# Pro!?!?



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

I may get flamed but I have a serious question about the Pro/AM at events like Indoor Nationals......

How do folks in this forum feel about a Pro in name only signing up for the Pro/Am? Should only the Pro's that shoot fairly strong scores, someone else can define that, sign up to have paying amateurs assigned to his/her team?

Personally, I think it's NOT a good thing for the NFAA or the Pro ranks in general when a Pro that can't shoot at least a 300/50 X game for example "leads" a team! I know that in Louisville this past weekend there weren't enough Pro's to only have 3 amateurs to a team but still I'd rather be denied a spot in the Pro/Am than to see the look on a kids face when he sees how his "Pro" shoots.

It is not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings or to embarrass anyone! I bet there are some experienced Pro's that feel the same way. It's one thing if a person wants to pay to play at a level at which they are not even remotely competitive. But it's another thing when the NFAA takes an amateur _members_ money and assigns the previously mentioned "Pro" to be their team leader. I think it reflects poorly upon _all _NFAA Pro's. 

I am not complaining about being _stuck_ this past weekend........ :wink: My Pro did "ok"!!! Besides he's kind of likeable for a Hoyt shooter!


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

I personally agree. And have a fairly large group I shoot wih that feels the same. Even know some pros that talk a lot about ther pros that never shoot respectable scores. It's one thing to have a bad day or tournament. But a complete difference between that and never in any tournament even shooting a score that can keep up with even the top 10% of amateurs. Having to qualify is long overdue In my opinion. Sure they won't do it since money then goes down to payout but it would become something work at and respect, not a long standing joke for how an over Under on low scores will be
And may be wrong but thought at least I'm past pros got shooter points to participating In the event. Which I guess doesn't mean much since reo stood off to the side but there was a whole pile of them that dont shoot good scores up there with the amateurs. And same as you not trying to embarrass anyone. But self awareness is hard to see sometimes when efforts are given


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

i too agree, but its just about the money and making people feel good. what our biggest problem in archery and in the good old USA is, we teach our youth anyone can win and we all have a chance to be the best and that just is not true,many will never be good at anything most including myself are just average.but the few great archer`s of the past ,now and the future deserve better.


----------



## rooster61 (Apr 1, 2003)

Qualifications to the pro division would be a good thing. I think the NFAA pro division should extend invites to to all amateur shooters who shoot a score above 300-58x(or equivalent Vegas or NAA/Outdoor Score) or better in an NFAA(or other) sanctioned tournament. 

All of the pros i have shot with over the years would easily meet this requirement.


----------



## Mid-MI Rick (Dec 6, 2010)

After the mess that happened at last years Pro/Am shoot at Louisville, I decided not to shoot it this year. A friend of mine did shoot it and all three amateurs on the bale did beat their assigned Pro.

Not sure if there are tax benefits to shooting Pro class?


----------



## blueglide1 (Jun 29, 2006)

Well guys,not everyone can shoot with Reo, or Braden G., or Levi.There has to be enough to spread the field out so everyone gets to shoot.You get 150 amateurs,and 10 reeeaaalllyy good Pros then it's 15 guys to every Pro.NFAA Nationals is the only event that has the "Pros" that are required to have a Pro Card.Iowa,Vegas,and other events are not covered by NFAA Pro card requirements.If you pay Championship entry money,any Joe can enter that division,and shoot with NFAA card Pros.And if you enter with Championship entry,you will shoot as a Pro in the Pro Am.Whether your top caliber ,or not.So then you might not even get a Pro,but a Joe that entered with Championship entry money.But yup Nationals is a delema with not enough Top Pros to go around.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

blueglide1 said:


> Well guys,not everyone can shoot with Reo, or Braden G., or Levi.There has to be enough to spread the field out so everyone gets to shoot.You get 150 amateurs,and 10 reeeaaalllyy good Pros then it's 15 guys to every Pro.NFAA Nationals is the only event that has the "Pros" that are required to have a Pro Card.Iowa,Vegas,and other events are not covered by NFAA Pro card requirements.If you pay Championship entry money,any Joe can enter that division,and shoot with NFAA card Pros.And if you enter with Championship entry,you will shoot as a Pro in the Pro Am.Whether your top caliber ,or not.So then you might not even get a Pro,but a Joe that entered with Championship entry money.But yup Nationals is a delema with not enough Top Pros to go around.


I believe Any one entering the championship money like vegas cannot shoot as a pro at the indoor nationals or any other NFAA shoot unless they are card carrying Pros


----------



## blueglide1 (Jun 29, 2006)

That is what I'm saying Mike,Nationals is the only event that the Pro has to have a card to shoot in the Pro class,but the other events like Iowa etc,if you enter in the championship class you are considered a Pro in the Pro Am portion of the shoot.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

blueglide1 said:


> That is what I'm saying Mike,Nationals is the only event that the Pro has to have a card to shoot in the Pro class,but the other events like Iowa etc,if you enter in the championship class you are considered a Pro in the Pro Am portion of the shoot.


I was not aware that Iowa had a pro am shoot.


----------



## blueglide1 (Jun 29, 2006)

Yup they do.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

You're pro card affects you're standing at all NFAA sanctioned shoots. 
Sanctioned ProAms, States, Sectionals, Nationals.
Vegas is not a true NFAA event, hence the "open" type money format. Several of the ProAm events follow this same format. The difference is really only attributed to ProPoints and how they are awarded.

Shooting a ProAm without having a current card will not win you any points. It will affect your end of year standing.

Granted, this historically is really not given much weight or appreciation by GenPop or the pros but I'd really like to change that, going forward so that it means something financially and as an overall award as well.


----------



## blueglide1 (Jun 29, 2006)

For sure we would "as card carrying Pros" like to see everyone that wants to be called on the Pro line ,and shoot with us join the card carrying bunch.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

blueglide1 said:


> For sure we would "as card carrying Pros" like to see everyone that wants to be called on the Pro line ,and shoot with us join the card carrying bunch.


YESSSS !!   

Working on a plan for that ..


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

This really is a slippery slope to go down. Part of being a pro is giving back, mixing in with amateure shooters and giving them a chance to shoot with the pros. The pros are shooting to help build the sport, the pro am money isn't really that much of a motivation. Those who feel cheated because your pro doesn't shoot better are missing the whole point, and griping about it will just make sure that pros stop getting involved in the event. It may be different now, but when I was a pro in name only, the organizers often went around begging for pros to shoot the pro am, or go to practice with the pros, because frankly not many wanted to spend the time. If you're a world class pro shooter, you are nearly guaranteed to end up with an amature who can't shoot well enough to get you in the money, and so you're much more likely to relax and prepare for the 'real competition'.

My hat's off to the pros who make time to shoot these events! We can't all be name-brand pros, but we can all give back more than we take out of the sport we love.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Another thought crossed my mind on this... if you're so good as an amateur that you expect to win your group and money at these events, then you should be joining the pro division and not complaining because your pro can't out shoot you. 

Also, I've never met a pro who feels that anyone who isn't "top 10%" shouldn't be a pro, or that pros who don't shoot well enough damage the reputation of 'pros'... in truth, they appreciate the effort that these shooters are putting in and especially their entry fee, which goes into the winner's bank account. Without donors, the top 10% would be shooting for peanuts and everyone else would be dominating their state in the amateur divisions.


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

SuperX said:


> Another thought crossed my mind on this... if you're so good as an amateur that you expect to win your group and money at these events, then you should be joining the pro division and not complaining because your pro can't out shoot you.
> 
> Also, I've never met a pro who feels that anyone who isn't "top 10%" shouldn't be a pro, or that pros who don't shoot well enough damage the reputation of 'pros'... in truth, they appreciate the effort that these shooters are putting in and especially their entry fee, which goes into the winner's bank account. Without donors, the top 10% would be shooting for peanuts and everyone else would be dominating their state in the amateur divisions.




Well... not quite.. actually look at the scores. You take out the perennial top 10 pro shooters.. and the rest won't be dominating anything in the amateur division. Just because someone says they are a pro, doesn't mean their scores show they are. And I'm talking shooting side, not the promotional or salesy side. But if you look at the amateur division the last few years, you wouldn't be saying that outside the top 10% of the pros..the rest would dominate the amateurs.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

gcab said:


> Well... not quite.. actually look at the scores. You take out the perennial top 10 pro shooters.. and the rest won't be dominating anything in the amateur division. Just because someone says they are a pro, doesn't mean their scores show they are. And I'm talking shooting side, not the promotional or salesy side. But if you look at the amateur division the last few years, you wouldn't be saying that outside the top 10% of the pros..the rest would dominate the amateurs.


Sorry gcab you're only looking at part of the picture. Taking the bottom 90% of pros out of the division at state level and put them in amateurs and they would dominate, especially in Sr. and Women's pro divisions. You also ignore the importance of developing young pros, who need the experience shooting at that level, as well as the requirement for pros in other associations to shoot as pros in the NFAA.

As for you, since you expect pros to have some level of qualification to shoot, what are your qualifications? I can tell you have a very high horse, to look down on 90% of pros as unqualified, but what about you? Are you a pro? A top shooter? Do you shoot perfect scores? Do you even shoot a bow competitively or are you mainly a hunter? What gives you the right to demand anything from any archer besides yourself?


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

SuperX said:


> Sorry gcab you're only looking at part of the picture. Taking the bottom 90% of pros out of the division at state level and put them in amateurs and they would dominate, especially in Sr. and Women's pro divisions. You also ignore the importance of developing young pros, who need the experience shooting at that level, as well as the requirement for pros in other associations to shoot as pros in the NFAA.
> 
> As for you, since you expect pros to have some level of qualification to shoot, what are your qualifications? I can tell you have a very high horse, to look down on 90% of pros as unqualified, but what about you? Are you a pro? A top shooter? Do you shoot perfect scores? Do you even shoot a bow competitively or are you mainly a hunter? What gives you the right to demand anything from any archer besides yourself?



Well, for the states that I have been in (Ohio and PA), the bottom 90% of pros wouldn't dominate our amateur classes. You can go to the websites and look at scores as well to verify. I get the "getting experience" type stuff for that level. Which is great and all.. but isn't that what the amateur classes are for in the first place? True, they won't be on a bale with Reo or Jesse if shooting amateur so don't get the experience that way... but do they get better experience shooting on a bale with pros that shoot 297 in Lousville than they would if they were on a bale with those that shot 120 xs in the amateur class this year? Luck of draw first day on bales sure, but if the youth are shooting the good scores then they would be on the bale with the top scores. If they aren't, then they are on a bale with the bottom scores either class. Just not sure how having consistent low scores in the pro class is a way to market anything, so yes I believe there should be qualifications beyond a checking account with $75. Just like any other sport. I don't think its looking down on anyone, as it is being realistic with consistent performance measures. 

And no I am not a pro, yet. Hoping to continue to get better and earn my way in there with better scores. But I do hunt, have for quite some time. I don't shoot perfect scores all the time. Have probably shot only about a couple dozen 60x games. I usually average a 299 on a vegas face with low 20 some x count. Average 551 on a full field course the last couple years. FITA stuff I'm still learning but usually around a 885-890 on their 900 round scoring. So nope.. not a perfect shooter. But a realist with where I belong based on my performance and not a small check cut to somewhere.


----------



## Tony Bagnall (Sep 8, 2012)

May be off topic.. but I have a question.. regarding pro vs amateur...and who is what .. If you accept any money for shooting ie you win your class at what ever level... arnt you then by definition paid ... thus no longer an amateur but a professional???? 
As per shooting.... I dont really care who i shoot with from the pro ranks... I just enjoy the chance to shoot!!


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

gcab said:


> Well, for the states that I have been in (Ohio and PA), the bottom 90% of pros wouldn't dominate our amateur classes. You can go to the websites and look at scores as well to verify. I get the "getting experience" type stuff for that level. Which is great and all.. but isn't that what the amateur classes are for in the first place? True, they won't be on a bale with Reo or Jesse if shooting amateur so don't get the experience that way... but do they get better experience shooting on a bale with pros that shoot 297 in Lousville than they would if they were on a bale with those that shot 120 xs in the amateur class this year? Luck of draw first day on bales sure, but if the youth are shooting the good scores then they would be on the bale with the top scores. If they aren't, then they are on a bale with the bottom scores either class. Just not sure how having consistent low scores in the pro class is a way to market anything, so yes I believe there should be qualifications beyond a checking account with $75. Just like any other sport. I don't think its looking down on anyone, as it is being realistic with consistent performance measures.
> 
> And no I am not a pro, yet. Hoping to continue to get better and earn my way in there with better scores. But I do hunt, have for quite some time. I don't shoot perfect scores all the time. Have probably shot only about a couple dozen 60x games. I usually average a 299 on a vegas face with low 20 some x count. Average 551 on a full field course the last couple years. FITA stuff I'm still learning but usually around a 885-890 on their 900 round scoring. So nope.. not a perfect shooter. But a realist with where I belong based on my performance and not a small check cut to somewhere.


Thanks for putting scores out there, that's hard to validate without your name, but at least it's a stake in the ground, and even anonymously, your not representing yourself as a top shooter. Kudos there. 

As for the state domination angle, again, you only look at one division, one style, and one age group for your data. The NFAA pro division is open to more than adult males under 50. 

Let's say for argument's sake that we put a minimum score to qualify to 'be a pro'. what should that score be? Where should it be shot, meaning what tournaments and courses qualify as competitive enough? Does it have to be at NFAA shoots only? (then what about the ASA guys?) Does there have to be a certain level of competition? (who did you beat?) How many times does it need to be shot to be more than a fluke? Can you shoot a 558 in field and make it as a pro if you only shoot a 56x on 5 spot? What if you shoot 3D and are 20 under on a course where nothing is over 40y? You can see where I'm going, there would need to be a staff to support the qualification process, and you would always be faced with issues like being the only woman in my state shooting x level scores, or my state qualification course is really easy or super hard... it would be tough to manage and take a lot of effort by the NFAA. 

Do you have a better solution? Frankly, I think the scenario I painted isn't tenable, and would end up doing more harm than good.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Tony Bagnall said:


> May be off topic.. but I have a question.. regarding pro vs amateur...and who is what .. If you accept any money for shooting ie you win your class at what ever level... arnt you then by definition paid ... thus no longer an amateur but a professional????
> As per shooting.... I dont really care who i shoot with from the pro ranks... I just enjoy the chance to shoot!!


Tony, the "pro division" in the NFAA is a division, like cubs or seniors, and is not to be confused with the dictionary definition of professional. In the NFAA you only win money if you are a pro, there is no payout for amateurs at all. Vegas is not an NFAA shoot, it is run by the WAF which is owned by the NFAA and run by the NFAA Council, and you can win money in any adult division.


----------



## Tony Bagnall (Sep 8, 2012)

SuperX said:


> Tony, the "pro division" in the NFAA is a division, like cubs or seniors, and is not to be confused with the dictionary definition of professional. In the NFAA you only win money if you are a pro, there is no payout for amateurs at all. Vegas is not an NFAA shoot, it is run by the WAF which is owned by the NFAA and run by the NFAA Council, and you can win money in any adult division.


Thank you for the clarification... I understand now..


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

SuperX said:


> Thanks for putting scores out there, that's hard to validate without your name, but at least it's a stake in the ground, and even anonymously, your not representing yourself as a top shooter. Kudos there.
> 
> As for the state domination angle, again, you only look at one division, one style, and one age group for your data. The NFAA pro division is open to more than adult males under 50.
> 
> ...



Ok... So how does it work with golf? There's youth. There's female. There's seniors. So how does it work with them just as an example? And I don't mean that as a jerk question.. I really don't know how it works for them. Is it more than just writing a check? Do they have ongoing qualifications to maintain pro status, or have some form of results based efforts needed to qualify? That's more my point i guess. It's brought up all the time on the pro stuff and getting it marketed and how "pros" do worse than amateurs at the pro am ect. Small sample size in number of shooters, but year to year it's pretty much the same. So what's wrong with having qualification to have it more legit? Read hat ESPN turned down the invite to air the Dakota classic footage with Perkins going for the million I get it, nba and nhl are much bigger and in playoffs. But at end of day when they look at it and learn what the shooters are like and dedication and such they had to get to be a the top,.. Does it make it better to say paid $75 and was in? I don't know. I doubt it So just asking, what's wrong with having to qualify and earn way In to the class? Hurt egos?


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

gcab said:


> Ok... So how does it work with golf? There's youth. There's female. There's seniors. So how does it work with them just as an example? And I don't mean that as a jerk question.. I really don't know how it works for them. Is it more than just writing a check? Do they have ongoing qualifications to maintain pro status, or have some form of results based efforts needed to qualify? That's more my point i guess. It's brought up all the time on the pro stuff and getting it marketed and how "pros" do worse than amateurs at the pro am ect. Small sample size in number of shooters, but year to year it's pretty much the same. So what's wrong with having qualification to have it more legit? Read hat ESPN turned down the invite to air the Dakota classic footage with Perkins going for the million I get it, nba and nhl are much bigger and in playoffs. But at end of day when they look at it and learn what the shooters are like and dedication and such they had to get to be a the top,.. Does it make it better to say paid $75 and was in? I don't know. I doubt it So just asking, what's wrong with having to qualify and earn way In to the class? Hurt egos?


I am not an expert on golf, but I think they have a qualifying tour / school called Q school where aspiring pros compete for the open spots on the tour, and touring pros have to perform on the money list to keep their spot else they go back to Q school and have to re-qualify. Of course this is in a sport where they have far more participants than they can fit into a tour event. Archery isn't in that spot right now, the pro division hasn't come even close to having too many members to shoot one event, even if they all shot at the same event in the same style and gender (which they don't and aren't). As far as getting into Q school, I think it's open to anyone who pays to get in... there may be some membership level necessary (club pro or such) which I am not sure how is attained.

If we decided to fire all the pros who didn't make money the previous year, like the PGA, we'd lose a lot of pros, but without a lot of young pros clamoring to get in, what is the point? The only effect of eliminating the pros who weren't money winners would be to whittle down the division until there weren't enough pros to support it. The money the pros win at state, sectional and nationals is from their own dues and the pro-pot portion of their entry fees. Without considering sponsors, the pros shoot for their own money at NFAA events. Paying that extra $100 per event in pro-pot money is also part of the commitment pros make beyond that 75.00 annual dues check. So whittling down the pro division to satisfy the outrage of those who shot better than their pro at a pro am shoot would just be silly, right? I am sure you can see how going that direction is going to turn out. 

Teddy Roosevelt said it best in his speech about "Citizenship In A Republic". It is pretty famously known as THE MAN IN THE ARENA.

" It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "

So gcab, I encourage you to get over your desire for personal perfection, and get into the arena. If your comments over the years about the need to prove the worthiness of pros are truly motivated by a desire for what is best for the sport, then get in there and do it from inside... you can't improve archery from the cheap seats. You can't prove one person's worthiness by denigrating another's right to be there.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Also, I highly doubt that ESPN decided not to cover an archer shooting for a million dollars because he didn't have to shoot a qualifying score, or because some pros at the event might not be better than all the amateurs.


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

Well that's not what I said. I said that nba and nhl are bigger so I understand that. Point was that I don't see any major sports marketing or media outlet showing just average joe archers chucking arrows in the 8 ring because no one really cares or wants to see that. Can't even have footage by bowjunky who's "in the industry" I guess do that How many conversations have been had about erring outside sponsorships? And that's going to come from poor performance illustrated and shown? I don't think so but could be wrong. Although if guess if it would happen that way it would've already. And I already said and showed that I don't shoot real pro scores yet, so no reason for me to "go pro" by paying $75. To me it doesn't make sense to have that so I don't want to add to what I consider a problem by doing that until I can compete with those guys. You disagree and that's cool. Doesn't need to be hard feelings for a disagreement in opinions. Not my ego that would get bruised if qualifications come out and I didn't make it, or if nothing happens and continues along same path.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

don't disagree, gcab, it's your decision to go pro or stay amateur, no shame in either decision, but please do remember that the man in the arena is or could easily be you. I agree - no need to get angry or have any hard feelings... none here. 

Good luck, thanks for keeping it civil!


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

truth is : in archery the words pro archer is very loosely used so someone can just pay the $75.00 to be called a pro archer no matter his ability in archery. > these archer`s are suppose to be adults not school kids that think they all deserve " A`s". 
i agree with gcab.


----------

