Yikes - rebuked by one of my favorite posters. If Slag, JohnV & Dan King join you, I may have to seek counseling.
I have reconsidered my position - but not changed it.
Here are my thoughts - disagree with them if you will, but please consider them at least somewhat thought out:
Much of what we do on this site &, indeed, in life in general, is draw lines. If I were King of the World (& really, I think the one thing we can all agree on is that we would be better off if I were King
), I would instruct the USGA to develop some sort of formula along the lines of:
- golfers like Jamie being banned for 2 years (sorry, Jamie)
- golfers who play on the Tour being banned for 2 years + 1 additional year for each year played on Tour (maybe 6 mos. for each year in the minors, I don't know, have to think more about that).
- at some point (for me, 10 years total), I'd cut someone off with no chance of reinstatement (also, if you win a major while a pro, you're banned permanently), with some sort of mitigating circumstances for senior competition.
There are plenty of places for these guys to get their competition fix elsewhere. Satellite tours, local pro events, whatever. I don't believe much in the average guy's notion of fairness in golf, but I do believe in fairness when it comes to making rules & defining standards. It seems to me that someone who spends years of his life on Tour has an unfair advantage relative to his amateur counterparts, so this should be lessened through longer suspensions (& eventually permanent bans).
If you disagree where I choose to draw the line, consider this:
Tiger has been a pro for what, 6+ years? If he decided, what the hell, I've got a cool quarter billion in the bank, why don't I forsake my pro status, take my 2 year ban (gotta be fair & consistent, don't you? ), and spend the rest of my playing days going after Bobby Jones' grand slam of US & British Opens & Ams in the same calendar year - would you think this is right?
Separately, if you did think this was "right", would you consider it within the spirit of what Jones accomplished?
That is my point relative to the Walker Cup. Because the team is selected, not earned through objective criteria (that's my understanding, anyway), I would like to see the spirit of the competition prevail & not select players like Mr. Pruitt. (No offense to him personally - I don't know him & I'm sure he's a great guy if he loves our great game.)
However, I will say my knowledge of history re: the Walker Cup is sorely lacking, & if any of our historians on board show me some evidence that it has a history of cutthroat attempts to field the best team possible (screw the spirit of the competition), then I'll reconsider my position yet again & post further thoughts.
Hope that helps...