Can "amateurs" by USGA/R&A definition teach for money?

[golferdude54]

Why is this even a thing in golf, that one should have to be declared a "pro" to be able to give lessons and such for a living? This sort of thing never exists in other sports, it feels sort of backwards when you think about it.

 

One should be able to compete in tournaments purely for fun and no money and still be able to make money off teaching if they so desire. Out of all the rules that advanced golf to today, why do we still have this 19th century rule?

Edited April 22 by golferdude54

[naval2006]

Because teaching is one of main professional activities in pro golf.  It's more relevant than playing because of the large amount of instructors in the business.  There's a full section about the amateur status in the rule book stating that amateur players cannot receive money from advicing or giving teachings to another player.  

[Mikey_HACKilroy]

You want to officially teach? You need the certificate. It's this way in every profession; not just golf.

[Soloman1]

you don’t need a “certificate” to teach golf any more than you need one to teach pickleball, teach how to use a spoon, or how to cook fried chicken.

 

the usga wants to maintain the integrity of amateur competitions. it’s pretty simple, you can’t play in the us amateur, mid amateur, curtis cup, etc., if you get paid for your expertise.

 

it’s gone off the rails with equipment sponsorship, but that’s just my opinion.

[Hawkeye77]

9 hours ago, golferdude54 said:

Why is this even a thing in golf, that one should have to be declared a "pro" to be able to give lessons and such for a living? This sort of thing never exists in other sports, it feels sort of backwards when you think about it.

 

One should be able to compete in tournaments purely for fun and no money and still be able to make money off teaching if they so desire. Out of all the rules that advanced golf to today, why do we still have this 19th century rule?

So you are unfamiliar with the PGA of America?

[Nels55]

4 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

 

the usga wants to maintain the integrity of amateur competitions. it’s pretty simple, you can’t play in the us amateur, mid amateur, curtis cup, etc., if you get paid for your expertise.

 

it’s gone off the rails with equipment sponsorship, but that’s just my opinion.

I understand your point but... teaching does not make a person better at golf as a matter of fact it mostly takes away from time that could be spent playing and practicing.  I agree with the OP and I believe that professional status should be determined by the individuals desire to be a professional.  For instance Dr. Kwon who is a college professor who teaches golf swing mechanics should not be considered a professional golfer because his students pay tuition.  I think that pros should be those who are proud to be professional and join the PGA of their country and often play in professional tournaments for money.  LOL just my opinion...  

[Soloman1]

27 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

I understand your point but... teaching does not make a person better at golf as a matter of fact it mostly takes away from time that could be spent playing and practicing.  I agree with the OP and I believe that professional status should be determined by the individuals desire to be a professional.  For instance Dr. Kwon who is a college professor who teaches golf swing mechanics should not be considered a professional golfer because his students pay tuition.  I think that pros should be those who are proud to be professional and join the PGA of their country and often play in professional tournaments for money.  LOL just my opinion...  

 

he does charge for lessons and donates it to the school; therefore, he is not a professional.

 

what does pride have to do with anything? i'm proud of my computer mouse.

the pga is an association for the benefit of golf professionals, mostly club pros. like minded people in the same industry. you fulfill the requirements for membership and pay your dues. it confers no "license."

 

if you receive compensation based on your expertise in golf, excluding things defined by the usga, you are a professional. it's been that way for generations. if you get paid to teach golf, you are not an amateur.

 

local, state and national amateur tournaments are for amateurs. many state opens have two categories, one for amateurs and one for professionals.

 

you can show up at any tournament or qualifying tournament and declare yourself a professional. from that moment forward, you're a professional in the eyes of the usga or local ruling body.

 

you think tour pros go through the pga apprentice program for few years, making minimum wage (or less), cleaning carts and urinals before they declared themselves professionals? 🙂

 

money = professional

no money = amateur

 

 

Edited April 22 by Soloman1

[Nels55]

26 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 

he does charge for lessons and donates it to the school; therefore, he is not a professional.

 

what does pride have to do with anything? i'm proud of my computer mouse.

the pga is an association for the benefit of golf professionals, mostly club pros. like minded people in the same industry. you fulfill the requirements for membership and pay your dues. it confers no "license."

 

if you receive compensation based on your expertise in golf, excluding things defined by the usga, you are a professional. it's been that way for generations. if you get paid to teach golf, you are not an amateur.

 

local, state and national amateur tournaments are for amateurs. many state opens have two categories, one for amateurs and one for professionals.

 

you can show up at any tournament or qualifying tournament and declare yourself a professional. from that moment forward, you're a professional in the eyes of the usga or local ruling body.

 

you think tour pros go through the pga apprentice program for few years, making minimum wage (or less), cleaning carts and urinals before they declared themselves professionals? 🙂

 

money = professional

no money = amateur

 

 

 

Students are paying tuition based on Dr. Kwon's expertise in golf so it seems like there is a loophole there?  If Dr. Kwon actually is considered an am but the USGA, something that I don't know.  Hmmm, it I guess that I could setup a golf school and then teach golf while accepting a salary from the school and donating the students tuition to the school?  I would then remain an amateur?

 

Just because something was true back in the 1800's does not make it true to today and there is no reason why someone who makes money teaching golf but does not play professionally should be considered a pro.  All of this has changed for most other sports, time for golf to catch up.

 

I am also extremely proud of your computer mouse!

 

[Hawkeye77]

Yikes - let’s not let Kwon dance his way in here!  Just post up some vids from “All That Jazz”.

[Soloman1]

sigh. people not enrolled are asked to donate to the school.

 

he receives no compensation. no money = no professional.

[johnrobison]

17 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

 

I guess that I could setup a golf school and then teach golf while accepting a salary from the school and donating the students tuition to the school?  I would then remain an amateur?

 

According to rule #4, you would have to spend more than half your time performing non-golf instructional duties
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/amateur-status/amateur-status-modernization/rule-4.html

[SNIPERBBB]

7 hours ago, Mikey_HACKilroy said:

You want to officially teach? You need the certificate. It's this way in every profession; not just golf.

Dont need a certificate to teach, unless whoever is paying you to do it requires it.

 

As to the rule, it really comes down to simplification. Easier to say, anyone that makes money in golf loses am status than trying to create a myriad of carve outs that ultimately would lead to a lawsuit. If you really card about the money, you likely wouldnt have time to play or practice for yourself if you had a successful instructor gig anyways. Choices have consequences.

 

 

[johnrobison]

Other sports have done it. Coaches for other sports don't lose their eligibility to play in amateur leagues and competitions. Making money from playing, and being paid to instruct are quite different things. It could be done. Perhaps it is simpler to just disallow anyone making money in the golf profession, but I suspect the reason why is more than that.

Edited April 22 by johnrobison

[SNIPERBBB]

Most sports have multiple sanctioning bodies .

 

Really this isn't much of an issue for most people unless they want to play in state or usga amateur events.

[Mikey_HACKilroy]

2 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Dont need a certificate to teach, unless whoever is paying you to do it requires it.

 

As to the rule, it really comes down to simplification. Easier to say, anyone that makes money in golf loses am status than trying to create a myriad of carve outs that ultimately would lead to a lawsuit. If you really card about the money, you likely wouldnt have time to play or practice for yourself if you had a successful instructor gig anyways. Choices have consequences.

 

 

 

Phased another way, no professional association will sanction folks teaching the associated craft for money without the necessary credentials however they are acquired.
 

I could teach you how to correctly wire an electrical panel (with proper bonding and grounding as required). In that case, I wouldn't even have to charge money to get into trouble. Professional organizations will never sanction that, and that would include Golf.

Not saying whether I agree with it or not, but frankly I think there are already too many people trying to teach various things who really shouldn't be doing so...

... Like the guy that was instructing people on YouTube about how to install a drip edge (incorrectly I might add).

Besides, it really only becomes a problem when that amateur achieves a certain status or is otherwise found out when a student doesn't like the teaching and tells the next pro about the lessons. Then that Pro either reports it or moves on.....

[Nels55]

3 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

 

As to the rule, it really comes down to simplification. Easier to say, anyone that makes money in golf loses am status than trying to create a myriad of carve outs that ultimately would lead to a lawsuit. If you really card about the money, you likely wouldnt have time to play or practice for yourself if you had a successful instructor gig anyways. Choices have consequences.

It would be much simpler if being a pro was defined by playing for money or declaring oneself a professional.  The way it is now is more complicated then necessary.

[SNIPERBBB]

1 hour ago, Mikey_HACKilroy said:

 

Phased another way, no professional association will sanction folks teaching the associated craft for money without the necessary credentials however they are acquired.
 

I could teach you how to correctly wire an electrical panel (with proper bonding and grounding as required). In that case, I wouldn't even have to charge money to get into trouble. Professional organizations will never sanction that, and that would include Golf.

Not saying whether I agree with it or not, but frankly I think there are already too many people trying to teach various things who really shouldn't be doing so...

... Like the guy that was instructing people on YouTube about how to install a drip edge (incorrectly I might add).

Besides, it really only becomes a problem when that amateur achieves a certain status or is otherwise found out when a student doesn't like the teaching and tells the next pro about the lessons. Then that Pro either reports it or moves on.....

There's a lot of people with certificates and licences with so many letters after their name it takes an entire line in an 8x11 that have no business being in their field either. Theres professional associations in one of my fields I won't give the time of day to because a lot of what they teach is billing the customer rather than dealing with the actual issue. Needless to say  I'm a bit jaded when it comes to credentialism rises it's ugly head.

[johnrobison]

1 hour ago, Mikey_HACKilroy said:

 

Phased another way, no professional association will sanction folks teaching the associated craft for money without the necessary credentials however they are acquired.
 

I could teach you how to correctly wire an electrical panel (with proper bonding and grounding as required). In that case, I wouldn't even have to charge money to get into trouble. Professional organizations will never sanction that, and that would include Golf.

Not saying whether I agree with it or not, but frankly I think there are already too many people trying to teach various things who really shouldn't be doing so...

... Like the guy that was instructing people on YouTube about how to install a drip edge (incorrectly I might add).

Besides, it really only becomes a problem when that amateur achieves a certain status or is otherwise found out when a student doesn't like the teaching and tells the next pro about the lessons. Then that Pro either reports it or moves on.....

Professional certifications and licenses are primarily a way to raise the drawbridge and remove competition in the field. Just because you don't think someone should be trying to teach something, doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to try if they want to.

[BrianMcG]

No

[Shilgy]

55 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

It would be much simpler if being a pro was defined by playing for money or declaring oneself a professional.  The way it is now is more complicated then necessary.

Interestingly I have never heard a teaching pro whine about not being able to play amateur events.  If they choose to they have many club pro level events they can play in. 
 

Oh, and win cash prizes instead of useless script from the pro shop.

[Mikey_HACKilroy]

24 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

Professional certifications and licenses are primarily a way to raise the drawbridge and remove competition in the field. Just because you don't think someone should be trying to teach something, doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to try if they want to.

In reality, cannot Amateurs already teach golf and get paid to do it? Maybe not at certain establishments, but Rule 4 says Amateurs can teach and get paid when they join approved programs. They can also become PGA Associates and teach without having gone through the full PGA Certification, can they not?

Is this a real issue? Or did somebody just get a sharp stick in the eye that they may not have felt they deserved as part of a more isolated incident.

I feel like I've seen people get lessons plenty of times from Non-Professional golfers that were good teachers.

Edited April 23 by Mikey_HACKilroy

[Nels55]

Just now, Shilgy said:

Interestingly I have never heard a teaching pro whine about not being able to play amateur events.  If they choose to they have many club pro level events they can play in. 
 

Oh, and win cash prizes instead of useless script from the pro shop.

Absolutely because they are professionals and have no desire to be an amateur.  Other folks might like to teach on the side and maintain their amateur status but cannot.

[SNIPERBBB]

You can get paid to teach and remain an amateur as a a scholastic coach if you spending more time doing non-golf instruction than golf instruction. The approved programs thing would likely be similarly limited

[Brian Manzella]

I've been teaching golf for 41 Years.

 

The first two years, I ran a junior program, while being paid "on the hour" as a "Shop Assistant." At the same time I was on scholarship playing D1 college golf. 

 

The school called the NCAA and they said I was slick. Same thing with the USGA, they said I was still perfectly within the rules and a fully eligible "amateur." I played in the US Open qualifier and the US Pubic Links qualifiers both years I taught the juniors.

 

After my last college event, in May of 1984, I turned pro and started taking money for lessons. 

 

This is a very common story.

 

In my opinion, these guys who are teaching private lessons and doing golf schools are 100% not an amateur anymore.

 

Period.

[LeoLeo99]

58 minutes ago, Mikey_HACKilroy said:

In reality, cannot Amateurs already teach golf and get paid to do it? Maybe not at certain establishments, but Rule 4 says Amateurs can teach and get paid when they join approved programs. They can also become PGA Associates and teach without having gone through the full PGA Certification, can they not?

Is this a real issue? Or did somebody just get a sharp stick in the eye that they may not have felt they deserved as part of a more isolated incident.

I feel like I've seen people get lessons plenty of times from Non-Professional golfers that were good teachers.

Once you are getting paid to teach golf, you are no longer an amateur.  You are a professional golfer.  Even if you struggle to break 80.  

[Mikey_HACKilroy]

3 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

Once you are getting paid to teach golf, you are no longer an amateur.  You are a professional golfer.  Even if you struggle to break 80.  

So be it, I suppose. So what are folks all worked up about?

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Nels55 said:

It would be much simpler if being a pro was defined by playing for money or declaring oneself a professional.  The way it is now is more complicated then necessary.

 

So a head pro who never really plays for money? What about the am who plays for $5k against friends?

 

I would say it's pretty simple the way it is now. You are a pro if:

• You accept prize money over a certain amount.
• You declare yourself to be a pro or enter an event as one.
• You derive income from a lesson.
• Etc.

The list is pretty simple.

 

1 hour ago, Mikey_HACKilroy said:

They can also become PGA Associates and teach without having gone through the full PGA Certification, can they not?

 

PGA associates are golf professionals. They are no longer amateurs.

[Mikey_HACKilroy]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

PGA associates are golf professionals. They are no longer amateurs.

 

Seems obvious when put that way. I suppose I misunderstood the original premise that said golfers can no longer compete as amateurs. I can see why some might have a problem with that.

Though, there seem to be loopholes, still.... albeit limited, yes?

 

[Nels55]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

So a head pro who never really plays for money? What about the am who plays for $5k against friends?

 

I would say it's pretty simple the way it is now. You are a pro if:

• You accept prize money over a certain amount.
• You declare yourself to be a pro or enter an event as one.
• You derive income from a lesson.
• Etc.

The list is pretty simple.

 

 

PGA associates are golf professionals. They are no longer amateurs.

I should have said something like "plays professional tournament golf for money". 

 

I have a friend who runs a golf course and played a little bit professionally a number of years ago.  He quit teaching because he wanted to be able to play amateur events.  He is a talented teacher so golf lost out for no reason that I can see. 

 

Do you believe that teaching golf gives a golfer an advantage over those who don't teach? 

 

To me this seems like a case of "This the way it has always been so this is the way that it must be!".  I am actually surprised at the amount of push back on this one so I guess that it will be a while before this rule changes.

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Do you believe that teaching golf gives a golfer an advantage over those who don't teach?

 

It's an irrelevant question: they're a golf professional. They're no longer "in golf" "for the love of the game" entirely (or mostly). They're in it for money. It's their profession.

 

Professional golfers and golf professionals are both using golf for their profession. Almost the opposite of amateur.