How Many Pros

[The Fishing Fanatics]

For the purpose of discussion, how many "pros" do the readers here feel are necessary to make up a legitimate pro walleye tour level circuit?

And, are there enough "pro" walleye anglers out there able to fish an entire tour and actually have full fields?

Also, why is it that neither AIM or the FLW lets us know how many folks are fishing their events? The MWC does. They keep a running tally on their website. That is a very good thing. All fans and possible competitors know what to expect at MWC events.

Nobody at an MWC event shows up to find out that the field is only half full. The competitor can simply check online to see what the return could possibly be on his/her investment.

Right now, based on last year, it appears there may be enough "pros" to come close to fill one circuit for every event if there were only one pro/am tour to fish.

What do you all think?

The Fishing Fanatics

[editor]

Can you give us your definition of "pro" please.

[dutchboy]

A "pro" in the fishing world is someone who can scrap together the entry to fish the pro side. :)

[Rgardner]

Defining “pro” is a pre-requisite to defining “pro tour”. Face it, all tournaments pay money, thus are “professional” by definition. The question is what do YOU mean by “pro”?

In the days of the PWT, some tried to define it as being full-time, and some tried to define it as being a source of most of your income, etc. All of these definitions were made by anglers who were trying to claim they were “more pro” than another group of anglers.

I remember on one occasion, at a PWT Advisory council meeting, an angler said that he was “more pro” because he did this full-time, and the other anglers weren’t pros because they didn’t do it full-time. And then another guy pointed out that the only reason the 1st guy did it full-time is because his wife made $150K per year, and she paid all of the bills, supported the family and supported his fishing habit when times were tough. Trying to define "pro" by how much time you put in, or how much of your income comes from it is impossible.

In my opinion, in order to be a competitive pro sport like golf, tennis, football, baseball, etc, it needs to be elite and that “elitness” needs to be based on RECENT competitiveness in a “minor league” tour.

I think to make a "legitimate" pro sport, there needs to be a large number of people competing at lower levels in the sport, and entrance into the pro tour needs to be based in RECENT competitiveness (not career length or career winnings). There needs to be a clear path for young “up and comers” to make at the elite level, and there needs to be clear competitive criteria to stay on tour after you’re there. I think elimination from the tour for lack of performance needs to be a real part of the game (just like golf, tennis, baseball, etc). Otherwise, it's just a "good ole boys club".

The fact that we don’t even have full fields let alone competitive criteria to get on tour (or stay on tour), indicates that these “pro” tours are just regular tournaments with slightly higher payouts (in some cases) and that choose to use the word “pro”.

Having said all of that, the real question is can you really make Walleye fishing into an elite pro sport? Ten years ago I would have said YES. Now, I seriously doubt that this sport has the money or interest from fans and aspiring anglers to be a real legitimate pro sport.

[The Fishing Fanatics]

Rick brings up some good points, but I am not here to define anyone, just wondering about the numbers still out there willing to cough up the bucks to fish as a "pro" for an entire tour season, not just cherry picking an event or two.

Right now, it seems to me, that since there are two pro/am circuits the available "pro" pool is split and not allowing either one to fill their fields. Right now it appears there are not enough "pros" who want to play for both circuits to flourish.

The Fishing Fanatics

[dutchboy]

Can somebody explain for me the reason to have "pro's"?
Plop everybody in a boat and the most weight wins. Fill the fields and have some fun.

[GiddyGills dude]

There are not enough pros to fill both because they are not set up to accomidate and support a full field of pros.

[fishim]

The "what is your deffinition of a pro" subject has been beat to death and there really is no rite answer its a pretty grey area and it really doesn't matter for this topic anyway. I think the main reason why FLW and AIM don't annouce a list of pros that are signed up is the fear of someone on the fence of signing up looking at it and saying there are not enough in it and the payouts will not be worth my efforts. I don't blame them for that but at the same time it can go both ways someone might not sign up because they have no idea how many they have and they dont have a clue what they are looking at for payouts. Its unfortunate but its just another obstacle that has come with the times. On the subject of 1 or 2 circuits I think it would be great if there were only one circuit rite now, there seems to be just enough touring pro's to fill one. However both major circuits have to much invested to just pull the pin and let the other one succeed. It could come down to that but hopefully now that our economy is showing signs of improvement the 2 circuits can survive. I think they are both great circuits with good people behind them and it will be real interesting to see what the next couple years brings for us. 2 pennies

Bill Shimota

[Randy Reek]

Actually, AIM changed the format of the 2010 tournaments at the request of the Angler/Owners last October at the Annual Meeting.
It was decided that the AIM Pro Walleye Series tournaments will NO LONGER have a set "full field". The field is whatever it is - 60, 80, 100, or 150.
One of the goals of the AIM events was to schedule tournaments at each location at the best possible times of the year - not when the local motels were hurting for business. Consequently, there are always going to be date conflicts with other events (including MWC, FLW, and literally dozens of regional events from which Pro Anglers may enter.)
Secondly, AIM also established a minimum First Place payout of $30,000 - regardless of how few or how many register. This eliminates the "excuse" that I can't go because not enough Pros are registered. Also, the bigger the field, the DEEPER the payouts extend - but no Pro will be paid LESS than $3,000 (or what was determined to be a realistic "breakeven". Just "cashing a check" is a hollow reward if you lose money!)
All of this was published back last November: http://www.aimfishing.com/display.asp?aid=2678
Hope this clarifies AIM's registration and payout structure.
Randy Reek
AIM Operations Director

[The Fishing Fanatics]

Randy,

Interesting ploy to avoid the "your circuit isn't drawing" argument. Whoever shows up shows up. That's fine.

Please clarify though, when you say each pro will receive a minimum of $3,000, is that for placing in the check cashing category, which I assume varies depending on number of participants, or is that just for fishing an AIM tournament?

If its just for fishing then AIM is truly a professional outfit. Getting paid to play. The sport has really arrived if that is the case.

Also, are you implying that the FLW and MWC do not schedule tournaments based on the fishery and good times to fish? Are you suggesting they only go to places during times when the local businesses would benefit more from an influx of tournament angler money, such as the slow tourist times, etc.?

Still, none of this back-and-forth is answering the original purpose of this post as to how many anglers will fish as "pros" (no definition necessary) for an entire tour this year and if there are enough to fill two tours.

With the new AIM method only 2 people are all that is necessary to have a tournament. A 50/50 chance at cashing a $30,000 check. lol (I am kidding around, sort of)

The Fishing Fanatics

[guest]

I went to the link provided. It clearly shows the lowest PAYOUT is $3000. Obviously, not that every Pro gets paid $3000.

[Guest]

The Fishing Fanatics,
Maybe if you just substituted the word "pros" with "boaters" in your questioning, your thread would have been answered the way you would have liked it.

[The Fishing Fanatics]

Come on now. Boaters is not the same as "pros". However, you are probably correct.

As far as using my head, when the person who is representing AIM publicly (on the world's walleye fishing website) makes such statements that everyone gets $3,000 it is only natural to inquire about the statement regardless of what is in print from November 2009. Things may have changed.

It would certainly be a professional coup if AIM was actually paying back their members investment at the tournaments.

The Fishing Fanatics

[that GiddyGills dude]

Please tell me I read that wrong...a full field=however many people sign up. I'm being serious when I ask, is using an accounting gimmick the only way to fill a field?

I don’t think there is a true, honest answer to your question Dave.

[Rich S]

Fishing Fanatics,

Please refrain from taking comments out of context. Randy never said that "everyone gets $3000".

The direct quote said:

"Also, the bigger the field, the DEEPER the payouts extend - but no Pro will be paid LESS than $3,000".

Now if you really need someone to explain this to you let me know and I will dumb it down even farther :)

Now to keep this on topic and answer your question I would say 50.

[The Fishing Fanatics]

Geez Rich,

Can't a guy have a little fun. Since nobody from AIM or FLW wants to share info on this website, such as participants, I thought we may get a direct answer when a representative appeared here.

Also, the clarity in his language is not there to take out the doubt and the reason for my somewhat snarkey question.

However, I stick to my idea that all you need for AIM to have an event is 2 anglers according the their concept of no longer having to draw anglers to fill a field.

As far as your number of 50 this is my view, 55-65 boaters for AIM per event average and 80-100 boaters for FLW Walleye Tour per event average.

I hope I am wrong and each circuit has a much higher turnout.

The Fishing Fanatics

[Rich S]

I will agree that EVERY circuit should keep a running log of participants leading up to the event and post it on a website. Either that or have a phone number where the information could be found. I never understood what the big secret was.

[Vikings Fan]

For the purpose of discussion, how many "pros" do the readers here feel are necessary to make up a legitimate pro walleye tour level circuit?

And, are there enough "pro" walleye anglers out there able to fish an entire tour and actually have full fields?

Also, why is it that neither AIM or the FLW lets us know how many folks are fishing their events? The MWC does. They keep a running tally on their website. That is a very good thing. All fans and possible competitors know what to expect at MWC events.

Nobody at an MWC event shows up to find out that the field is only half full. The competitor can simply check online to see what the return could possibly be on his/her investment.

Right now, based on last year, it appears there may be enough "pros" to come close to fill one circuit for every event if there were only one pro/am tour to fish.

What do you all think?

The Fishing Fanatics

Your questions above are indeed valid. They are fact are the same type questions being asked this winter all over at at sport shows, seminars, club meetings, marine dealers, coffee shops, bait shops and any where else anglers who have an interest in competitive walleye fishing gather. It would be difficult to remember how many times my own phone has rang the last 4 months from individuals asking these same type of questions.

For the record. Attacking those who ask pertinent questions such as mentioned in the above Fishing Fanatics quote does not get it done. Refusing to answer questions at all or simply going sideways with an answer does not get the job done either. The practice of denigrating those who do ask legitimate questions only further validates the perception that competitive walleye angling at the upper tier is in trouble. Alluding to an individual as being "Dumb" for asking a question or for clarification of an answer simply lacks professionalism.

My advice to those that could answer the questions above would be to do just that. Answer them truthfully and simply. No hype, no attacks and no skewing your answers to fit an agenda.

Like most of us here on W/C, I don't have the answers, but it would be nice to hear from someone who does.

[Rich S]

Easy there bud. "dumb it down" is just an expression. Sorry if it offended you even though It was not directed at you.

I am about as dumb as they come and even I knew not every contestant got paid. If I get it I am sure a guy of his stature does as well.

Last thing we need is this thread to go off course so to answer another of the OP questions, Yes there are enough anglers.

[Vikings Fan]

Easy there bud. "dumb it down" is just an expression. Sorry if it offended you even though It was not directed at you.

I am about as dumb as they come and even I knew not every contestant got paid. If I get it I am sure a guy of his stature does as well.

Last thing we need is this thread to go off course so to answer another of the OP questions, Yes there are enough anglers.

I will stand by my original comment.

As to your answer regarding angler numbers? Enough to fill two circuits? It would be encouraging to believe your statement that will be enough anglers. However I would like to see that answer qualified.
Whic is why I would ask you the following questions.

Are you a representative of one of the walleye circuits mentioned in the original post?

If you are indeed an authorized spokesman. Is your answer based on facts such as actual numbers already signed up? Or is your answer based on personal speculation or mere opinion? There is a difference. A major difference..

If you are not an authorized spokesman are we then to assume that your answer is based on hearsay, personal conjecture or opinion? You may draw your own personal conclusions and you certainly have that right. If what you say is not accurate where does it leave those who would believe it as fact?

Is your reply personal opinion or fact?

[Rich S]

I am Rich S :)

I am not involved in either circuit and not a representative. Nor do I believe I need to be in order to answer the OP's question. Since you are not the OP and seem determined to take this off course please emial me with any further questions:

Rich@drop-n-stay.com

It would be nice if YOU actually answered any of the questions yourself so we knew where you stand. You seem like and very learned individual and I will be waiting anxiously for your response.

[Vikings Fan]

I am Rich S :)

I am not involved in either circuit and not a representative. Nor do I believe I need to be in order to answer the OP's question. Since you are not the OP and seem determined to take this off course please emial me with any further questions:

Rich@drop-n-stay.com

It would be nice if YOU actually answered any of the questions yourself so we knew where you stand. You seem like and very learned individual and I will be waiting anxiously for your response.

I was not aware that I needed to take a "Stand" in this matter. Nor do I care to. As I stated a previous reply. I don't have the answers. Only limited personal opinions that I do not care to have misconstrued as fact. My opinions would only be mere speculation as to this subject. Which is why I did not figure they merited publication. Like the original poster of this topic many of us would indeed like to see the original questions answered here in a qualified manner. That is, in a factual manner OR stated that they the opinion of the person making the reply. That request is certainly not off topic!

Back to my original question? Is your statement referenced in my previous reply based on personal opinion or facts?

[Rich S]

Once again you have answered none of the OP's questions. I provided my own personal email if you would like to discuss this further with me but I see no reason to continue with your threadjack.

If you would like to start your own thread with these same questions for me I will be happy to answer publicly but this thread is not the place for it.

I apologize to Fishing Fanatics for letting this get off course. You can see by my posts that was not my intention.

[GiddyGills]

It is impossible to have an answer to a sport that does not have any set standards, conditions or rules to how the game is played. For a sport this question should be able to have everyone answering the same and not have to wait more than 1 day for 200 people to come up with it.

[Reels]

Rich, let it go. You dont know who your talking to and starting to sound foolish.

[Rich S]

Thanks for the heads up Reels, your a life saver!! :) :D

[Cedarsac]

this thread could end here with your comments.......................you hit the nail on the head......i might add on the first try.



Defining “pro” is a pre-requisite to defining “pro tour”. Face it, all tournaments pay money, thus are “professional” by definition. The question is what do YOU mean by “pro”?

In the days of the PWT, some tried to define it as being full-time, and some tried to define it as being a source of most of your income, etc. All of these definitions were made by anglers who were trying to claim they were “more pro” than another group of anglers.

I remember on one occasion, at a PWT Advisory council meeting, an angler said that he was “more pro” because he did this full-time, and the other anglers weren’t pros because they didn’t do it full-time. And then another guy pointed out that the only reason the 1st guy did it full-time is because his wife made $150K per year, and she paid all of the bills, supported the family and supported his fishing habit when times were tough. Trying to define "pro" by how much time you put in, or how much of your income comes from it is impossible.

In my opinion, in order to be a competitive pro sport like golf, tennis, football, baseball, etc, it needs to be elite and that “elitness” needs to be based on RECENT competitiveness in a “minor league” tour.

I think to make a "legitimate" pro sport, there needs to be a large number of people competing at lower levels in the sport, and entrance into the pro tour needs to be based in RECENT competitiveness (not career length or career winnings). There needs to be a clear path for young “up and comers” to make at the elite level, and there needs to be clear competitive criteria to stay on tour after you’re there. I think elimination from the tour for lack of performance needs to be a real part of the game (just like golf, tennis, baseball, etc). Otherwise, it's just a "good ole boys club".

The fact that we don’t even have full fields let alone competitive criteria to get on tour (or stay on tour), indicates that these “pro” tours are just regular tournaments with slightly higher payouts (in some cases) and that choose to use the word “pro”.

Having said all of that, the real question is can you really make Walleye fishing into an elite pro sport? Ten years ago I would have said YES. Now, I seriously doubt that this sport has the money or interest from fans and aspiring anglers to be a real legitimate pro sport.

[what is the weakest link?]

I finally decided that I wanted to get some things off my chest, why, I don't know but...

I had to chuckle at the AIM "full field is what it is" deal, now that was pretty funny!
That statement is validation to the point that there are NOT enough pro's to fill 2 pro (paying boaters is how I'll refer to that class for the sake of leniency) circuits. If there were then we'd be looking at sign-up deadlines and priority deadlines that had some teeth etc.

There is no urgency to sign up or compete in the pro circuits right now...Why? Everyone knows that there will be openings, no circuit will fill, and the urgency is gone!!

Why won't the fields fill??

Read the news lately? There might be some concerns for personal businesses, taking time off, or just not being able to afford it. Those are facts, and undeniable. Now the part thats funny is that I've heard many that complain about full fields, also complain about payouts. Face it, its a domino effect. Froma corporate view, the economy takes a hit, marketing dollars get diminished, tourney and pro sponsor $ get cut, angler participation diminishes because the carrot (winning $ value) is much smaller and less appealing, corporations need return on investment not "feel good" investment return.

Now from the angler view- not self employed, The economy takes a hit, jobs are cut, salaries are cut, less disposable income, worried about taking time off, less payouts mean less chance for a big pay day. (though it may have never happened anyway, it was justification), no full fields, no play.
Now self employed- The economy takes a hit, jobs are cut, need to work harder to retain customers, less time to recreate, need to reinvest in company, taking time off is weighed against opportunity to at least break even. Less payouts and no full fields, not going to play.

Lets just call a spade a spade, having one circuit successful would have been the healthiest thing for tournament angling in the business environment we're in. a second circuit has weakened walleye fishing as a whole and unfortunately (because I like the angler circuit idea as a whole) we may not have another shot if it fails.

There are not enough pro's, boaters, whatever you what to call them to fill 2 fields. just having the ability is not the question, having the time, money, and desire to do it... that is!

I say fish a circuit, keep your name out there, and don't overextend to the point where you'll be buried in debt. Then when the economy comes back, the dominos are reset, payouts improve, vacations will be taken and fields of circuits that remain will start to fill.

Is it going to happen overnight? no. But head in the sand and smoke and mirrors (tournament circuit baiting tricks) will not bode well for circuits that claim on thing and deliver another completely different value proposition.

Out of breath now... must .... re... charge....

[guest]

Obvously you think the FLW should survive - and if it doesn't it is AIM's fault for diluting the fields. Well you missed two points:
1. Tournaments are a business. FLW will survive if they have a good business model and take care of their customers (competitors and sponsors.) If you payed attention last year you would have noticed that only a handful of Pros fished both the FLW and AIM. That tells me there is a market for an alternative and that not everyone liked the FLW format. By the way, the FLW payouts this year are completely different than in 2009, so we will have to wait to see what the response is in 2010.
2. Name another sport where you can be a "Pro" and compete 2, 3, or 4 times a year? In my opinion, the Pros with the best chances of effectively marketing for their sponsors NEED multiple tournament circuits to showcase their brands. (And this is combined with other year-round marketing.) For this reason, it is in the best interest of the industry for BOTH circuits to thrive. In fact, if the PWT had not closed there would currently be THREE circuits!
So my suggestion is to end the argument that AIM is hurting the FLW. Both need each other because if the industry can not support two circuits then there are larger issues to worry about. And by the way, there are hundreds of smaller, lower entry fee tournaments that serve as a "farm system" without either circuit needing to own or control them.

[Rich S]

I 100% agree! How can options ever be a bad thing. Having anglers "forced" to fish one circuit because it is the only one available is not a good thing.

Now if they start scheduling events on the same days, that would be a bad idea.

Hopefully both of these can survive these next few years. As the economy picks up so will the participants imo.

[tzonetom]

Actually, AIM changed the format of the 2010 tournaments at the request of the Angler/Owners last October at the Annual Meeting.
It was decided that the AIM Pro Walleye Series tournaments will NO LONGER have a set "full field". The field is whatever it is - 60, 80, 100, or 150.


No offense meant, but that seems like a cop-out by saying you're not going to define a "full field".

Fairly easy to see the transparency in that. IMO.

[Gutterball]

No offense meant, but that seems like a cop-out by saying you're not going to define a "full field".

Fairly easy to see the transparency in that. IMO.


Sounds to me like they are just going to take anyone that shows up, Not capping it a 50 or 150 or 250

[tzonetom]

i'd be more worried about getting 50 that I would about not having to cap it .

[Cedarsac]

There are cut backs everywhere..............obviously the economy...pro's today struggle to get exposure for their sponsors.......fewer sport shows with seminars that will feature the pro's..........a very diluted outdoor publications market....the trend is to use in house writers..............tournament coverage is minimal.........and the interest is not there to cover it. WC does a awesome job but what about the local media outlets. I connect with a number of very good fisherman and most know little about tournaments or their results....even if the events are close to home. I love to see the local team events like FM Walleyes and other ones. Team events, I feel, will keep the desire fueled.







Obvously you think the FLW should survive - and if it doesn't it is AIM's fault for diluting the fields. Well you missed two points:
1. Tournaments are a business. FLW will survive if they have a good business model and take care of their customers (competitors and sponsors.) If you payed attention last year you would have noticed that only a handful of Pros fished both the FLW and AIM. That tells me there is a market for an alternative and that not everyone liked the FLW format. By the way, the FLW payouts this year are completely different than in 2009, so we will have to wait to see what the response is in 2010.
2. Name another sport where you can be a "Pro" and compete 2, 3, or 4 times a year? In my opinion, the Pros with the best chances of effectively marketing for their sponsors NEED multiple tournament circuits to showcase their brands. (And this is combined with other year-round marketing.) For this reason, it is in the best interest of the industry for BOTH circuits to thrive. In fact, if the PWT had not closed there would currently be THREE circuits!
So my suggestion is to end the argument that AIM is hurting the FLW. Both need each other because if the industry can not support two circuits then there are larger issues to worry about. And by the way, there are hundreds of smaller, lower entry fee tournaments that serve as a "farm system" without either circuit needing to own or control them.

[Robert M]

Times are tough and just like everything else things have slowed up.I dont fish big tournaments but it looks to me like the FLW might have lowered its entry to try to draw some new blood that were fishing the league and maybe even keep some that they already had.Although they also might loose some that want to chase the bigger pots.Couple other problems is some of these guys that have been around for ever are getting older and tournament fishing isnt as easy as it looks.It also isnt cheap and I believe most contingency money at least the big amounts is based on running a new rig every year.There probably better off being a lttle different than competeing against each other to survive as there is only so much money and time to fish these.Im sure Walleye tournaments will keep surviving on a limited scale but what it lacks is money to support it and a audience.And if you have to use part of the anglers entry to run it, it probably isnt going to go to far.As far as an audience Walleye is a relatively small market for viewers and is kind of tough to actually watch.Unlike other sports where you buy tickets and pile into a stadium to watch the team play you cant do that with fishing.Its even kind of hard to follow it on camera.I was a little skeptical about the AIM deal before it started but after watching the coverage on here (that was very good by the way) I liked it.Not enough to fish it but I liked it.I think anyone that has fished slot tournaments knows there is at least some luck involved in catching the right fish or 1 big fish to win.It also looks good when you release the fish.Maybe less exciting at the weigh in but I dont like to see hundreds of fish drug across the stage by their gills anyway.I just had a little spare time and this is just my opinion.