Life In 19x19

I feel like the bulk of this issue is "amateur vs. pro", not "American vs. immigrant"

If a tournament is asking for the best from each country, then Ming-Jiu, Feng Yun, and Jie Li all have a right to compete for us. Citizenship is the only usable standard, and if we accept that we are a country of immigrants, then we have to accept that most of our strength comes from borrowing the strengths of our immigrants.

On the other hand, there are very good arguments for Amateur-only tournaments. As soon as a player becomes a professional, I think it's fair to say that they have "landed", They will gain considerably less than an amateur in the same representation slot.

I don't think this should be about who has the right to represent the US. If you're a citizen, or have lived here for a number of years, I think you have that right. But, as a professional (regardless of where they spent the bulk of their time studying), I think they need to step aside to allow their amateur students the opportunity.

I think the US should take a strong amateurs-only approach to international tournaments. At least until we have a professional system of our own. At that point, Feng Yun, Ming-Jiu can become official american pros, and we can revert the representation system.

shapenaji wrote:I feel like the bulk of this issue is "amateur vs. pro", not "American vs. immigrant"

...

I think the US should take a strong amateurs-only approach to international tournaments. At least until we have a professional system of our own. At that point, Feng Yun, Ming-Jiu can become official american pros, and we can revert the representation system.

yes, but doesn't that also have to do with the sponsor's requirements?

if the sponsor says its an amateur only event then fine, but if they are allowing pros to enter, then we should too.

xed_over wrote:

shapenaji wrote:I feel like the bulk of this issue is "amateur vs. pro", not "American vs. immigrant"

...

I think the US should take a strong amateurs-only approach to international tournaments. At least until we have a professional system of our own. At that point, Feng Yun, Ming-Jiu can become official american pros, and we can revert the representation system.

yes, but doesn't that also have to do with the sponsor's requirements?

if the sponsor says its an amateur only event then fine, but if they are allowing pros to enter, then we should too.

Well, we set the standards for international representation.

Seems we would have the right to say "Qualification tournaments are open to Amateur US citizens and permanent residents or to registered US Pros"

The "registered US pro" would not exist until there was a professional system.

shapenaji wrote:I think the US should take a strong amateurs-only approach to international tournaments. At least until we have a professional system of our own. At that point, Feng Yun, Ming-Jiu can become official american pros, and we can revert the representation system.

This seems unfair to me. You are putting them at a disadvantage to represent the US since they became professional before coming here.

Also they have lost to amateurs here in the US, so when do you decide when they could play again? I doubt we'll see a professional go system for a long while.

shapenaji wrote:I feel like the bulk of this issue is "amateur vs. pro", not "American vs. immigrant"

If a tournament is asking for the best from each country, then Ming-Jiu, Feng Yun, and Jie Li all have a right to compete for us. Citizenship is the only usable standard, and if we accept that we are a country of immigrants, then we have to accept that most of our strength comes from borrowing the strengths of our immigrants.

On the other hand, there are very good arguments for Amateur-only tournaments. As soon as a player becomes a professional, I think it's fair to say that they have "landed", They will gain considerably less than an amateur in the same representation slot.

I don't think this should be about who has the right to represent the US. If you're a citizen, or have lived here for a number of years, I think you have that right. But, as a professional (regardless of where they spent the bulk of their time studying), I think they need to step aside to allow their amateur students the opportunity.

I think the US should take a strong amateurs-only approach to international tournaments. At least until we have a professional system of our own. At that point, Feng Yun, Ming-Jiu can become official american pros, and we can revert the representation system.

You really have not made much of a change here from the distinction in your first sentence. You have simply replaced "American vs Immigrant' with "American pro vs Immigrant pro". You are ok with pros representing the US, as long they are "American" pros.

It is my understanding that the US follows the lead of the inviters in these matters. If they want amatuers only, then an amatuer is sent. If they want only citizens, then we send only citizens. If green card is allowed, we open up to those with green cards.

Clearly the US has followed a policy of trying to make such opportunities available to as many people as possible. Politically, whether it be amatuer or pro, immigrant or native born - this seems in keeping with the nature of the this country and the goals of the AGA.

A "strong amatuer only approach" also seems definitionally inappropriate for events that pay game fees to the participants.

I would be willing to place other restrictions on US representation in terms of participation in AGA events and programs, but I would not want to exclude anyone based on who they are - particularly if who they are is someone who has devoted a major part of their life to the game.

oren wrote:

shapenaji wrote:I think the US should take a strong amateurs-only approach to international tournaments. At least until we have a professional system of our own. At that point, Feng Yun, Ming-Jiu can become official american pros, and we can revert the representation system.

This seems unfair to me. You are putting them at a disadvantage to represent the US since they became professional before coming here.

Also they have lost to amateurs here in the US, so when do you decide when they could play again? I doubt we'll see a professional go system for a long while.

Because they have professional status, they still have the right to compete in qualifiers for these same tournaments, a right which other Americans do not have.

But you are right, I am putting them at a disadvantage for international representation by making the transition of American Amateurs to American pros a priority.

I'm not sure why their occasional losses to US Amateurs is relevant. Are they not huge favorites in any matchup?

shapenaji wrote:But you are right, I am putting them at a disadvantage for international representation by making the transition of American Amateurs to American pros a priority.

I guess this is the fundamental difference. I place very little priority on an American professional system and would rather just have everyone play equally.

Horibe wrote:You really have not made much of a change here from the distinction in your first sentence. You have simply replaced "American vs Immigrant' with "American pro vs Immigrant pro". You are ok with pros representing the US, as long they are "American" pros.

I think the distinction is pretty strong, I don't care about the nationality, but with their pro status, they have an established allegiance to an existing International Go Association which is not the AGA. Perhaps they can retire their existing professional status, that would enable them to become amateurs again.

It is my understanding that the US follows the lead of the inviters in these matters. If they want amatuers only, then an amatuer is sent. If they want only citizens, then we send only citizens. If green card is allowed, we open up to those with green cards.

In the past we've received a lot of lee-way in how we structured our qualification system.

Clearly the US has followed a policy of trying to make such opportunities available to as many people as possible. Politically, whether it be amatuer or pro, immigrant or native born - this seems in keeping with the nature of the this country and the goals of the AGA.

I guess, to make an analogy, offering these spots to pros is a bit like offering pell grants to a Vanderbilt Legacy.

A "strong amatuer only approach" also seems definitionally inappropriate for events that pay game fees to the participants.

I would be willing to place other restrictions on US representation in terms of participation in AGA events and programs, but I would not want to exclude anyone based on who they are - particularly if who they are is someone who has devoted a major part of their life to the game.

Again, they have the right to compete in these tournaments ANYWAY, inside their professional system. As long as they have that, it seems silly to duplicate their eligibility inside the US.

They also stand to gain heavily from teaching and coaching the US amateurs who DO go, and stand to gain financially from the creation of an American Pro system. This would be valuable in pushing that kind of structure forward.

shapenaji wrote:I think the distinction is pretty strong, I don't care about the nationality, but with their pro status, they have an established allegiance to an existing International Go Association which is not the AGA. Perhaps they can retire their existing professional status, that would enable them to become amateurs again.


In the past we've received a lot of lee-way in how we structured our qualification system.


I guess, to make an analogy, offering these spots to pros is a bit like offering pell grants to a Vanderbilt Legacy.


Again, they have the right to compete in these tournaments ANYWAY, inside their professional system. As long as they have that, it seems silly to duplicate their eligibility inside the US.

Point 1 - By coming here, by acquiring citizenship, by supporting AGA events, by teaching us - these individuals show all manner of allegiance.

Point 2 - We have leeway as to HOW we select - not so much WHO we select.

Point 3 - Prohibiting our strongest players from participating smacks of affirmative action

Point 4 - I am not sure this is true. When pros move here in some permanent fashion, they have huge practical obstacles to their participating in qualification, and may be prohibited I suspect - enjoying some form of inactive status that keeps them "pro" but not providing access to events or support.

It comes down to whether you want pros to be here. Certainly, if it is "silly" to provide the ones that have come opportunities, why bother to create a system here at all?

I find there to be something distasteful about an EU team. This is pretty silly in an international event which is supposed to be between countries. Canadians playing for the USA, what the heck is that?

Hsiang wrote:

Conanbatt wrote:First of all its not US team, but Americas....

Second of all .... Why can't Mingjiu Jiang and Yun Feng play in the chinese team instead?

First of all, it is not Americas' team, it is US team. SportAccord wanted six national teams, and IGF tried very hard to advocate the formation of an Americas' team, an European team, and an Asian-Pacific team to balance with C-J-K. This was denied on the technical difficulty of requiring one flag and one anthem for each team. If you have any clever ideas to get around that, I sure would like to know. EU was finally accepted by SportAccord, because there is an EU anthem and an EU flag. The guest players (Canadians in the US selection tournament, and other non-EU players in the EU tournament) all had to agree they would play under the US flag or the EU flag if selected.

On your second point, please note that representations are based on nationality, not birth place. Jiang and Feng are US citizens, why should they play for Chinese team? Are you suggesting we discriminate some nationals because they were not born in their citizenship countries? I know at least one very strong Japanese player who was born in Taiwan. So he cannot represent Japan by your logic?

Horibe wrote:
Point 1 - By coming here, by acquiring citizenship, by supporting AGA events, by teaching us - these individuals show all manner of allegiance.

Here we are not talking about their allegiance to the US, which they have clearly demonstrated. There is a conflict of interest between their dual allegiance to two separate go associations.

Also, not to denigrate their contributions (which have been great), but with the exception of the citizenship piece, they have been paid for both their support and their lessons.

Point 2 - We have leeway as to HOW we select - not so much WHO we select.

There was a big hullaballoo about the requirements for representation a while back, I came down against the rules because I thought they raised barriers to US Citizens who, through their own cultural organizations, were isolated from AGA competition. While I disagreed with the specific rules, I think the AGA had the right to make them. HOW we select very much governs WHO we select.

Point 3 - Prohibiting our strongest players from participating smacks of affirmative action

Affirmative action involves individuals becoming eligible for awards based on some part of themselves that is fixed (I.e. race). I don't think that applies to a group that has the power to withdraw their affiliation with a foreign go association.

Point 4 - I am not sure this is true. When pros move here in some permanent fashion, they have huge practical obstacles to their participating in qualification, and may be prohibited I suspect - enjoying some form of inactive status that keeps them "pro" but not providing access to events or support.

We need an official voice on this one, as long as they have professional status I believe they are eligible to compete.

It comes down to whether you want pros to be here. Certainly, if it is "silly" to provide the ones that have come opportunities, why bother to create a system here at all?

[/quote]

I don't think it comes down to that. I would like pros to be here, and so I would like our own system for our strongest players. I would rather there was not a conflict of interest. Also, I think the big draw for them is students, not tournaments.

shapenaji wrote:Again, they have the right to compete in these tournaments ANYWAY, inside their professional system. As long as they have that, it seems silly to duplicate their eligibility inside the US.

Do you know this to be true in all cases? Genuine question, I don't know the rules.

hyperpape wrote:

shapenaji wrote:Again, they have the right to compete in these tournaments ANYWAY, inside their professional system. As long as they have that, it seems silly to duplicate their eligibility inside the US.

Do you know this to be true in all cases? Genuine question, I don't know the rules.

As I said to Horibe, I believe this is the case, but I'd like an official answer.

shapenaji wrote:

hyperpape wrote:

shapenaji wrote:Again, they have the right to compete in these tournaments ANYWAY, inside their professional system. As long as they have that, it seems silly to duplicate their eligibility inside the US.

Do you know this to be true in all cases? Genuine question, I don't know the rules.

As I said to Horibe, I believe this is the case, but I'd like an official answer.

This is not true in almost all cases. In fact, I only know of one extraordinary exception.

@Shapenaji I don't see the issue surrounding having a pro system. There has been talk that there might be one started in 2012. If so, what will be different from today?

Or if your issue is that American amateurs aren't good enough to match professionals, as you suggested, you're not quite right. The best amateurs are just barely weaker than Ming Jiu Jiang and Feng Yun (two players have good records against Mingjiu and Feng Yun combined over the course of several games. Guess who?). There is a modest gap between them and the next set of amateurs, and from there, there is continuity all the way down.