[Ted Shih]

Discussion on a variety of threads has focused on what makes a person a Pro or an Amateur.

I thought it might be useful to look at the bottom line.

Do you believe FT should continue to hold an Amateur Stake?
If so, why?
If not, why not?

Ted

 

[EdA]

Webster defines "amateur" as "a person who does something for the pleasure of it rather than for money"

while I could debate that sometimes field trials are anything but pleasurable, I would never ever do this for money

therefore the Amateur stake is essential

someone has to do the work, someone has to pay the bills

and those who choose to profit from it (training and running dogs in competition) are professionals

 

[K G]

What Ed said....

kg

 

[W Knight]

Ted

If you want to cut out a stake

Eliminate the OPEN

Verdell

 

[Shayne Mehringer]

I think any dog with more points than mine, should have to run the Open only.

This is a dynamic rule and will be updated, hopefully, frequently.

Shayne

 

[KJB]

I think any dog with more points than mine, should have to run the Open only.

This is a dynamic rule and will be updated, hopefully, frequently.

Shayne

Hah. I think any "am" who has won a National (Open or Am) shouldn't be able to run in the Amateur. Or maybe Shayne and I will compile a list of amateur threats to be banned. :twisted:

But seriously, we need the amateur, cuz we'd would lose a lot of folks if they knew they had to always run against the pros.
Tina

 

[Janice Gunn]

Should Field Trials continue to hold Amateur Stakes?

YES we believe that field trials should always hold amateur stakes!

If we took away the amateur stakes, it is quite possible that a number of amateurs would no longer continue to run their dogs. By not running their own dogs, what can happen is they may no longer attend the trials, work at the trials, train their own dogs, and would have a lesser ability to judge.
I think some would just sit back and let the pro do all the training and
trialing, and the amateur would loose interest in being involved.
Really, they wouldn't have to attend the trial at all if their pro was
running both stakes.

And is it not the Amateurs that do most the work behind the scenes?

We think it would be a big detriment to the sport to have double
open stakes.

Another point.....
John is competitive in either stake........
However, I am a greener amateur, and my chances of competing
with the pro's is going to be more difficult. NOT that Amateur stakes
are easy by any means or even necessarily smaller
but it can give me a better chance of being called back to the next
series, and keep my interest in the sport alive.
Encouraging callbacks and getting more amateurs thru each series
for respectable work should be a judges goal. The more experience and time a competitior gets to stand "on the line" and run each series is
what encourages us to enter the next trial.

A dog with both an FC and AFC to me is most impressive.

What would happen to our Amateur National?

 

[Ted Shih]

Ted

If you want to cut out a stake

Eliminate the OPEN

Verdell

Verdell

You don't get away that easy.

Why eliminate the Open?
Why hold an Amateur?
What makes an Amateur an Amateur?
What makes a Pro a Pro?

Ted

 

[Shayne Mehringer]

Verdell

You don't get away that easy.

Why eliminate the Open?

Ted

Because he thinks you should have to be 100 years old, retired, and be able to train your dogs full time in order to play this game.

Shayne

 

[achiro]

Verdell

You don't get away that easy.

Why eliminate the Open?

Ted

Because he thinks you should have to be 100 years old, retired, and be able to train your dogs full time in order to play this game.

Shayne

Here we go again. :lol:

This goes along with the point I was trying to make. How would taking a gift or even some cash for helping to train a buddies dog give a guy that works 40+ hours per week in a completely different profession give the advantage over someone who is retired, independently rich, dependently supported or whatever that has time 24-7 to train and handle dogs?

 

[Ted Shih]

Russ

Here are the questions for you.

Do you think there should be an Amateur?
If so, why?
What to you is the difference between an Amateur and a Pro?

It is easy enough to pick examples of things that you think are unfair.
It is tough to say this is what I believe an Amateur is.

What is an Amateur to you?
If you can't say ... why not eliminate the Amateur stake entirely?

Ted

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

I think this is an excellent poll.

Like it or not, the FT community is going to HAVE to clarify the definition of "Amateur" for ITSELF, and have solid reasons in support of that definition, or else AKC will do it for us. And we won't be happy with the result.

Of that, I have no doubt.

Lisa - thinks the influx of "big money" in the show world will buggar it up for everyone

 

[Ted Shih]

So far, 25 people have said that there should be an Amateur stake.

No one has said that there should be no Amateur stake.

Only Ed has offered a definition of what he believes is an amateur.
And only Janice has offered an explanation of why she believes there should be an Amateur stake.

Ok, Russ, Shayne, and others

Why do you want an Amateur stake?
And how are you going to define the difference between an Amateur and a Pro?

 

[Shayne Mehringer]

I think the best definition of an Amateur is someone who has a full-time, non-dog training, job. If they work 40 and train 50, fine, they are an AM and want it more than i do. But ff they are retired and train everyday, they have an advantage over me - Russ' scenario.

Shayne

 

[achiro]

Wow Ted, you expect me to come up with the answers to a question that people a whole lot smarter than me have been unable to do for several years? :lol:

Heck I'll give it a try.
Yes, there should be an am. Because I don't want my only stake to be against people with 10-20 dogs on their truck.
Difference between the two. I suppose we should define pro(in my opinion) a true pro would be one that makes an income large enough to at least somewhat support his/her lifestyle(yeah I know its open but you asked) by training RETRIEVERS in for hunt tests, hunting, and/or field trials. I'm not even sure that I would consider a basic obedience trainer a pro for field trials. Still not sure how teaching a dog sit, heal, and here becomes a big advantage.

I suppose then that an am would be everyone else. :wink:
I've got to leave the office for a while, I will try to add more later.

 

[Ted Shih]

I think the best definition of an Amateur is someone who has a full-time, non-dog training, job. If they work 40 and train 50, fine, they are an AM and want it more than i do. But ff they are retired and train everyday, they have an advantage over me - Russ' scenario.

Shayne

Shayne

What is the difference between an Amateur and a Pro?
And how does your definition reflect that difference?
Are you saying that if Verdell is retired and trains all day, he is a Pro?

Ted

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

No offence, but you guys keep putting the emphasis on the wrong sy-LA-ble.

The definition should not be drawn on who has the better chance of winning.

It should be drawn on who should judge, and who should not.

Lisa

 

[Ted Shih]

Difference between the two. I suppose we should define pro(in my opinion) a true pro would be one that makes an income large enough to at least somewhat support his/her lifestyle(yeah I know its open but you asked) by training RETRIEVERS in for hunt tests, hunting, and/or field trials.

I'm not even sure that I would consider a basic obedience trainer a pro for field trials. Still not sure how teaching a dog sit, heal, and here becomes a big advantage.

Russ

This question is not about how long you have been in the game
This question is about what you - and others - believe is the difference between a pro and an amateur.

I read two different factors in your post

1) Making an income of some presently undetermined level
2) Having a competitive advantage through training

Here are the tough questions

1) Why does making money make a difference to you?
2) What kind of "competitive advantage" are you concerned about and why?

 

[Ted Shih]

No offence, but you guys keep putting the emphasis on the wrong sy-LA-ble.

The definition should not be drawn on who has the better chance of winning.

It should be drawn on who should judge, and who should not.

Lisa

Lisa

Why do you believe that we should focus on judging?

I think it is important that you elaborate on this thrust.

Ted

 

[thunderdan]

In my opinion an amatuer is someone who trains thier retriever for the fun of it, for the pleasure and as a hobby type activity. A pro is someone who gets monetarily compensated for thier time training and handling other people's dogs.

I believe that eliminating the amatuer stake would be a barrier to entry for new blood in the sport. I can tel lyou that there are several people I know :wink: that would not have gotten into this sport if I had to always run my dog against a pro's truck in the Open. Maybe after I get alot of experience handling a dog my perspective maybe different.

Regardless of if I determine to have my dog trained by a pro or not, I would want to be able to run my dog against other non-pro's. If you are fortunate enough to be retired and have the health and ability to train your own dogs 24/7, all the power to you and I will see you in the Am stakes.