PDA

View Full Version : Donald Young: A junior player????


coolhandluke
07-09-2007, 11:03 AM
What's this. D. young winning junior Wimbledon. How is that possible? How do you turn pro but are still eligible to play in the Juniors. Can't win in the Pros, but always win the juniors. It seems that we are really seeing another player who can win big in the juniors but his game is not a pro game!!!!!

gsquicksilver
07-09-2007, 11:07 AM
could it be a different donald young?

MasterTS
07-09-2007, 11:07 AM
What's this. D. young winning junior Wimbledon. How is that possible? How do you turn pro but are still eligible to play in the Juniors. Can't win in the Pros, but always win the juniors. It seems that we are really seeing another player who can win big in the juniors but his game is not a pro game!!!!!


If you're under 18 then you qualiffy to play in the boys18. The only reason you don't see many pros do it when they were young like Nadal/Gasquet is because it's kinda a step back and a pretty big disgrace. Nadal was beating moya at monte carlo TMS at 16.

harperselitebuiltfortough
07-09-2007, 11:13 AM
also they should be convincing juinors around 17 or 18 to stay in the juinors until they proved themself to be capable of beating top playes, unless they have nadal talents and are beating many older players they should stay in juinors not strattleing against pros and joes

MoFed
07-09-2007, 11:15 AM
I don't think they should be allowed to go back to juniors once they turn pro. For NCAA once you enter pro drafts you are no longer eligible to play college level. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

bluetrain4
07-09-2007, 11:31 AM
I don't think they should be allowed to go back to juniors once they turn pro. For NCAA once you enter pro drafts you are no longer eligible to play college level. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

This has nothing to do with the NCAA. (BTW, why would anyone cite the NCAA as a model for anything, an organization committed only to creating an appearance of amatuerism, since NCAA athletes are "not paid.")

The junior/senior division in tennis is not an amatuer/professional division as well. It is simply an age division. Granted, most players who are under 18 and do well on the regular tour, or even at the challenger level won't go back to juniors, but there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so.

Young failed miserably in his regular tour events, won a futures and made the semis of a challenger. I think it was smart of him to go back and play Wimbledon juniors to give him the confidence to win. That may sound ridiculous since the level is lower, but players need to learn how to win somewhere. Tiger Woods has talked about this at length when discussing his junior and amatuer career. Winning the US Amatuer helped him know how to close out bigger tournaments, even though the overall talent level is lower.

beernutz
07-09-2007, 12:19 PM
This has nothing to do with the NCAA. (BTW, why would anyone cite the NCAA as a model for anything, an organization committed only to creating an appearance of amatuerism, since NCAA athletes are "not paid.")

The junior/senior division in tennis is not an amatuer/professional division as well. It is simply an age division. Granted, most players who are under 18 and do well on the regular tour, or even at the challenger level won't go back to juniors, but there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so.

Young failed miserably in his regular tour events, won a futures and made the semis of a challenger. I think it was smart of him to go back and play Wimbledon juniors to give him the confidence to win. That may sound ridiculous since the level is lower, but players need to learn how to win somewhere. Tiger Woods has talked about this at length when discussing his junior and amatuer career. Winning the US Amatuer helped him know how to close out bigger tournaments, even though the overall talent level is lower.


Finally, an intelligent answer.

MoFed
07-09-2007, 12:29 PM
I'm not saying that the NCAA is a model for anything. You are missing the point. Once you try-out for the pros (enter the pro drafts) you are no longer eligible for NCAA. The same should be true for tennis. Once you turn pro, you shouldn't be able to go back to the juniors. (Which is part of what I said). Juniors to me are like amateurs, NCAA are amateurs.

VGP
07-09-2007, 12:44 PM
Problem was that too many tournaments were awarding wild-cards to Donald Young. He wasn't ready yet.

Donald Young is still only 17 and does qualify for the juniors as it's age based. But, to be 17 and be ranked in the top 300 still means he's on track for the pros.

The kid's gotta have wheels though, I don't see him growing much more in the next year or two.

As for NCAA you can have turned pro and have ranking points and still be eligible. You just have to prove that your winnings don't out weigh your expenditures for playing tournaments. It's a gray area.

jrachiever
07-09-2007, 01:11 PM
What's this. D. young winning junior Wimbledon. How is that possible? How do you turn pro but are still eligible to play in the Juniors. Can't win in the Pros, but always win the juniors. It seems that we are really seeing another player who can win big in the juniors but his game is not a pro game!!!!!

This is not at all unusual and I don't understand the surprise over this. When Edberg won the juniors at all 4 majors in 1983 he also played 10 tour level events (including the main draw of all the slams except the French). Richard Gasquet was in the top 200 when he won the US Open juniors in 2002. There are probably hundreds of similar examples out there. The juniors signify an age group, not a pro vs amateur distinction.

ferocious4hand
07-09-2007, 01:31 PM
Would have sucked for DY if he didn't win Jr. Wimbledon.

JW10S
07-09-2007, 01:44 PM
You can be a professional and still compete in ITF junior events.

beernutz
07-09-2007, 01:46 PM
I'm not saying that the NCAA is a model for anything. You are missing the point. Once you try-out for the pros (enter the pro drafts) you are no longer eligible for NCAA. The same should be true for tennis. Once you turn pro, you shouldn't be able to go back to the juniors. (Which is part of what I said). Juniors to me are like amateurs, NCAA are amateurs.

This is not true either actually. The NCAA allows you to try out for the pros in one sport and even if you play professionally, to come back and play as an amateur in another sport. So there are 'professional' athletes playing NCAA 'amateur' sports.

I don't like letting Pros play in the Juniors either but I don't think your NCAA analogy is all that appropriate here.

Mikael
07-09-2007, 02:17 PM
It would impossible to have a system where "pros" can't play junior tournaments, because it is impossible to determine who has "turned pro". We're not in the 60s anymore, when you turned pro or didn't. It's not clear cut. I'm willing to bet almost all the guys in the junior top 50 have ATP points and regularly play futures. Does it mean they're pros? Do you become a pro when you first make the main draw of a futures tournament? Or only when you win a futures tournament altogether? Or when your prize money allows you cover your expenses? The line is too blurry. And if you decide to take a radical stance and say that a "pro" is anyone that has taken part in an ATP tournament (sweet, I guess that makes me a pro), then I guarantee you most of the junior top 100 will be taken out, because those guys are precisely trying to transition from the junior game to the pro game...

J-man
07-09-2007, 02:36 PM
Does it really matter. Sure he's pro but he does not play like it

couch
07-09-2007, 07:24 PM
Does it really matter. Sure he's pro but he does not play like it

Have you seen him play? I have and I bet he will have some decent results down the road. The "KID" is 18, give him a break. How many pros have great results at 18? Not too many. The guys that have great results at 18 and under are the exception, not the rule.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 08:54 PM
This has nothing to do with the NCAA. (BTW, why would anyone cite the NCAA as a model for anything, an organization committed only to creating an appearance of amatuerism, since NCAA athletes are "not paid.")

The junior/senior division in tennis is not an amatuer/professional division as well. It is simply an age division. Granted, most players who are under 18 and do well on the regular tour, or even at the challenger level won't go back to juniors, but there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so.

Young failed miserably in his regular tour events, won a futures and made the semis of a challenger. I think it was smart of him to go back and play Wimbledon juniors to give him the confidence to win. That may sound ridiculous since the level is lower, but players need to learn how to win somewhere. Tiger Woods has talked about this at length when discussing his junior and amatuer career. Winning the US Amatuer helped him know how to close out bigger tournaments, even though the overall talent level is lower.


great post...hits it right on...it was good for D Young to get one or two wildcards, to get a taste...but then it got ridiculous as he kept getting them...get some wins, win the US Open juniors, play the challengers and work your way up...

Pancho
07-10-2007, 08:58 AM
[QUOTE=VGP;1577952]Problem was that too many tournaments were awarding wild-cards to Donald Young. He wasn't ready yet.
Donald Young is still only 17 and does qualify for the juniors as it's age based. But, to be 17 and be ranked in the top 300 still means he's on track for the pros.
The kid's gotta have wheels though, I don't see him growing much more in the next year or two.
/QUOTE]


I totally agree. The tournaments shouldn't give wild-cards to Donald Young. He hasn't won any ATP matches yet and has a poor record on ATP tour.

Also, Donald will be 18 this month and his time will soon run out for Junior tournament.