Tom Watson on Modern Amateurs - In Name Only

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Chief Broom

I gotta disagree.  Both are forms of compensation.  If everyone could attend college for free, then I'd say you have a point, but any financial assistance that one isn't required to pay back is direct compensation.  Not that I think college golfers should give up their amature status, but amature golf isn't what it was 40-50 years ago.  This is why the USGA came up with the concept of "mid-amature" championships so that real amature golfers (golfers with no intentions of turning pro) would have a chance in state's and a national championship that isn't dominated by amatures who are simply trying to flesh out their resume (and win a berth in to 3 of the majors) prior to turning pro.

I reject the notion that these are not "real amateurs ." They're not being paid to play golf.

I'll tell you what... You go to work every day, and instead of getting a paycheck and health benefits and so on, the local Claytopia will let you paint and fire all the pots you want. Deal? Heck, we'll even double your salary in the materials and services we'll provide to you for free. It's a raise!

Originally Posted by x129

They are the same at the basic level.  The student golfer elects to take his compensation as education while the  pro takes it as cash.  Either way they are getting something of value (stanford must be about 200k for 4 years now) in exchange for performing golfing services. The rule book says you can do one and still be considered an amateur.

They don't "elect" to take their compensation as education. That implies that they have a choice... they can't say "nah, I'll take the cash value and skip the education." Money can be re-used. They can't take their "compensation" of a free or half price tuition and re-sell it to someone else, or use it to buy food, clothing, or shelter.

Even the Claytopia example fails in that you could re-sell the pots you make for actual money, or trade them for food, clothes, and shelter, unlike your free or reduced tuition.

[x129]

You are confusing the resale and transferability of a good with its value. Would it be legal for a restaurant to give amateurs free meals? After all they can't transfer the food after the eat/drink it to someone else. Some how I don't think NCAA might not approve. And if you read the IRS docs, they definitely consider barter (goods for services) to be income.

And yes the golfer is making the choice. They are free to turn down the deal and get a better one. The problem for most of them is that the university is offering the best deal out there.

Originally Posted by iacas

They don't "elect" to take their compensation as education. That implies that they have a choice... they can't say "nah, I'll take the cash value and skip the education." Money can be re-used. They can't take their "compensation" of a free or half price tuition and re-sell it to someone else, or use it to buy food, clothing, or shelter.

Even the Claytopia example fails in that you could re-sell the pots you make for actual money, or trade them for food, clothes, and shelter, unlike your free or reduced tuition.

[laconic517]

Realistically this whole notion of amateurism in golf is a crock (at least at top level amateur ranks)  These people come from incredibly wealthy families quite often and have had top level instruction since they were children.  There's nothing noble in being an amateur (I groan everytime I hear about Bobby Jones being an amateur, he was wealthy enough to be able to afford that, not everyone has that luxury).  You want to see amateurs, go to your local muni.  Those top flight amateurs wouldn't be caught dead out at the courses the majority of us play.

[jgreen85]

Yea, goods/services are certainly compensation. I remember one of President Obama's appointees withdrew his name because he received a driver from some organization and he didn't account for that benefit on his taxes.

"And yes the golfer is making the choice. They are free to turn down the deal and get a better one. The problem for most of them is that the university is offering the best deal out there."

In fact you can argue that they're overpaid as I don't believe college golf generates enough revenue for the University to justify its expenses. Though, it might through donations from rich guys who like golf.

Anyone who says college athletes aren't compensated is insane; whether they take advantage of the compensation is up to them. If I blow all my money, can I tell my employer to pay me more because my employer turned a profit. I'm sorry some of these "student" athletes don't appreciate their compensation. There are literally millions who would trade places with them.

[sean_miller]

One has to look no further than varsity athletes' access to top phyicians, surgeons, and physiotherapists at no expense. When I go to the dentist and claim it, it show up on my tax return as income - a taxable benefit.

Originally Posted by jgreen85

Yea, goods/services are certainly compensation. I remember one of President Obama's appointees withdrew his name because he received a driver from some organization and he didn't account for that benefit on his taxes.

"And yes the golfer is making the choice. They are free to turn down the deal and get a better one. The problem for most of them is that the university is offering the best deal out there."

In fact you can argue that they're overpaid as I don't believe college golf generates enough revenue for the University to justify its expenses. Though, it might through donations from rich guys who like golf.

Anyone who says college athletes aren't compensated is insane; whether they take advantage of the compensation is up to them. If I blow all my money, can I tell my employer to pay me more because my employer turned a profit. I'm sorry some of these "student" athletes don't appreciate their compensation. There are literally millions who would trade places with them.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by x129

You are confusing the resale and transferability of a good with its value. Would it be legal for a restaurant to give amateurs free meals? After all they can't transfer the food after the eat/drink it to someone else. Some how I don't think NCAA might not approve. And if you read the IRS docs, they definitely consider barter (goods for services) to be income.

And yes the golfer is making the choice. They are free to turn down the deal and get a better one. The problem for most of them is that the university is offering the best deal out there.

I'm not confusing anything.

Yes, it would be "legal" for restaurants to give amateurs free meals. Go to some First Tee events and you'll see kids winning prizes, getting lunch, getting to play free golf, getting access to free instruction, free equipment, etc. Have all those little kids suddenly turned pro? Nope. So long as they golfers aren't getting free food in exchange for golfing skill, lessons, marketing, etc. it's fine. You seem to be confusing the NCAA with the USGA. The NCAA doesn't determine the rules of amateur status for golf. And the IRS does not consider a college scholarship income.

And finally, the "choice" is "take the scholarship or don't." It's not "here's a bunch of money, you can choose to spend it however you want." Again, would you be okay if your boss announced tomorrow that he'd pay you in Gummi Bears or free pottery? I suspect you'd ask that he continue to pay you with cash.

[Phil McGleno]

I'm a pro golfer. I teach and people pay me for it, so  it's my profession, my job, and i get cash.

Pay the pro golfers on Tour in something they can't convert to cash and you're gonna find a whole lot less golfers wanting to be on Tour. "Check? ACH deposit? No, Dustin Johnson, we're paying you in Gatorade this week. Plus you can see doctors for free for nine months and you get to play this course almost as often as you want for free."

That'd go over real well.

Pro golfers on Tour or at some dinky range are being paid for doing a job and amateurs are not.

[sean_miller]

I think most teaching professionals (guys who aren't getting income directly from playing) are probably, in general, closer to being amateur golfers than top players at Div 1 schools. From a pure playing ability standpoint, as well as having access to all the training facilities that top college golfers have. I mean from that perspective the average club pro is PRONO - pro in name only. Strictly along the same line of reasoning that Watson had for his comments - as per the OP.

[B-Con]

I think some of the discussion is completely missing Watson's point. FTA: [quote]“When my dad asked (Arnold Palmer) about what would make me a better player, he said, ‘play in as much competition as you can,' " Watson said. "When you’re 20 years old, you’re a pretty seasoned player when you have the ability to play the type of competition that these kids have a chance to play in.” Watson’s competitive schedule from his amateur days pales in comparison to the docket of today’s amateurs, who compete year-round, and often sprinkle in a handful of pro tournaments. Watson said he played just four amateur events each summer -- the U.S., Missouri, Western and Trans-Mississippi amateurs. By comparison, Cantlay has played in four PGA Tour events this summer. [...] Rickie Fowler lost a playoff as an amateur at the 2009 NCHI. That means an amateur has had the low 72-hole score in three of the NCHI’s five playings. An amateur has finished in the top 10 in all five NCHIs. With so many amateurs invited each year, it seems certain that at least one will have a good week. And we’ve seen that an elite amateur’s top golf is good enough to hang with the pros.[/quote] His point is that the concept of what embodies an amateur is completely different now. They have lifestyles and a skill set that's much closer to the pros them than it was in the past, and in fact so many key elements are close to the pros that Watson feels that a paycheck is the only thing of substance that differentiates them from deserving the label of "pro". Hence his alliteration by using the phrase "in name only". It's the technicalities that deny them the label, not the over-arching lifestyle. He never said they [i]were[/i] pros, just that they're pros in most practical ways other than the paycheck.

[mdl]

Quote:

Not that I think college golfers should give up their amature status, but amature golf isn't what it was 40-50 years ago.  This is why the USGA came up with the concept of "mid-amature" championships so that real amature golfers (golfers with no intentions of turning pro) would have a chance in state's and a national championship that isn't dominated by amatures who are simply trying to flesh out their resume (and win a berth in to 3 of the majors) prior to turning pro.

See Erik's point above.  The reason amateur golf was different 50 years ago, beyond all the general athletics world changes discussed already, is that only the idle rich could afford the time it takes to become a world class golfer without getting paid.  That's still true to a certain extent for anyone not in a college program, but those programs give those without trust funds a chance to play very high level golf without having to try to turn pro.

The moral twinge Watson seems to be giving to his statement and you seem to be agreeing with seems like very misguided nostalgia based upon very very selective memory to me.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I think most teaching professionals (guys who aren't getting income directly from playing) are probably, in general, closer to being amateur golfers than top players at Div 1 schools. From a pure playing ability standpoint, as well as having access to all the training facilities that top college golfers have. I mean from that perspective the average club pro is PRONO - pro in name only. Strictly along the same line of reasoning that Watson had for his comments - as per the OP.

Uh, no. Perhaps that's true but if you're talking about playing ability, a "professional golfer" in the Rules of Golf makes it pretty clear, and that's the only definition worth discussing because it's the only one that matters in the game (or, of course, the R&A; definition which, as with all things, is the same).

An instructor is as much a "professional" as a tour (any pro tour) player under the guidelines set forth by the R&A; and USGA.

As for Watson's general statement, well, things change, dude, and Bobby Jones wasn't exactly strapped for cash like he seems to think all amateurs were in his day, either. They're amateurs. They have access to some great stuff, but it boils down to the simple fact that golf ain't their job.

/erik

[CuppedTin]

Professional Golfer and Golf Professional... One plays and one teaches...

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Uh, no. Perhaps that's true but if you're talking about playing ability, a "professional golfer" in the Rules of Golf makes it pretty clear, and that's the only definition worth discussing because it's the only one that matters in the game (or, of course, the R&A; definition which, as with all things, is the same).

An instructor is as much a "professional" as a tour (any pro tour) player under the guidelines set forth by the R&A; and USGA.

Restricted from entering amateur only events, yes. From a playing ability standpoint, which is sort of what Watson was driving at, then no, not even close.

[sean_miller]

Maybe Watson has issues with the way NCAA athletes are treated as amateurs (with a stipend / living allowance, access to coaches, physicians and physical trainers, free travel to and from top level tournaments). Golf isn't the only sport where this is being debated. WRT golf specifically, it's been debated for years, and will continue to be in the future.

Originally Posted by mdl

Quote:

See Erik's point above.  The reason amateur golf was different 50 years ago, beyond all the general athletics world changes discussed already, is that only the idle rich could afford the time it takes to become a world class golfer without getting paid.  That's still true to a certain extent for anyone not in a college program, but those programs give those without trust funds a chance to play very high level golf without having to try to turn pro.

The moral twinge Watson seems to be giving to his statement and you seem to be agreeing with seems like very misguided nostalgia based upon very very selective memory to me.

[clubchamp]

Are they as good as pro's.... yes

They are not paid (even scholarships don't count) so that makes them amateurs. The scholarship argument could stem into every college sport but I don't want to go there now. I will say that I actually think college golf is what slows America from having more top golf talent in the world now. I do think that all the kids make the right decision to get an education but the problem is once they get out of college and get adjusted to the tour a lot of time has passed. I'm just saying it seems like european golfers who skip college obviously get their career going around 23 to 25 where as American golfers who went to college don't get going until closer to 30. Obviously there is exceptions to this I.E. Tiger but IMO it's seems like college hinders american golfers.

[x129]

That is only the "choice" after the player has decided to be an amateur. Before that choice there is the choice to  "Try and get paid in cash or go to college and get paid in education".  It turns out that the going to school pays a lot more than getting paid in cash for most of golfers. The fact that the school values is willing to pay 200k for their services doesn't put any obligation on anyone else to pay that much.   I don't have a boss but if I did he is free to offer to pay me however he wants (there might be state laws but I am not a lawyer). I am also equally free to walk away if some one offers a better deal. Just like the college golfer.

Originally Posted by iacas

And finally, the "choice" is "take the scholarship or don't." It's not "here's a bunch of money, you can choose to spend it however you want." Again, would you be okay if your boss announced tomorrow that he'd pay you in Gummi Bears or free pottery? I suspect you'd ask that he continue to pay you with cash.

[Dave H]

I think Watson's comments make a lot of sense if you're discussing amateurs who aspire to have a professional career.

Regarding the debate about a free college tuition. IMO, it is a form of compensation, and a good one too. Ask anyone who's spent the first decade of their working life paying off student loans. Is it the same as a regular paycheck? No, but it is compensation. At my job, I receive a paycheck (cash) but my total compensation is more than that, it also includes my health benefits and paid vacation time as well as other perks. Would I trade my benefits for cash? Of course not. My health benefits can't put food on the table

All that said, I don't think college players who receive a free education should be no longer be considered amateur. The benefit they're receiving isn't the same as cash to earn a living and they don't play tournaments with the intention of getting a paycheck.

[The Tin Man]

With the money universities blow on the other ball sports, I don't begrudge the few golf scholarship's given out. In the end it's the Tax Man who decides everything.