Should PWT change its Angler of the year scoring?

[interested]

What do you think of the scoring system that the PWT uses for the Angler of the year race and Championship qualification? They use total weight rather than a point system based on tournament finish.

I can think of pros and cons:

Pros - It adds excitment in big weight tournaments. For example, Lake Erie is a do or die tournament, if you blow Erie, you've blown your season. That makes it exciting to watch.

Cons - If the angler of the year race is supposed to be based on consistancy, this scoring system doesn't reward that. It rewards good finishes at big-weight tournaments. For example, at Devils Lake, the entire western division standings turned upside down. It turned out that how an angler finished at Chamberlain and Leech was diluted by the large catches at Devils. I think one angler came from 64th to 4th in the West at Devils. A lot of anglers with a better "average" finishes throughout the year didn't finish in the top ten.

I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm really interested in what you think.

[Tourney Angler]

I think the PWT is one of the very few circuits that still use a weight format as opposed to a points format. I think the weigh format rewards those who are good open water trollers. In most years, a person can do well on the great lakes and coast into the championship. I think this is wrong. I think there should be a points format like most other circuits have, so the most versatile anglers finish highest. It doesn't make sense to reward those who do well on one particular kind of bite.

[data]

Here is how the Western Division would have looked if it were based on points rather than weight:

1 James Randash
2 John Peterson
3 Rick Gardner
4 Tom Backer
5 Gil Mollet
6 John Butts
7 Sam Anderson
8 Marty Glorvigen
9 Scott Glorvigen
10 Steve Haynes

Here is how the Western Division looked based on weight:

1 James Randash
2 John Peterson
3 Tom Backer
4 Bruce Samson
5 Rick Franklin
6 Royce Drye
7 Ross Grothe
8 Rick Gardner
9 Jay Weber
10 John Butts

You can see that only five anglers would have qualified under either format.

[Fish_on]

Half the top ten is quite a bit. And I'm speculating it would be more pronounced in the eastern division. What points format are we talking about? There are many variations.

[data]

This point system is really simple. Add up the finishes for each angler (i.e. 1 point for first, points for 2nd...) then sort from least to most. The other way would be to give say 200 points for first, 199 for second..., then sort from most to least. It doesn't matter how you do it, you get the same relative ranking.

[walleyesonly]

Amazing, I just heard a rumour today that the PWT was going to a points system next year.

Both systems are fine with me but the points system makes every body of water just as important as the next. Also it does award the most consistant anglers.

[Mark Sak]

I also heard there is a change iminent...really doesn't matter much...2 tourneys with a bad day and your gone anyways...be consistent and your going to the show...Mark

[Fish_on]

I think the IWTT system is more fair than either of those you suggested. I've seen a lot of them, and the one we've developed on the IWTT is complicated, but I believe it really rewards the most versatile and consistent anglers (there is a difference between the two). I hope the PWT does go to a points system. It will be interesting to see what it is.

http://www.iowawalleye.com/2002%20rules.pdf

[WIF]

Geez - I thought I was only guy fish-nerdy enough to think about this topic as well. Thanks for bringing it up. I agree 100% about the weight system for figuring Angler of the Year kind of lopsided in the PWT. Not to take anything away from the recent winners, who have all been accomplished angers. But a guy could finish in the top 2 or 3 at Erie then just be middle of the pack at the rest (especially the tight slot tourneys) and finish higher than a guy that was consistently in the top 15. Doesn't seem fair. The PWT Top Gun Award seems to be a better judge of the best over-all performance.

[Who TF cares?]

Hey, bottom line? It is their circuit. You all knew the rules and structure when you signed up. The PWT is the PWT, not RCL, IWTT, Or MWC, deal with it.

[spinner]

And I agree with you 100%. Everyone knows what they are going into when they sign up or join period. PWT does base the angler of the year off total weight caught for the fishing season, it's all in the fine print. I myself see nothing wrong with it , but no matter if you go by weight or points ................ someone will always be whining!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chad]

I didn't see anyone whining here. They were just having an open discussion on a topic they find interesting. Just because you dont agree is no reason to be so negative!

[Pointer]

I would like to see a point system implemented...

[Fish_on]

The only post here that seems like whining is yours. It's a worthy discussion that's been going on for years.

[true_but]

Mark, You're correct, you should have to be consistent to go to the Championship. However, you don't have to be consistent under the current weight format that's the whole point here. Under the current format, you just have to do well at the "big fish" tournaments. For example, one angler finished 109th at Chamberlain and 122nd at Leech, but because of Devils, he finished 4th in the West. He had a great tournament at Devils, but he definitely didn't have a consistent year in the PWT. His average finish was 77th place. There were other people with a much better year overall that finished well out of the top ten.

[Doug Burns]

Yes, the rumour mill is strong and it is quite possible that the PWT will be going to a point system next year. This is fine, if and only if you have the same anglers competing in all tournaments. In other words, the same amount of points are available to each angler at every tournament. Anglers who compete in only one tournament and do well really scew the rankings in a point system.

I came up through the ranks having fished the IWTT and Team Walleye circuits and was used to a point system for deciding championships. I discussed this with many of the pros when I moved up and to a man they all agreed that going by weight was the only fair way until the field was the same for each and every tournament. If the PWT goes to points, I believe you will see a seperate scoring system for those who, like myself, compete in all qualifying events and those that fish either the east or west division. At least that is my hope because then you are competing for the same number of points as the next person.

Doug Burns

[Mark Sak]

I agree with all here. Lake Erie carried me, but I knew that it would be important...I think it only made the difference of two spots in the standings, the other issue is of Doc Sampson won all three tourneys in the West, he still couldn't be angler of the year. The nice thing here is they are willing to look at these types of changes that will continue to improve the circuit. The sport is getting bigger and better every year...I'm sure they will read this but Doug, you should talk to Charlie or an advisory board member...Mark

[eyewitness]

How about this format.... In order to even qualify for the championship, a minimum # of tournaments would have to be fished. Then at seasons end the individual anglers use a predetermined # of their top finishes (# to be determined based on total # of events)to decide where the rankings are. I realize that a one timer can throw the stats, but then everyone below that finish gets hit the same on a reduction in points anyway. Kind of like the way the MTT was set up this year. Say, 500 points for the winner at a given event, and then a two point reduction for each place there after. Don't weigh any fish? You get a minimum amount of points just for showing up. That would even the playing field alot. Those who fish more events can have more good finishes to qualify with. Those who only fish a couple would need to finish high in the standings to even have a shot at qualifying. It may reward the multi event angler a little bit more, but hey, those in the championship should be those who paid their dues one way or the other.....Maybe even throw in some bonus points for the 'big fish' in each event just to let the weight factor come into play.

[what?]

I'm not sure I understand what your saying about "one-timers" throwing things off??

The point system would be relative to the guys who are eligible to qualify...wouldn't it?

One observation: The pros who fish all six PWT tournaments have a HUGE advantage to make the championship. There are 50 guys that fish all six, and 30 go to the show. This means that if you fish all six, you only need to beat 20 guys to qualify. Conversely, if you fish a division, you have to beat 100 other guys to go.

How about this system: You must fish at least three tournaments to be eligible for the Championship. Each tournament has a point system. To qualify for the championship, you pick your top 3 tournaments. The top 50 go to the show. This still gives an advantage to the guys that fish all six because they have more chances to have 3 good tournaments, but it seems fairer.

[Fish_on]

Fascinating discussion. How do you suppose it would work for the ams? Would the same point systems be appropriate for them too, since their finish is based on more a luck of the draw than consistencey or versatility?

We've tweaked the IWTT points sytem over the last 8 years, so I'm guessing that no matter what the PWT comes up with, it will probably need some adjustment over the first few years. I think one of the most important things in any point system is to keep it exciting, meaning, keep the anglers close in standings so no one can distance themselves from the field with one great finish. It's important, as the PWT becomes more and more of a spectator sport, to make a close race, where it comes down to the wire if possible.

[Rick Gardner]

Fish_on, I would be interested to hear how your point system evolved and what adjustments you've made. It might help generate some useful ideas on how the PWT might approch a new system.

To the "negative" comments from others: I think this has been a very good discussion, and I don't feel like anyone is whinning, I feel like we are "brainstorming" new ideas to make our sport better...there's a difference don't you think?

Thanks, I look forward to hearing more (constructive)thoughts on this.

Rick Gardner

[Doug Burns]

One-timers scew the system because their are not the same amount of points to be had at each tournament. For simplicities sake we will use round numbers: 100 entrants = 100 points, 150 entrants = 150 points. If an angler finishes last with with only 100 points available he has gained substantially over the angler that finishes last with 150 points available. We had that type of discrenpency this year.

Now throw in that most one-timers are local and things are scewed even more. Reggie Theil,for instance won the Leech Lake event, he guides there full-time. Matt Morris finished second at Devils Lake, rumour has it he spent the entire month there leading upto the tournament.

A pound is a pound no matter how many people are in an event and what quality of competition those people are. However a point is not a point unless you are competing against the same people each and every competition. In baseball all teams must play 162 games, in football 16 games, etc. etc. Therefore each game is worth the same amount. If the fields aren't the same for each tournament then a point system is not fair.

All that I really know is that I didn't fish well enough last year to qualify under either system. I will let that be my biggest concern going into next year and happily work under whatever system is in place.

Doug Burns

[Fish_on]

Here is how our points system now reads:
-----------------
POINTS SYSTEM Points will be awarded for place of finish in qualifying events. The winner will receive one point, second place will recieve two points, and so on. Teams not catching fish will all receive additional points based on the percentage of the field that weighs fish: <25%: 4 points, 26%-50%: 6 points, 51%-75%: 8 points, 75%>: 10 points. Team of the year and Championship contestants will be determined by lowest number of points. The 30 teams with fewest points will qualify for the Championship. The previous champions and team of the year will be invited to the Championship if they fish all qualifying events. Should one team not be able to make the championship, the next place team will be invited, etc.
------------------

Without going into too much detail, this is what we have arrived at over time. I believe one of the best things I did early in the days of the IWTT was set up a rules review meeting in January each year where any person who fished all IWTT events could come and give input and vote on issues. This generated some very good discussion, as invaribly, the anglers who showed up at the meeting had good ideas.

The reasoning behind the penalties for those who do not catch fish is simple. It is agreed that we want to reward versatility and consistency (these are two separate concepts). The reasoning is that if there is a really tough bite, there should not be as severe a penalty for not catching a fish. But if most teams catch fish, the teams that do not are penalized more. These tournaments are one-day team tournaments, and this system would have to be modified, I believe, to be more fair in a multiple day event, and a pro-am format. Another factor is that we want to minimize the number of ties, which is a problem inherent to points systems.

Our points system works well, and it keeps things close. Any team could make a large move in a tournament if they do exceptionally well in that event compared to the other teams. This would not be true with a weight system, when one event could skew the results for the entire season. Additionally, our anglers must fish all the qualifiers to qualify for the championship.

Doug raises some legitimate concerns about some anglers fishing only three and some fishing six, but I am certain that if a bunch of PWT anglers got together and hashed this out, they would come up with a system that would be fair. After seeing the discussions we have had over the years, on a variety of subjects, I have a lot of confidence in tourney angler's ability to come up with a fair system. I do not think that any director can sit at his desk and think of everything that might come up. The more minds you have working on it the better it's going to be.

Whether the PWT makes the changes this year or not, I really believe it is the future for them to have a points system. A person can weigh 130 pounds of walleyes at Erie, because he's an exceptional open water troller, then weigh nearly nothing for the rest of the year because he's totally inept at jigging or rigging or spinner fishing or whatever, and still coast into the championship. In my opinion, the most versatile anglers should be awarded a trip to the championship. That would be the anglers who finish the highest against their peers using a variety of tactics and fishing in a variety of habitats.

If the PWT directors want to chat with me about this, I'm in Brainerd most every day anyway. They know how to find me. Call Doug Burns too. It's been a while since we've had a good forehead-banging exchange of ideas! ;)

Sorry this post is so long.

[Gilligan]

So what about the big fish event on the Detroit River in years past? As this is a jigging event how did that give the big water trollers an advantage?

[Tourney Angler]

It gave the jiggers an advantage. Specifically those who could use big jigs in current. I think you missed the point. If those using spinners could have brought the same weight in at Sharpe as the jiggers had the potential to at Detroit, then we wouldn't need a points system.

[Call]

I say the guys of the PWT call the guys on the Advisroy Council. I have been told that they have a copy of the 2003 rules for PWT. If the PWT is going to a point system, it will be in there.
I do know that Charlie was in favor of going to a points system. I have heard the rumors also. But, just call the guys and find out for sure.

Caller 1

[eyewitness]

Kinda what i just said....

[Doug Burns]

My point is that points only work if you are fishing against the exact same competitors each and every event.

I don't like the idea of being able to select from your best finishes. Every game in baseball counts, every shot in golf and so on. Each and every time we step on the field should have the same bearing on whether we make it to the Championship. For casual tournament anglers fishing the weekend circuits selecting the top 4 out of 6 tournaments maybe fine. But, we are talking about the Professional Walleye Trail, where people have careers at stake. Being able to dicard a bad tournament does not honor versatility or consistency it simply tightens the race by inviting mediocrity.

These are simply my humble opinions and should be taken as such.

Doug Burns

[eye-understand]

Doug,

I understand what you are trying to say, but mediocrity is what we get with the current system (giving 6 timers such a huge advantage for championship qualification). What it does is keep top anglers out of the championship if they only fish one division. The mediocrity comes from the fact that it is easy to qualify if you fish all 6.

The suggestion to allow everyone an equal shot will minimize mediocrity not increase it. Now, the devil is in the details on how to make that happen...I think the idea of taking your best three tournaments is an idea, but I'm sure there are other ways. How about having the top 25 from each division qualify? If you happen to fish all 6, you get two chances (similar to how amateurs who fish all 6 get two chances at amateur of the year).

[Toivo]

Sure, everyone knows -going in- what the deal is.

But...if Fisherman "A" outfishes Fisherman "B" on 5 of the six tourneys...but Fisherman "B" lucks into a huge basket on Erie and beats Fisherman "A" in that one tourney by quite a few pounds....I still feel Fisherman "A" had the better year, even if he ended up scoring lower than "B".
I think Fisherman "A" demonstrated he is a more consistently "better" fisherman.

I like the points.

[Concerned]

You write, "every game in baseball counts, every shot in golf and so on. Each and every time we step on the field should have the same bearing on whether we make it to the Championship."

I think that is the point of the original post. Every time we go on the water does NOT have the same bearing on whether we make the championship or not! The tournaments are not equal with the current weight system on the road to the Championship. Let me ask you this. Do you think that it is a lesser accomplishment to win a tournament at Francis Case than at Devils Lake? Of course not, but you can not honestly believe the Devils Lake tournament did not play a much much larger role in determining the West representatives in the Championship.

The PWT needs to address this issue. They are not recognizing consistency, and to use your baseball analogy, rewarding the home run hitters that have a lot of strike outs and not the guys with consistent good batting averages.

There are many issues on fairness and special perks to those fortunate enough to fish all six. I really worry about the fans of the sport. If they sense that things aren’t really as fair as advertised, it will de-legitimize this growing sport and that will take years to correct.

Concerned

[Doug Burns]

I must be a terrible angler if it is easy to qualify by fishing all six tournaments. Because I didn't. Niether did former championship winner Rick Lacourse, nor Dave Hansen, a multiple tournamnet winner. Both have proven over the years that they are two of the best in the business.

I feel, and remember this is just my opinion, that rewarding divisional anglers with the same opportunity to make the championship hurts our chances of becoming a truely professional sport. You don't get to the Tournament of Champions in golf by only playing in a few events. In the B.A.S.S circuit those that fish the entire circuit comprise more of the field than those that qualify through the club circuit.

When the divisions were first started the ideea was for the Top 70, those that were truely professional anglers, to compete in all six events. The divisions were seen as a stepping stone to becoming one of the Top 70. A chance to make a name for yourself within the PWT and with potential sponsors. A chance to compete at the highest level and see if you had the right stuff. The divisions were not designed to be the pinnacle of ones career, but a pathway to a career.

Are we a professional sport? Or are we just another tournament circuit with a professional sounding name? Allowing the divisional competitors the same opportunities at the Championship leads to fewer real opportunities for myself and anyone else aspiring to become a true "Professional Angler" (i.e. one whose main source of income comes from fishing related business). This is my business and I wish to see it grow, not go backwards.

Doug Burns

[Concerned]

That may have been the original intent of the divisions, but that is far from what is happening. The number of anglers fishing all 6 is going down. Quite frankly the quality is too. I could name names but that would be in bad taste. What are the requirements for fishing all 6 Doug? NOTHING! I think that there was even a rookie pro fishing all 6 for crying out loud! What standards are these real pros being held too. I think that even pro golf requires a certain standard you must maintain.

So who decides who the real pros are and aren’t? I say let’s decide on the field and not some back room full of politics and bull. The PWT has always been about teaching the world to fish and I think they have been very successful and many early Pros are going to be a victim of that success. Pretend Pros are rightfully scared of this new product that the Pro-Ams have created.

Does Tiger Woods or any other professional athlete dictate who they compete against. I think not. If they are real competitors they want to go up against the best, not a watered down version. What kind of satisfaction does one get from competing in an event where the competitors are decided by creative rules and slanted perks? Lets let the fishing dictate who gets the sponsorships not those who have the sponsorships dictate who will play the game!

Your version of professional fishing sounds like a good-OLE-boys private club and not a real competitive professional sport. I think you’ll also find quite a few of the REAL pros only fishing one division and the RCL. Remember Michael Jordan used to be the best over the years. Now what?

[Amen to that]

Amen -Concerned -you said it...

[Doug Burns]

Yes I believe a win should be worth the same on Erie as it is on Francis Case. Is that the case with a pound system? Possibly not.

However, you must consider that each competitor had the opportunity to catch the same size fish in each individual event. In other words the five pounders at Devils Lake were available to anyone. If a competior figures out the bite he/she is rewarded.

I am all for a point system. I have stated that all along. But only if the fields remain the same size with the same competitors for the entire season.

I must say this is an excellent debate and applaud all those involved. With this type of passion and positive conversation the game of competitive walleye fishing has a chance to reach its potential.

Doug Burns

[Doug Burns]

Concerned,

You obviously have some very strong opinions on this subject and I admire a person who is willing to voice their opinions. But before I can admire those opinions I need to know the source from which they come. So I have some questions for you.

1. How are you connected to the PWT? Do you compete? At what level? Amatuer, divisional pro or fish all qualifiers?

2.Does making the divisions equal to, in the number of contestants going to the championship, those that fish all six events further professional walleye angling? If so how?

3. What should the requirements to participate in a PWT event be?

4. Can walleye fishing truely become a "professional" sport? Can 50, 60, even a hundred people make a living in the world of competitive walleye fishing?

Yes, golf has requirements to compete on the PGA Tour. They are: The top 125 on the money list are in the following year, the top 5 from 2 of the mini-tours are in. Anyone else who wishes to compete must go to Qualifing School and play teir way in. I think 20 make it from Q-school. If you don't make the top 125 on the money list it is back to the mini-tours and/or q-school.

This is similar to what the divisions were designed to do. You are right it hasn't worked that way. However,I believe, that making it easier to qualify for the championship via the divisional route only takes us backward in trying to make this a professional sport.

Doug Burns

[Concerned]

1. How are you connected to the PWT? Do you compete? At what level? Amatuer, divisional pro or fish all qualifiers?

Veteran Divisional Pro

2.Does making the divisions equal to, in the number of contestants going to the championship, those that fish all six events further professional walleye angling? If so how?

Yes. It returns legitimacy to the sport by letting the competition on the water determine the participants in the worlds greatest walleye tournament. If this sport is to continue to grow, it must reward the very system it created. Otherwise its not much more than a club. Can you imagine any modern day sport where play on the field does not decide the participants? The thought is ludicrous and certainly not what the fans of this sport would want at this level.

I would also ask you how giving fifty some pros built-in advantages at each tournament further professional walleye angling? How does qualifying 60% of those fifty for the Championship further professional walleye angling? What are the qualifications for being in the elite fifty. (i.e. current performance, past performance, none, available time, what?)

3. What should the requirements to participate in a PWT event be?

Doesn’t really matter as long as the requirements are applied equally and annually (See Golf. If you don’t cut it. back to mini-tours (divisional fisherman? Performance accountalbilty?)

4. Can walleye fishing truely become a "professional" sport? Can 50, 60, even a hundred people make a living in the world of competitive walleye fishing?

Depends if you look outside the box or not. In the fishing industry alone? No. But the world outside of the fishing industry is a very big one indeed. This is a very young evolving sport with a market that I think some people would be interested in. I also think we’d be better served to let it evolve through legitimate competition. The sponsorships would go to those who earned them.


A real pro couldn’t possibly argue against fair and legitimate competition.

[Sounds Good]

Bump

[Mr. Concerned]

Pretty good discussion here. But, I think you need to call the source for the information. I called an advisory board member and got the answers you guys are looking for. The PWT is going back to limited fields. This means that they are qualifications to fish the PWT. If you do not cut it, you are out. The PWT is also going to a points system for next year.
One must realize though that these decisions were made a while ago. I know the points system was under discussion all year and it has been put into the rules for next year.
The PWT is striving to raise the bar and professionalism in this sport.
This has been a good discussion though. I was also told the PWT is allowing handlining next year again. It is in the rules for 03.

keep at it

[Doug Burns]

This has been a fantastic discussion. I have talked with Charlie Moore at the PWT and there will be some changes for the upcoming season. the new rules ahould be out in a couple of weeks. I look forward to reading them.

See you all on the water and at the sport shows.

Doug Burns

[Gilligan]

I don't think I missed the point, just commented on your comment on trollers getting an unfair advantage. Personaly I think a point system would be more fair in determining Angler of the year but don't think it amounts to a hill of beans for qualifying for the championship.

If the championships were held after the first tournament of the season that was held on Erie these national qualifiers would not have made the cut:

Mark Brumbaugh (52nd), Scott Riley (55th), Dan Stier (59th), Dale Kuklinski (60th), Jay Janny (63rd), Shannon Kehl (74th), Scott Fairburn (79th). Scott Fairburn moved from the 79th spot to 14th by the time of the championship. None of these pros had 'great' Erie tournaments yet still made the show.

[SUPERTROLLER]

Hi guys. Like your discussion and see both sides and multiple points. What if they give 200 pts. to winner and work down. If more than 200 boats, lowest weights go home with zeros. Then it doesn't matter how many boats participate or if you're fishing a slot limit lake. It only matters where you place relative to others in that lake at that tournament. Sometimes the weather really throws a curve into the standings at a supposed big fish site and this would make it fair to all involved, even if a day had to be scrubbed by wind or storms.

[Explanation]

There was only fifty touring pros fishing all 6 events. Their weights are considered separately from the touring divisional pros. (They don't have to compete against the divisional pros to make the Championship). The absolute worst one could be rated out of this group is 50th. The PWT reserved thirty spots for these fifty pros at the Championship. You only have to beat out 20 guys if you’re in that group of fifty. Pretty good odds.

As for qualifying for the Championship, you don't have to be consistent under the current weight format that's the whole point here. Under the current format, you just have to do well at the "big fish" tournaments. For example, one angler finished 109th at Chamberlain and 122nd at Leech, but because of Devils, he finished 4th in the West. He had a great tournament at Devils, but he definitely didn't have a consistent year in the PWT. His average finish was 77th place. There were other people with a much better year overall that finished well out of the top ten.

Hope this helps you understand the argument.

[RDJ]

Here is how the points were kept this season for the Montana State Walleye Circuit. Seemed to be a fair system which rewarded finish placing rather than weight. May be of no interest to many of you but does give a different version of a good idea. Good luck to all the pro's in 2003 with the system that is selected. RJ in Montana...

Montana Walleye Circuit
Montana Circuit scoring for 2002
Standardized Points Tracking System
By VERN GAGNON
Montana Circuit co-director
Each tournament angler will receive points based on their rank of finish in the tournament. Points are to be awarded by the percentage of the field which a team places ahead of. All tournaments will be based on a one hundred (100)-point scale, which does not include the anglers' weight. Anglers must not have zero for weight to be awarded points. Anglers with zero weight will be awarded no points. Points will be assigned as follows:
Anglers Inverted rank of finish divided by the number of teams participating in the tournament, multiplied by 100.

Example 1: Tournament with One Hundred (100) Teams
1st place finish in a tournament with one hundred (100) teams.
Inverted rank-100, divided by, 100 = 1, multiplied by 100 = 100 points
2nd place finish in a tournament with one hundred (100) teams.
Inverted rank-99, divided by, 100 = .99, multiplied by 100 = 99 points
3rd place finish in a tournament with one hundred (100) teams.
Inverted rank-98, divided by, 100 = .98, multiplied by 100 = 98 points

Example 2: Tournament with One Hundred Fifty (150) Teams
1st place finish in a tournament with one hundred fifty (150) teams.
Inverted rank-150, divided by, 150 = 1, multiplied by 100 = 100 points
2nd place finish in a tournament with one hundred fifty (150) teams.
Inverted rank-149, divided by, 150 = .9933, multiplied by 100 = 99.33 points
3rd place finish in a tournament with one hundred fifty (150) teams.
Inverted rank-148, divided by, 150 = .9866, multiplied by 100 = 98.66 points

Example 3: Tournament with Eighty- (80) Teams
1st place finish in a tournament with Eighty (80) teams.
Inverted rank-80, divided by, 80 = 1, multiplied by 100 = 100 points
2nd place finish in a tournament with Eighty- (80) teams.
Inverted rank-79, divided by, 80= .9875, multiplied by 100 = 98.75 points
3rd place finish in a tournament with Eighty- (80) teams.
Inverted rank-78, divided by, 80= .975, multiplied by 100 = 97.5 points

[Mark Sak]

This has been a great discussion. I am going out on a limb here, so I will watch my step....I don't think the problem is the circuits we fish. It is how we as pros, have reacted to the limited amount of money offered in the industry. The individual tournament trails make changes to better the quality every year, as evidenced by the advisory commitees. You certainly can't blame a 13 year touring pro for wanting a limited number of entrys. It's like anyone asking us to share our income with someone else...There were more first time championship qualifiers and Rooks at this years PWT championship than ever before...(I was a first time qualifier too). We can't blame the industry as they have budgets...everyone knows the big movement has been to go outside of the industry to look for sponsorship...ie Cloverdale Meats...(way to go Sheldon, I don't know about that pig though...) What I have been truely disappointed in as a tournament pro and advocate is the lack of growth in the NPAA. Shouldn't the NPAA be asking it's members what we want, and then help get these ideas implemented. I think there isn't a season that goes by that all of us don't think about quitting and doing something that is less stressful, less expensive, and less dangerous...But we stay because we love tournament fishing....We need to strengthen the organization, and not be trying to out bid each other with the grocery money for a number. It has separated the few from the others. This follows through right down the trail to the tournaments...Touring pros vs division anglers. Now this is not a place to knock it....But as long as we have a great discussion going with pros across the country...lets keep it rolling! ...I don't think any one of us would think the NPAA would be as inactive as it is today. I have already discussed this with several Board members but stopped short of contacting Mike when he had his M.I...(Hope your bangin some birds by now Mike)...Here are some ideas I had and you guys can have at it...Hope it spurs some real thought and maybe some changes that will help us all...
We should even the playing field. No touring pros...Even refund their money. Open it up to anyone who has fished a tournament but create divisions. Maybe we could have one in every state, and have board members on each state chapter, with regular meetings and annual banquets just like DU and PF have. (They both have multi million dollar budgets and are very active in conservation as many of you are aware).. We need to get some Bass anglers, Muskie anglers etc on the board of Directors. They will surely get the ball rolling in their tournament world. Now we allow these tournament trails to register for free with the NPAA. In return, the NPAA supplies a program and coverage of the event on line and in the newsletter. The Host tournament sells the program and keeps the $ for the local conservation fund... We need to put everyone's bio on the web page and let the record of wins and accomplishments in the industry separate the movers and shakers, not money...Now we have everyone from the Alaska Halibut Trail to the Maine Lobster Team circuit jumping on board...We need NPAA wearables with circuits listed. We need an NPAA Tournament everyone can fish in. And maybe an NPAA world championship that brings the top 20 in from the RCL, PWT and MWC? We need an NPAA discount at Cablas and Bass Pro...We need an NPAA Angler of the year/Sportsman of the year,and Team of the Year..We could do it if we pulled it all together. Right now, if we just keep things status quo...we have 100 touring pros and 900 folks that are wondering if they are going to cut another check next year...I have a ton of ideas for the NPAA but if I write them all here there won't be any room on the board.... We need this organization and I am an advocate for it 1000%...What do you think pros? Will this help our overall cause to strengthen the organization?? NPAA #293 Mark Sak

[Bump]

ttt

[Johnnie Candle]

Mark,

You are correct about the limb tht we are both standing on now. I too agree that something needs to be done and that the NPAA could do something to help. I like some of your ideas.

A true World Championship Tournament sounds neat, the discount programs are always good. However, making everyone equal bothers me a little. I believe that doing that is part of the problem, not the solution.

Back when the NPAA began, here was the thinking. Granted this may not have worked, but this is the premiss. The top 100 numbers would be available only to the guys that made a living at the game or demonstrated the effort to try. It was invitation only, and trust me there were guys upset they didn't get invited. The top 100 would be set apart because they were the movers and shakers. These would be the guys that could raise the bar of professional angling.

I think that to make our sport truly professional, we need to move back toward that. Just because you love to play baseball does not mean you can just show up at a major league park and start your career. Nor does it entitle you to the same discount with Rawlings as Barry Bonds. Why then because you enjoy to tournament fish should you be able to just show up at a PWT event and get the same discount from Bass Pro Shops as Gary Parsons. Every member of the MLB Players Assoc doesn't get the same shoe contract.

As in other pro sports, expansion lends to more opportunity. WE have seen this in walleye angling withthe RCL. THere are new heroes and champions now and that is good. However this also leads to dilution. There are still only X number of very talented folks in the industry and these are not neccesarily fishing skills I speak of. Now, because of expansion we have a few left fielders playing short stop, if you see what I mean.

There are peple in this industry that do more than others. Those should be rewarded with better deals than others. The guys that are out there fishing, speaking, working shows, and selling fishing gear should be making the money. They should have a way of differentiating themselves from the rest of the pack. There is no way that a guy that fishes in two tournaments a year and joins the NPAA should be able to even come close to the deals that a guy gets that fishes 6 PWTs and 4 RCLs and 2 Championships.

I agree, Mark, that we need some changes in the biz, but it must be to raise the level of the bar, not bring every one up to it. I do love your ideas and would be glad to lend a hand to ya in anyway to get things rollin on some of them.

It is hard to watch sometimes and I get frustrated, but discussions like this will help in the long run. With more guys like yourself and Doug Burns that aren't afraid to go on a limb and say what they think, Pro Walleye Angling will get to where it needs to go. There is no right answer to these questions, but in time we will get closer.

[Fish_on]

See my post on the Pro Q&A board from a few days ago.

[Mark Sak]

I understand that position as well Johnny...I am looking at anyway to help. To be honest, I had thought of starting a new one. Then I thought that will only create more division, and we don't need that for sure. Some of those ideas came from other brainstorming sessions and some came from thinking where the organization could be...I hope everyone takes it as it was meant..We need to be careful not to bash here cause it can go that way easily...maybe the board will pick up a few ideas and run with it...Mark Sak NPAA #293.

[Good point]

Johnnie,

Thanks for your input. You and Doug B. are unknowingly making our point...

When was the last time you went to the championship? When was the last time Doug B. went to the championship? When was the last time Rick L. had a respectable finish in the PWT? Johnnie, your average finish this year was 99th place, and Doug's was 104th. The point I'm making (and the point your helping me make), is that if you're not competitive, you don't deserve to be considered elite. Your not performing at an elite level yet you're getting all of the advantages (i.e. a 60% chance to go to the championship).

How many pro football players get to stay in the NFL based on what they did in 1996? None! If they don't perform, they are replaced by better, younger, more competitive athletes.

Many of us are competitive right now, but a lot of the perks and sponsorships are going to a few top anglers and a large number of "has-beens". If the playing field were leveled, you would lose the most, because the sponsors would gravitate towards the best competitors.

It is obvious why you want to protect the status quo...You know that if the playing field was leveled, you couldn't compete.

[Good for You!]

It's about time somebody said that!

[Doug Burns]

Since you have made this personal, I will answer on a personal level.
I made the PWT Championship in 2001 finishing 17th in the Angler of the year Race and then finished 28th at the Championship. In 2000 I narrowly missed, finishing 11th in the West Division. At that time the top 10 from a division earned the priveledge of competing in all six events the following year. At least one of the top 10 decided not to take advantage of that priveledge and I was next in line. I earned my spot by being competitive and took advantage of that opportunity.

Only two anglers, Perry Good and Mark Martin have qualified for all of the Championships. If it weren't for a new rule (winners of a qualifing tournament get an automatic bid) instituted two years ago Mark Martin wouldn't have qualified in 2001.

I had a bad year this year. It happens. In 2001 Ron Seelhoff finished in 39th place for Angler of the Year(he qualified beacause he won the previous championship). Even Rick Clunn had an off year and didn't make the BassMasters Classic this year. Am I in the same class with these gentleman yet? NO! But I can and have competed on their level. For the 2000 and 2001 seasons between the PWT and the RCL my average finish was in the TOP 26% of the field.

I am a relative newcomer to tournament angling. 2002 was my 4th year on the PWT. My first year I was way out of my leauge and did not return the following year. Since my return I have had two good years and one bad one. I am not apart of any good-ole-boys network. I have worked very hard to get to where I am and will continue to do so.

This has been a very good discussion that until now has not been personal. But if you are going to take shots at me Mr. Good Point, sign your name and post your stats. There are alot of good anglers that only fish the divisions and there are openings for those that wish to step up and compete in all six events. You can find out then how easy it is to qualify for the Championship. I welcome the competition.

For those that wish to take anymore personal shots you can email me at iaguide@rconnect.com or call me @ 712-362-3180. I will not answer anymore personal shots here.

Doug Burns

[NO WONDER]

It never ceases to amaze me, there is a great discussion among men and some unnamed poster comes along to start trouble. And yet we have the nerve to ask why pro's don't post more often. Doug, Johnnie, and Mark Sak all put their name where their mouths were and stayed respectfull. Thanks fellas for having a mature conversation until now.

[Easy Now Fellas]

Lets ask a more general question. What's more important? The individuals in the sport or the sport itself.

[Johnnie Candle]

This is coming across as a guest user because I am on the road and was called to let me know that I had been personally attacked.

For the record, in 2001 I made the PWT Championship and had a third place finish at Sault Ste Marie. Since the PWT went to divisions, My worst year until this one was 37th place overall. With the top 30 making the championship, that is a lot of near misses. You are correct, my fishing could improve. I have never claimed to be the best fisherman in the country. I do however feel that I am a true professional, and a good one at that.

This past season is one I would like to forget. Erie went south on me fast. From 4th place day one to 75th by the end. The fish moved and I didn't. From there to Chamberlain to spend more time in bed sick than I did on the water. This put me in a hole that I needed to crawl out of. Well, when you swing for home runs to catch up and miss, you end up striking out a lot. It happens.

As for being considered elite, there was plenty of room for you to join in. The PWT will allow 70 guys/gals to fish all 6 tourneys. I believe only 58 tried. Where were you? There was opportunity for more to play, no one chose to do so.

I do not need to defend myself here anymore today. I am out of town on a hunting trip, trying to enjoy myself. If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me directly. My e-mail is johnnie@stellarnet.com or call my cell phone 701-371-9431.

As to the rest involved in this discussion, thanks for the positive input. I realize that it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. I think we found them.

[The Short Stop]

Johnnie I am not sure what you mean? Are you saying YOU should move over to right field or sit the bench???

-in response to:

"Now, because of expansion we have a few left fielders playing short stop, if you see what I mean."

[Gilligan]

Certainly more than just someone that can catch a fish. Like someone that promotes and grows the sport, someone that can and does earn respect.

I see 3 real pros here, someone with names of Johnnie, Doug and Mark. Guys that aren't afraid to say who they are and hide behind aliases. Who are you good point, short stop, etc?

The PWT came to my area of Dunkirk NY last year. 5 years from now no one will ever remember the top finishers or what they weighed but I will gurantee you every kid that sat with Johnnie in one of the kids fishing classes he does will ever forget that event.

Pete Rose played baseball much better than most but he also demonstrated to the world his lack of professionalism. You sir just may outfish these three gentlemen but you will never be a pro.

[spinner]

No one is trying to be negative here chad, just pointing out the facts.

[bottom bouncer]

That set up of points has been going on for a few years. The USFA used to use, it and the WWA uses it and I think it is a nice system of determing who goes to the championship. I think its a pretty fair system. Some tournaments you do better than others ,so this way with the point system it seems fair to all.Because aren't you out there to place the highest position possible and get the credit you deserve? Sorry just my 2 cents.

[bottom bouncer]

And you said it well! I do believe you took the words outa of mouth, so to speak.

[Jimmy Bell]

Johnnie and Doug,
I have quit replying to most of the messages within this site just for what is happening to the two of you in this thread. I was not going to comment and the only reason I got into the thread was someone brought it to my attention late last night.
Someday people will realize that the performance part of our job as Professional Anglers is much more than just fishing. Many of the people that attack in these threads would not have the benefits from the advanced equipment without all the hard work that you and Doug and many others put in. It is Fishing, Promoting, Product Development, Product Testing, Sales, Marketing, Teaching and many other aspects that round out a true Professional Anlger.
As I see it, one of the largest problems that we have in society today, is the ease that people have to always blame problems on someone else. The ability to hide behind an alias just increases this problem. Some day someone will come up with a good internet site that will allow us all to have our discussions, knowing who we are discussing the topics with.
I read this post late last night and could not stand by as someone bashed all of the hard work that the two of you do. Yes if they want to compete they can enter and compete, and may do well. But chances are pretty good they will not figure out the other aspects to be a Pro, helping grow the sport and grow their sponsors! The two of you understand this and understand that you are still growing, at it is with the rest of as well.
My family and I look forward to seeing the two of you and the new anglers working at getting into our sport this coming year. Those that figure out all of the aspects will do well, those that do not will continue to complain on this site.

God Bless!
Jimmy Bell and Family

P.S. My girls say hello