'm 0 for 3 so far this year, so I'd say giving the extra money ahead of time was a good call on my part). Because of this, I'm not allowed to play in am world dubs. That just seems weird that I could be a Pro who has cashed many times all over the world, and I could play any am event if I took the amnesty last year--but if I'm an am (I'm rated 949) who has never cashed but paid the pro dues, I'm out? It doesn't matter to me a whole lot, but I kinda wanted to play Wimberley one last time.... Could Chuck or someone explain the PDGA's thinking on this? Thanks...

The rules are pretty clear pertaining to your options and the decisions you made. If you wanted to play Am Majors, you have to be an Am either because you always have been, took amnesty at the end of last year, or got reinstated as an Am from being a pro. Contrary to what you might have thought, the PDGA does not come and collect $25 from Ams who cash for the first time in a year to upgrade their status to pro during the year. It's a nice gesture that you paid pro dues ahead of when it was necessary. But by doing so, you eliminated the option to play in Am majors, even though with your rating, you'll be able to play Advanced in any other event. The PDGA provided a variety of ways you could have played in Am Majors this year and you didn't choose any of them.

So one answer to your "why" would be "The PDGA is following the rules it has clearly stated in advance."

If your question is "Yeah, but why is that the rule?" I think the answer is that when they adopted the ratings based option for pros, someone pointed out that it would be kind of strange if the winner of an Am Worlds or Am Nationals was a pro.

Chuck or anyone else...
I just want to get clarity on this issue... Can Pro women (rating under 900) who have cashed in pro women play Int. or Adv. men AND accept merchandise payout if they place?

I understand all that....and thanks for the response. I was just wondering if you could explain the PDGA's thinking--why is the membership renewal such an incontrivertible decision for a player to make? For example, when my rating went over 915, I was MA1. The "once you cash, you're a pro" idea seems similar in nature. I was just wondering why the membership renewal plays a part only in major events?

Yes. That's the purpose of providing the pro in am option since many of the smaller divisions like Pro Women and Pro GM do not have three players to hold a division at many local events. If the TD allows it, I have played as a pro in Am at a discounted entry fee for Trophy Only which makes it seem less like poaching and more like competition when sliding over.

Karma: Yes, a pro woman under 955 can play advanced, under 915 can play Intermediate and under 875 can play Rec. The rule isn't in the rules but it is here: http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/07TourStandards.pdf

Rob: Take me off ignore and I kind of answered your follow up. :D When the PDGA first had an amateur division going pro was an incontrovertable thing in most sports and the PDGA adopted the same rule. Back then college scholarship football players couldn't play minor league baseball, pro athletes couldn't go back to college and play on any team for any sport, etc. Those attitudes have changed and the PDGA has changed too. Ratings have made it possible to have an objective standard for when you can cross the line. But it still would be silly if a pro was our Am Worlds Champion, so that line you can't cross.

I was just wondering why the membership renewal plays a part only in major events?




There have to be at least some reasons to keep up the illusion there's a difference between who we call ams and who we call pros...

That seems fair, thanks Chuck. :)