Am I wrong in my thinking...

[mpare]

Very well said, Frank.

Why does everybody assume that everybody that plays in these tournaments are just looking for cash??? Is it not possible that they just want to improve their skills against a lot of very good golfers. The prizes are nice but sometimes very incidental. I was just invited to fill a spot in a two man scramble at a very tough course, I couldn't afford the entry fee but the gentleman running the event asked me to take another persons spot since he couldn't make it. I was paired with a 12 handicap player that I didn't even know, but I play to pit my skills against others not to take home big bucks even though I could use every buck. Well we played very well together, he kept his ball near the fairway about 230 out and gave me a chance to bomb the ball 40 yards further sometimes even more. But it really came down to putting and we putted very well on the very tough undulating greens and came in at 6 under, I must confess that I didn't think we would be under par. It was a very enjoyable day and I heard my share of unbelief that we could shoot so low but luckily there was that other team playing with us to vouch for our play. I donated all my winnings back to the foundation that they were trying to raise money for so I don't have any guilty conscience about not having to pay for anything and winning money. Personally I would play with pros all day long and lose lots of money just to see how this wonderful game can be played if you put your time and effort into it. Always try to push yourself to be better than you think you can be.

[nokids]

The Pigale's tournament is for fun .

Where do I sign up for Pigale's tourney? lol Sounds more fun...

more importantly...THERE'S A PIGALES TOURNAMENT?????

The $64,000 question........ is there a Pigale tournament? Inquiring minds want to know........

[goley]

The moxies tourney is pretty good from what Ive heard!!!

[Kiwi]

While I cannot say I have ever been in such a circumstance, nor will I, I think the writer has a point. Seems he is saying that this team is taking many of the prizes in recognition of thier low score. Suggest the best way around that, so that every one shares in the spoils, is to have it so the low score winner is "disqualified" from receiving any other prizes. It only goes to reason that the low score will include low score on a hole and other such prizes. If you win, you win for your total achievement, leave some prizes for the others... IMHO.

[mpare]

Ah, the bell curve applied to golf. How very equitable.

While I cannot say I have ever been in such a circumstance, nor will I, I think the writer has a point. Seems he is saying that this team is taking many of the prizes in recognition of thier low score. Suggest the best way around that, so that every one shares in the spoils, is to have it so the low score winner is "disqualified" from receiving any other prizes. It only goes to reason that the low score will include low score on a hole and other such prizes. If you win, you win for your total achievement, leave some prizes for the others... IMHO.

[Chambokl]

While I cannot say I have ever been in such a circumstance, nor will I, I think the writer has a point. Seems he is saying that this team is taking many of the prizes in recognition of thier low score. Suggest the best way around that, so that every one shares in the spoils, is to have it so the low score winner is "disqualified" from receiving any other prizes. It only goes to reason that the low score will include low score on a hole and other such prizes. If you win, you win for your total achievement, leave some prizes for the others... IMHO.

So how do you know who won closest to the pin or longest drive as they have put their name of the marker... and they don't know if they will win the tournament?

You are right though... some of the prizes are set-up for a team to win multiple prizes... winner of all 4 nines... the winner of the tourney has a good chance to win 1 or 2 or 3 or even 4 of these prizes in addition to the grand prize.

[quinner]

To answer your actual question....yes you are wrong in your thinking....if you want to win, play in another tournament.

[Sakuraba]

Slightly off topic I suppose, but why is golf the only sport I can think of where there is such an important distinction drawn between professional and amateur?

[nokids]

Slightly off topic I suppose, but why is golf the only sport I can think of where there is such an important distinction drawn between professional and amateur?

read the link i posted. it's a class thing. back in the day when golf's rules were backwards (and some still are), society looked down on a 'professional' golfer.

[Kilroy]

In what sports do pros compete in amateur competitions?

[Sakuraba]

The olympics?

[Kilroy]

The olympics are not an amateur competition.
I think they used to be though.

[jeffc]

The olympics are not an amateur competition.
I think they used to be though.

they are and they aren't. they allow professionals, however there are lots of no name athletes there who scrape by hand to mouth that compete against others in the sport.

[Sakuraba]

What about curling?

[Kilroy]

OK, but if they allow pros, I'd assume it's not classed as amateur competition. I could be wrong, but that would make no sense.

[Sakuraba]

I guess I just don't understand the importance of keeping the amateurs and the pros so rigorously divided. To me this distinction is far less of a problem to the game of golf than the abuse of the handicap system.

[goochy]

In what sports do pros compete in amateur competitions?

The Olympics are indeed amateur. The IOC charter strictly prohibits any athletes at the games getting paid a penny to compete.

Athletes who are professional in other leagues or circuits (eg NBA, Tennis etc) are allowed to compete in the Olympics but they are not allowed to get paid for being at the Olympics.

The Ryder Cup also springs to mind.

Amateur has nothing to do with the standard (Bobby Jones was an amateur) simply a lack of getting paid.

[Kilroy]

I don't get that at all. "Not getting paid for this event" seems an odd way to define amateur. Either pros are eligible to play or they are not.

[goochy]

I don't get that at all. "Not getting paid for this event" seems an odd way to define amateur. Either pros are eligible to play or they are not.

That is exactly how it is defined. That is the very definition of professional sport...it's your profession...you get paid to do it.

If you get paid elsewhere that is acceptable to the IOC but during the Olympics you are an amateur because you are not getting paid.

Hence if you accept payment you are no longer an amateur in the eyes of the RCGA

Bobby Jones was the greatest golfer but an amateur only because he didn't get paid...that's what it means.

[Kilroy]

Sounds like the IOC is oblivious to the world outside their own event. I agree with the RCGA's take on this. Bobby was definitely cool.

I don't think that playing a skins event where it's only the players money should be a problem, given the "acceptable forms of wagering" clause. Everyone would be ineligible.

[goochy]

Sounds like the IOC is oblivious to the world outside their own event.

lol...I think there are many in sport who would agree with you 100%

I also think you're spot on..playing for small money that is contributed by fellow competitors isn't a problem IMO (eg NCGT events) as its really just gaming.

However, if cash prizes are up for grabs contributed by sponsers then I think we're into a grey area

Luckily for me I'm so useless I don't see this being an immediate problem

[Kilroy]

However, if cash prizes are up for grabs contributed by sponsers then I think we're into a grey area

Not grey at all. That would be profesional prize money.

[Ruskie]

Let me get this straight: am I correct in understanding that you think amateur status is an indication that a player plays solely for the love of the game, as opposed to a professional, who plays for his bread and butter (and fois gras, as the case may be nowadays)?

I wonder how you guys feel about college players then. They are considered amateurs, yet they too play for their careers. They're funded by the scholarships with the expectation that they will help their college team win. They're then expected, if everything goes right, to officially become professionals when they graduate. It's no secret that the actual college education is secondary to them. Do you really think they play "for the love of the game" in the first place? It's not just golf I'm talking about either.

On the other hand, if a weekend duffer happens to win a bunch of money for a lucky hole-in-one, he is stripped of his status and covered in shame.

Something is wrong with this picture...

[goochy]

hello Ruskie mate

I'm not saying this is what I think. I am saying that is the definition of "professional" sportsman...one who is directly paid to perform. We have to teach this stuff all the time in Phys Ed and its a pretty standard definition.

Most professionals love their sport too (obviously). I was a professional Rugby player because I was paid to play, when I was at University I was not, regardless of all the other perks, so i was an amateur.

It's got nothing to do with "love of the game"

Paid to play...professional. Not paid to play...amateur.

I think the issues arise when people place some kind of value judgement on these terms. Many amateurs are substantially better than many professionals but choose (for whatever reasons) not to accept payment (Bobby Jones). Many professionals, although paid, are often seriously lacking in professional standards (take your pick of names here).

I don't think anyone is saying you should be stripped of your amateur status is you win a prize paid for by fellow competitors for a hole in one in. But if you won a $40,000 dollar BMW contributed by a sponsor..well then I'm not so sure

[Kilroy]

Not me. Unless you are being paid for lessons, exhibitions of golf skill, appearance fees or events with sponsorship prizes you should be fine.

[goochy]

Not me. Unless you are being paid for lessons, exhibitions of golf skill, appearance fees or events with sponsorship prizes you should be fine.

I did say a $40K Beemer contributed by a sponsor.

[BC MIST]

FWIW and from a respected authority on the subject.

1. Participation in the kinds of events described in this thread, where cash is given as prizes, is against the rules, whether you win something or not.

2. In advance of the competition, if a player waives the cash prizes and indicates that he will accept a voucher/certificate instead, his participation is acceptable.

3. The acceptable forms of wagering listed below and elsewhere in the thread, refer to, for example, a bunch of guys getting together, throwing in $50 for prizes and then distributing the money following a formula of their own choosing.
* the players in general know each other;
* participation in the gambling or wagering is optional and is limited to the players;
* the sole source of all money won by the players is advanced by the players; and
* the amount of money involved is not generally considered to be excessive.

[Kilroy]

So these fellows should no longer be eligible for OVGA events? Pretty harsh.

[jeffc]

wouldn't anyone who entered that tournament be a "professional" now?

[big mac]

So these fellows should no longer be eligible for OVGA events? Pretty harsh.

Rules are rules-if your going to play the game -play by the rules.

The problem with today's thinking is-------no one is right and no one is wrong. You can "DEBATE" until your blue in the face-------a decision is only made when someone has the power to make it and the power to enforce it---------maybe something like a DICTATORSHIP