AM / PRO - participate in both

[Jani Soderhall]

I'm posting this topic to find out the general feelings towards letting people choose per discipline if they are Pro or Am. For example somebody might be very fast in Tight, but really slow in Giant. Should he then be allowed to be a Pro in Tight and an Am in Giant?

We had the case in both Paris and Gruningen in 2003 that skaters said "Oh, that course is too hard for me. Although I signed up as a Pro, I'll do better in the amateur course".

Cast your vote and throw in your arguments.

Thank's!

/Jani

[Will J]

no.. because if your a real "professional" you'll be on top of your game, period.. oh yeah, and professionals don't whine, that should be a law..

[William Tway]

Absoulty not. I do think it's "ok" for older pros to go back to amateur status for the sake of having more fun and being competitive. I lost to an old pro at the Worlds last year and I was stoked just to have had the opportunity to race him. He advanced to the final 4 and was amped. If the sport was much bigger, I might have different thoughts.

[Guest]

NO!

not to be harsh...but if you can't make the course, practice more.

"pro" means a level of ability to be able to step up to the plate at any occasion and run the course with all your skill. If you can't step up and run ANY course...you aren't a "pro"...

it is that simple.

[John Gilmour]

I was thinking at Paris that I wanted to run every course.

I don't think a pro should be eligible for a prize. Perhaps in single track the pro could race for fun with AMs. That way an Am might get an idea of how a pro could do.. but only as time allows.


Of course the winning Am might be perturbed if the Pro's time was a second faster. But I think an Am would expect that there is a gap anyhow. Also the Am might learn something from watching to see if a pro would approach a course differently- much of that analysis could be done from video of the contest later.

What would be funny is if the pro entered and was beaten by some of the AMs......and to me that would be a triumph for the AMs and might encourage the AMs to take a shot at the pro courses- that's cool.

[Jani Soderhall]

John, I appreciate your thoughts, but the goal is not to let everybody run as many runs as possible. For me it is absolutely clear that you can only enter one class, but that's a different topic.

[Andy Bittner]

Will J... I don't know you, dude, but I like the way you think. You seem to be a hard-nosed, hardcore, no BS purist... right on!

And whoever the person is that Jani quoted, "Oh, that course is too hard for me. Although I signed up as a Pro, I'll do better in the amateur course", should be eternally ashamed and might as well just crawl in a hole and avoid daylight or recognition for the rest of his life! That is probably one of the weakest competitive athletic statements I've ever heard in my life.

Let's say a reasonably effective college basketball junior has a couple of really good games, decides to go pro, joins a pro team and finds he couldn't cut it. Do you think ANY college in the U.S. is ever going to let that person return to the college b-ball ranks? Even if he really didn't ever really belong in the pro ranks?

I think turning or being a PRO should really mean something, be a decision with some decided advantages and/or consequences, and should never be something done on a whim on a race morning. Furthermore. I think that anyone who has had the nerve to ever declare themselves a professional should then be held to that for the rest of their competitive career. Like the guy Jani quoted... that person should be forced to race pro and ONLY pro for the rest of his weak, tortured, inadequately-skilled life.

(P.S. I made the choice to race pro in 1990, and although I am far below the current skill level of today's top pros, I still hold myself to the standard I chose. When I race in a "pro OR am" race, I still hold myself in the ranks of the pros and would accept, when specified, a higher entry fee, even though I would stand little chance of finishing "in the money" or generating enough public profile to gain from it otherwise. So, since I consider myself to have chosen to be a "Pro", and since I personally consider that choice to be irrevokable, the only way to solve my performance dilemma is to practice, practice, practice. Since I haven't had any time to practice, practice, practice, I am now a "Pro" who is fairly routinely beaten by amateurs and sometimes even rookies. However, if I ever came into a situation like Jani's friend(s) in Paris and Grueningen, where I felt the Pro course was beyond me, I might chose not to race, slipping quietly out of the picture, or I might race, crash and die, but trying to reverse my choice to turn pro and race on an easier, amateur course wouldn't even occur to me.

[Hans Koraeus]

It all boils down to if you think a pro is something you choose or if it's a skill level. This discussion is just underway in another topic.

I think we so far have a mixture of these. People who stay Pro just because they once choose to enter a pro contest and those who go Pro or Am depending on their skill level.

I think it's a good idea that you can select. I think it's a good idea even doing this per discipline. If you just bring one board to a contest it may work well for the Pro giant course but not for the Pro tight course. This is only an issue when Am course is easier than the Pro course. This was the fact in Grüningen last year. Many so called Pro racers didn't have the equipment for the pro tight course so they raced the Am course instead.

If Am do well (Place 1-3) I think it would be fun for them to have a go with the pro's. But if that means they are stuck there forever why take the risk.

I myself is someone who starts doing well in some Am GS disciplines but not in Tight. It would be fun for me to try out Pro GS but why should I be forced up to race Tight with the Pro's when I don't even manage very well in Am? I think it's good to try and get people up from the Am if they start to win. If it's a selection you could stay Am all life long and be the best in the world. That has been the fact in old World Championships. I don't think that looks good. As it doesn't look good when old Pro's doesn't keep up the speed in the Pro class.

Then again either way I turn the Pro/Am issue it seems not to work very well in theory. Is it, maybe, because there are no perfect system?

[Andy Bittner]

Corky, I don't think the shortcomings are because their is no perfect system, necessarily, and I don't think it all boils down to what we "think" about professionalism as a skill level or choice. This word, "professional" is clearly defined in any number of English language dictionaries as well as the rules, regulations and guidelines of almost every major professional sport in the world. If we think it boils down to what we think about those well-set definitions, we are a seriously deluded group of individuals.

Professionalism is a choice, not a skill level. "Expert" is a skill level. Have we completely forgotten the word "Expert"? I've got an idea... why don't we just swap definitions on the two words. From now on, all of the Doctors, Lawyers, NFL football players, NBA basketball players and champion Sumo in Japan are to be known as "experts", while all the double-black-diamond ski slopes in the English speaking world will hereafter be marked as being for "professionals only". Furthermore, while we're at it, let's take all the Novice and Intermediate ski slopes in the English speaking world and re-label them as being "amateur".

I think the real problem is that we are so committed to injecting "professionalism" into a sport that is not evolved enough to support real professionalism, that, since we don't really fit the actual definition of "professional", we are actually discussing re-defining that and other words in the English language so that they fit our own self-inflated purposes.

Let's face it. All of this energy on calling ourselves "Pro", even though there are almost none of us in slalom skateboarding who are TRULY pro, is ego driven. We want to be able to tell people that we are pro athletes. We want to tell people that we are pro athletes so energetically that we don't care if we really are or not. I know and admit this was the case for me. I didn't choose professionalism in a virtually non-existent sport, back in 1990, because I thought I was ever going to truly be a professional, supporting myself with my participation in slalom skateboarding. I chose it so I could tell people I was a pro. I chose it for the artificial ego boost that comes when people look impressed with it. Heck... at the time, I was even pretty safe telling people I was somewhere in the top 25, worldwide; considering there probably weren't any more than 30 serious slalom skaters in the world at the time. I see the folly of it all now. Hopefully, that's because I've grown up a bit.

In the REAL world of athletics, the CHOICE to be a professional has all kinds of REAL ramifications. It affects tax filing and tax status, it involves contracts with sponsors, suppliers and teams, it affects the ability to participate in other amateur sports, and the real-world complications increase as the athlete becomes more successful, visible and reknowned. All of these REAL complications are not something into which someone should be forced, simply because he has attained a certain level of skill.

[Hans Koraeus]

Andy, I agree with you. It's just that I'am more into the "I don't care what it stands for" it's just 2 skill level groups. I think most of us are. Otherwise we wouldn't have these 2 namings. In Europe this is new. There where never slalom competitions using Pro/Am before. There was only one "group" so there was no use putting a name to it. I think this Pro/Am was used mainly in the States. I always looked at it as if you were sponsored you were Pro. If not you were Am. But what do I know? What was the American organizers definition?

This is according to the dictionaries...
Pro
1. A professional, especially in sports.
2. An expert in a field of endeavor.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Professional
1a. Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
1b. Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.
2. Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
3. Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
4. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.

n.
1. A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
2. One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house.
3. A skilled practitioner; an expert.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

You tell me what it means? The only thing I know is that definitions are never easy and clear. It's always depending of how you look at it, using dictionaries or not.

[Andy Bittner]

Corky, I think I understand your point, and I stand corrected as the dictionaries do include the more nebulous definitions for the words in question, usually last. I must admit though, the first thing I do is eliminate definitions that use a derivation of the word in question as part of the definition, i.e. a professional is someone who adheres to the standards of a profession. That pretty much eliminates the first definition in each example. I also admit that I define "pro" as a shortening or abbreviated version of the word "professional" and apply the definition of the word "professional" to the word "pro". That was probably an unreasonable assumption on my part. I can only note that, after the definitions that cite a derivation in the definition, the definitions for "professional" tend to emphasize "pay, livelihood, career, a living" before the last definition that simply cites great or expert skill as a defining criterion.

To be clear, I do think this is an interesting and important topic, and sincerely hope you don't mistake my enthusiasm for it as simply being argumentative for arguments' sake or in any way angry.

To some degree, I could agree that, since it doesn't really matter right now anyway, we should call our classes whatever appeals to us most. The only reason I care at all to speak against that choice is that it seems to me to be either defeatist or short sighted. If we are already defeated, if we believe slalom skateboarding could never become a REAL professional sport, then let's not worry about the future ramifications of this choice. However, if we believe and we strive towards building a prolonged, self-sustaining growth for our sport, then choosing the words Pro and Am to actually mean "Expert" and "Less than Expert" could very well be an even greater complication we are planting in our own future.

The larger questions you raise, about what type or level of compensation defines the line between pro and am, is something that has been going on for a very long time. I well remember my childhood, while the US and most non-communist nations were sending true amateurs (either student athletes or true, amateur experts) to the Olympics and many communist nations were finding ways to otherwise pay athletes to remain in the service of the nation, such that they were available as athletes at Olympic, International or other propaganda-rich environments.

Even today, if an athlete is provided the necessary equipment for his/her sport either by a product manufacturer or out of the pocket of some type of patron, for his/her own personal use only, can that athlete still be regarded as an amateur? (I think so) What about the case so prevalent in skateboarding, where an "amateur" sponsored athlete is provided with so much of the "necessary equipment" for his/her sport that the flow of equipment is really the payment of a (inventory) stock option, with a nudge and a wink, and everyone knows that the athlete is supplementing his own personal finances with the proceeds of selling this equipment? Is this athlete an amateur? (I think not)

What about a historical hypothetical like some Soviet telephone operator, who answers the phone some of the time, trains as an athlete at a government facility most of the time, kicks ass in the Olympics, but never really receives any "pay" for the whole athletic endeavor? Is that guy an amateur? If he's receiving a telephone operator's pay, his existance probably feels like that of an amateur athlete, but isn't the real question whether he received the telephone operator's position because he was particularly qualified to be a telephone operator or because the Soviet government needed a position with which to mask their support of a top athlete for government and national purposes?

For me, I've always found the definitions and rules for amateurism provided by the U.S. Golf Association. Those rules can be found here...

http://www.usga.org/rules/am_status/

Read them carefully. Not only are they hard and very specific, it is also quite clear that there is a certain spirit and energy to amateurism that these people are vigorously struggling to protect.

The rules of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews (the overseeing golf body for the vast majority of the world) are very much a basis for the USGA rules, and include the following statement, "The purpose and spirit of the rules is to keep the amateur game as free as possible from the abuses which may follow from uncontrolled sponsorship and financial incentive and to safeguard the rules of play and handicapping so that golf can be fully enjoyed by all amateur golfers."

Those rules can be found here...

http://www.randa.org/index.cfm?cfid=188 ... ateur.home

Interestingly, both sets of rules include a monetary cap on the value of prizes that can be accepted for tournament performance, $750 or £500, but struggle with the issue of prizes for a hole-in-one, which is much closer to being a game of chance than a game of skill.

I will research other sport-oriented rules and definitions of professional and amateur status and report back. I'm sure that the U.S.'s NCAA or AAU have some stuff, as would historical information on the Olympics from the days when the Olympics still specified amateurism as a qualifying necessity.

[Hans Koraeus]

To be clear, I do think this is an interesting and important topic, and sincerely hope you don't mistake my enthusiasm for it as simply being argumentative for arguments' sake or in any way angry.

Don't worry. I feel the same way.

[John Gilmour]

From a Points perspective.... would a pro have little to gain by racing Am?-
Would an Am disproportionally benefit from racing Pro?

[Hans Koraeus]

From a Points perspective.... would a pro have little to gain by racing Am?-
Would an Am disproportionally benefit from racing Pro?

If you are talking about the new World Ranking proposal have a look here.

A Pro could gain by going back to Am but only if he is not expecting to place among the 16 best in Pro and by taking first or second in the Am class. But you take a big risk and you may just as well loose points if you place third or worse in the Am. It seems to me that the risk is greater than the possible gain.

The other way around. An Am could gain racing with the pro's if he think's that he could place among the 16 best. If not he might loose a little. But then again only if he expects to place first or second every time in Am. Going up to Pro will only minimize the risk of getting lower points. He might loose.

As you see the World Ranking system is made on a personal choice guided by the ranking points. Greed is the best motivating factor in this world. I actually doesn't know who, when and where you would gain. It's up to each individual to make profit of the system as it stands. The only thing I would like to have as a rule is that a lower ranked Am shouldn't be able to race Pro only to gain points on a last place in Pro class. You should have some good placements in the Am class before you are allowed to enter the Pro class.

[John Gilmour]

I was thinking if the Pro class had few racers you might have people trying to fill a few slots to pick up "easy Points" . Should there be a rule that there should be a minimum number of pros registered for a Am to race pro (For instance if there were not many pros registered in the Pro class it closes with say 12, 8, 4 racers?)- and if we were to have the opposite...which I doubt would occur where there were more than say 25 Pros what would stop them from grabbing points there... or is the points structure such that there is not much advantage?


Doesn't matter to me... with my current injury status I don't think I would do any damage in the Am class. lol..

[Hans Koraeus]

Ok John, I see what you mean. I wrote in the World Rank proposal that it would be good maybe to have a minimum of 10 Pro's to have a Pro class at all. If there are few racers in the Pro class then of course it could be interesting for some Am's to move over to Pro but remember that only Am's that have proved that they are cabable of winning Am should be able to do that. And for those the point advantage is of course less as explained above.

[Andy Bittner]

While duly noting that a significant majority of those responding to the poll have indicated an opinion that this moving back and forth between Am and Pro classes in the same event shouldn't be permitted at all.

[Hans Koraeus]

John, there is also another thing. If an Am has a great chance of winning the Am class I think he would prefer going Am instead of fighting for place 10-14 in Pro class. At least until he has won enough Am's to search other goals. The other way around one could then think that a Pro would quickly want to go down to Am when he's not making top 10 in the Pro class. But there too you will have resistance due to our ego and human pride.

Andy, I see what you mean but that shouldn't stop us from discussing the topic. People are often very fast deciding before the facts are on the table. In this case I think it's also because this issue of wanting to select Pro and Am class depending on disciplines are only touching a very few. Most feel comfortable either in Pro or Am for all disciplines.

I don't think it's wrong if we decide not to be able to change class depening on disciplines but is there really a need for it?

And then what is the next step. To forbid changing between Pro and Am during season competitions? Same here, I don't think it's wrong if we decide that but is there really a need for it?

[Andy Bittner]

Corky, I understand and didn't mean the discussion shouldn't continue. I think you made some very interesting points.

...this issue of wanting to select Pro and Am class depending on disciplines are only touching a very few. Most feel comfortable either in Pro or Am for all disciplines.

This seems even more reason to not consider the proposal too seriously. It doesn't seem to make sense to create rules-of-exception that will eventually favor select individuals.

I don't think it's wrong if we decide not to be able to change class depening on disciplines but is there really a need for it?
And then what is the next step. To forbid changing between Pro and Am during season competitions? Same here, I don't think it's wrong if we decide that but is there really a need for it?

"Need" is a very subjective criterion and a potentially emotional one at that. When people argue their "needs", they feel that they are arguing for their limits or their survival. Whose needs should prevail? Some minimalists could argue that none of us really need anything other than nourishment, air and occasional exercise, in which case slalom skateboarding is altogether superflous anyway.

In my opinion, the real criteria should be what we want. Slalom skateboarding is our sport. It can and probably should be what the collective "we" want it to be. I've noted before, my primary concern is precedent and consistency over time. I think we should be very careful to not make decisions that will cause further complications or maybe even need to be reversed in the future.

[Hans Koraeus]

I've noted before, my primary concern is precedent and consistency over time. I think we should be very careful to not make decisions that will cause further complications or maybe even need to be reversed in the future.

Should I take that as we leave things as they are. I.e. people select disciplines class Am and Pro as they want. That is what happened last year.

If not we have to make a rule against it. But as you say "we should be very careful to not make decisions that will cause further complications or maybe even need to be reversed in the future". Ok Andy, I'm with you.

[John Gilmour]

I've thought about this from the position of the Am. While an Am moving up to Pro might only enter from the bottom- a Pro entering Am would likely enter somewhere near the top. This might seriously disrupt points accumulation for the AMs. So an Am intent on attending a contest to improve his standing might be annoyed when a Pro drops down...potentiallly bumping him off of his shot at podium.


IMHO the Pro entering AM is not so interested in winning the competition as he is in just participating in the Am course- assuming the courses are different.

The Pro shouldn't gain from this- he could be a "forerunner" for instance.


You could perhaps have a limit for how many times a Am could try racing in PRO....say once per season. That way the Am could try a pro level course without fear of being always last place for the rest of the season. I wouldn't allow this at a Major though- only at Minor or lesser levels.

I wouldn't want to discourage the Am's from being afraid of pro level racing and staying in Am too long. So a trial race once per year might be good. In this way the pro and Am classes might be bettered ordered in terms of speed of the participants.

[Andy Bittner]

John, If it's a matter of trying out the pro course and being able to know where one might stand if moving up to the Pro level, that's one of the benefits to the occasional Open-type event. Of course, I'm talking about Open the way the rest of the sporting world tends to define it, not as being amateur, or easier than pro, like FCR made it. (The sports where the best class seems to be the one called Open or Unlimited tend to be motorsports, where the word Open refers to a lack of sort of horsepower or performance restriction on the vehicle)

In an Open-type event, all racing takes place on the same course(s) for pros and amateurs, and everyone races as if they are just one big class. This course should be every bit a "professional-level" course. Using golf as an example again, the USGA's US Open course set-up happens to be one of the most difficult and testing course set-ups (narrower fairways, much longer rough, way faster greens, etc.) used for any golf tournament anywhere on the planet at any time. The course tends to beat the crap out of many of the pros and most of the ams. The only difference though, between the Pro and Am experience in an Open is at the beginning when pro riders pay a larger entry fee and declare that they are competing as a pro, and at the end when the highest finishing pro gets the 1st Place Pro money. An Am could win, and that Am would stand on the highest step of the podium with his name on the trophy, but that Am cannot decide to take the first place money, "turning pro" after the order of finish has guaranteed it to be lucrative.

Of course, as I've stated before, I also believe that the choice to turn pro should be irrevokable from the first moment it is acted upon, whether that is as a declaration at the beginning of a race or in cashing the first check for having logo placement in a published photo.

I think the other topic on this matter is discussing the matter of "re-virginizing" people like Hester, and Hutson, and other aging pros, so that they no longer be forced to race against the top-level pro racers. In my opinion, that's where a Masters Division comes into play. Choice to race in the Masters class is optional, but is predicated on having achieved some preset age threshold (i.e. over 45, over 50, etc.)

None of this really need to be all that complicated. When it becomes complicated is when we insist, in our over-inflatedly individualist nature as skateboarders, on NOT doing things the way so many others have.

At it's core, slalom skateboard racing is an individual (non-motor) sport, like ski racing, tennis (singles), golf, Triathalon, and many others. The sporting world is full of very complete, functional models of the whole Pro/Am, Pro Race, Am Race, Open Race, Masters Class, etc. Why some of us, as skateboarders, seem so hellbent on reinventing everything into a system that is almost contrary to what the rest of the sporting and sport-interested world understands and expects is beyond me entirely.