News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2005, 03:58:49 PM »
"This is most interesting.
It seems that in 1894 there were 2 "National Amateur Championships", causing Charles MacDonald to call for the formation of the Amateur Golf Association.
The US Open and the US Am were rolled out in the same year, 1895. What conclusions can we draw from this?"

Michael:
 
That's all pretty easy. The first two "National Amateurs", as you call them, in 1894 were really just invitational tournaments held by Newport and by St Andrews (NY) although both clubs apparently called them national championships. According to Macdonald there was much criticism among other clubs that a single golf club could think it could hold a national championship itself (or without a golf organization or association). And that is why the American Amateur Golf Associaiton that became the USGA came to be formed in 1895.

As for why an "Amateur" Championship and an "Open" championship were rolled out in the same year that's easy too. It was essentially for the same reason there still is a US Amateur Championship today and a US Open Championship today. The US Amateur Championship was then and is now strictly for "amateurs" (those who don't play golf for money or remunerations) and the Open was then and is now for both pros and amateurs.  ;)

Do you know why back then most all "amateur" events were match play and most all "Open" events were stroke play?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2005, 04:04:37 PM by TEPaul »

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2005, 04:04:47 PM »
Seriously, does anyone know the story of the evening at Newport between the 1895 Am and Open?

Did they really just make up the Open on the spot? Does that explain why there were only 11 contestants?
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2005, 04:06:05 PM »
Shiv -

So what do you do with the young phenom who is better than a +5? I recall Sergio was better than a +5 before he turned pro; I remember it because it was the best index I've ever seen. Should he have been ineligible for the US Am since he was as good as many pros? How about Tiger?

As Sully summed up so succinctly, it's not about performance, it's about time.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2005, 04:13:02 PM »
I think it's really insulting to say it's all about inflated egos.

Guys who win the Am probably have 2 thoughts (following the obligatory "we're all gonna get laid" :)): 1) I beat all the other top amateurs who entered; 2) I'm going to The Masters.

All competitions have defined rules for entry. There are plenty of open competitions if someone wants to test himself against the best. If you opened up the US Amateur so that the low level pros could enter, you'd probably just destroy the competition. It would be like a "B" flight US Open.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2005, 04:47:11 PM »
Shivas,

If you're defining the line between amateur and pro by ability (handicap) how does one jump from one to the other? You are now limiting their opportunities if I'm understanding your proposal correctly.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2005, 04:48:10 PM »
What makes more sense in terms of fostering great competition:  Having an Open and an A flight Open and a B flight Open, or making up artificial BARRIERS to competition and having a Blonde Open and a Redhead Open and a Bruntette Open?

To me, it makes more sense to make the barrier: playing for a living and playing for fun. I assume everyone loves the competition, though maybe not to the same degree.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2005, 05:06:19 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #56 on: September 15, 2005, 05:01:30 PM »
And if I'm playing my local course, and very well, every evening after work and my handicap gets into that same neighborhood I can't play in the US Am either.

If you take a look at how many guys might be +6 or better it's not many.

The distinction between amateur and pro needs to be determined by the individuals aspirations. They do not/cannot change week to week.

I have no fear that a tour player would come down to the philly am or any other amateur event I might find myself in. If I were playing for a living I would hardly seek out a 'pro-bono' week, and I doubt any others would either.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2005, 05:04:45 PM by JES II »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2005, 05:04:23 PM »
Shivas,

If you really think the current distinction (choosing to play for a living versus choosing to play as a recreation) is no less arbitrary than height I'll sign off now and go research which Bobby Jones it was that designed that place out there.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2005, 05:08:00 PM »
You really don't think it would destroy amateur golf to remove the distinction?

For one thing, I'm certain The Masters would stop inviting the winners of the Am, the Mid Am, etc., and I'd bet the USGA and R&A would consider rescinding their invites to the big Opens as well.

Who were the National Champs in the NCAA hoops? And who won the USBL?

Fun versus money is no less arbitrary than by height?

There are tons of competitions in life that prohibit professional within that field from entering. There is most certainly a natural distinction of competing for fun and competing as a profession.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

TEPaul

Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2005, 05:10:43 PM »
"TEP:  How the distinction between pros and amateurs came into being, and the rationales behind it ..."

Shiv:

Something like that wasn't exactly some "rationale" that someone thought up, it was more a cultural and evolutionary thing.

Back in that day, golf, which emanated from the British Isles was supposedly a game of "Gentlemen"! What did the word "'gentleman" mean to them in that day and culture? It meant someone of high birth and consequently education, and obviously in many cases wealth and social stature. That so-callled "class" was also one that in many ways lived under an ethos of "Noblesse Oblige" (at least in theory ;) ) which meant the moral obligation of the rich or highborn to display honorable and charitable conduct---and generally towards ALL!

That conduct included many things about their lives--business, politics, and even in many cases their recreations, such as golf. There's no doubt that golf in those early times of clubs populated by these so-called "gentlemen" and their families played golf with anyone who was good enough or interested enough. The old saw that in that culture Kings played golf with cobblers and their employees who worked with golf for them is true.

However, that class in almost no case at all invited the rest of the world they dealt with so closely and so charitably in all those thngs mentioned INTO THEIR HOMES. And that included inside their clubs (clubhouses)---which to them was somewhat of a communal "home" for that class---an extension of their own homes--eg their CLUB!

As kind and honourable as they felt they morally should be under "Noblesse Oblige" to all people particularly those they understood to be less fortunate than them it was always understood that their homes and clubs is where they closed the door on the rest of the world. Maybe they felt that was their only insulation---who knows?

This entire ethos was carried over to the early culture of the United States as so many of those great early clubs were bastions of the so-called WASP world---those American descendants of the British Isles and in many ways its aristocracy.

The early golf "pro" in that era was someone who worked for them or their clubs---generally doing everything in that early simple world of golf---making golf clubs and balls, greenskeeping, administering the club or pro shop and since those early pros worked so completely in golf they obviously became many of the day's best players and the teachers of golf.

That's the way the culture evolved and that's why even into the middle of the 20th century "pros" were often not allowed into the clubhouses of these clubs.

When we look at that culture today some may bridle and take huge humbrage over it. But back then it's just the way the world worked and most who lived in it understood it and accepted it. It was an age of huge social classifications and stratifications.

However, we can see that over time, perhaps due to the game itself and eventually the curiosity with perfection in it as well as eventually the time when real money could be made in it all that changed---and we are now in an era where pros are no longer classified or stratified socially or culturally and the greatest of them have become world-wide icons who can own their own golf courses and clubhouses if they want to!  ;)

And through all that and to this day the idea of the "amateur" golfer was always part of the game. The person who played the game only for the enjoyment or love of it. Through all that time playing the game for the enjoyment and love of it and taking any money whatsoever for anything whatever (including architecture early on) to do with it was considered to be mutually exlcusive.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2005, 05:15:11 PM by TEPaul »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #60 on: September 17, 2005, 05:13:48 AM »
Rich

Most guys I know in business are quite happy not to compete with the best to make cash.  They actively seek opportunities where there is little competition.  Bad example Rich.  

Regarding club comps., again, most of the players I know are glad if they don't pull the best player in the club in the first round or second round.  It is natural for people to seek the path of least resistance.  While I can understand your desire to knock off a big gun, it is a bit different for a guy who thinks he can win the event-especially if he thinks he can win if he gets the right breaks.  Meaning, this player knows he can't beat the best but two or three times out of ten.  However, if somebody else pulls an upset and he can pull an upset...who knows?

I am against pros being reinstated and I am against the leniency given to ams.  In fact, I would argue for stricter guidelines between pro an amateur.  I don't think this will happen, but at the end of the day it isn't a big issue with me because I don't play at that level.  So I would consider my opinion much less so than others who play at this level.  

I think it might be fun to play against pros in handicapped club comps. (as Rich suggests).  I have no problem with this.  However, I am not convinced that many pros are going to take time off for the monthly medal.  

Ciao

Sean
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

ForkaB

Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #61 on: September 17, 2005, 08:11:02 AM »
Sean

I'm happy for you if you are able to compete in an industry which is populated by numpties.  Most business that I am familiar with require an "A" game to be able to make money......unless, of course you live somewhere which gives you a "handicap" to allow you to "win" over superior competitors (subsidies, preferential bidding schemes, import barriers, etc.).  I find that sort of situation as insipid and boring as "handicap" golf.

Rich

PS--I was never talking about playing pros in "hanidcapped" competition but "off the sticks" (i.e. scratch).  Trust me, that's much more fun (and honest) than (say) shooting 82 vs. Tiger's 65 and saying that you "beat" him.

John Yerger

Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #62 on: September 17, 2005, 11:50:25 AM »
One question that isn't mentioned in this entire discussion is the different ruling bodies and there interpretation of what an " amateur" is. While the USGA held to limits on monetary rewards at events and what you could recieve, the R&A and similar bodies in Australia and Sweden not only developed golf schools for there best, they also provided stipends to defray expenses. Are they still amateurs? Heck, Steve Melnyk recieved a six-month suspension when he was at the University of Florida for recieving two dozen golf balls! The rules have obviously been "loosened" which David Fay supported believing that recieving help for travel was not a violation of the rules and gave players of more modest means a way to compete nationally.
It seems if the relaxing of requirements for re-instatement of former professionals coincides with the relaxing of the forms of help amateur golfers can recieve.
In golfs earliest years, the best players many times did not turn professional because they came from money or were successful business people. The modest profeesional purses were not as attractive. This accounts for players like Dr Ed Updegraff, Bill Hyndman, Ed Tutwiler, Dick Siderowf et al not turning professional. Now the money makes the Tour(s) an option.
Several years ago the USGA passed a rule permitting players to try Q-School and if not getting there cards retaining there amateur status. Everyone felt it would create chaos in the college ranks. It didn't happen. The whole issue of re-instatement of professionals, and the modest suspension periods, is wrapped around the relaxing of the rules pertaining to amateur status. It may have swung to far as re-instatement time periods go but not to permit a player to get his amateur staus back isn't fair either.

TEPaul

Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #63 on: September 17, 2005, 12:12:13 PM »
John:

The one thing we do know about the evolution of the rules of "amateur status" is under both entities (USGA and R&A as they stand for all the National Unions and such they represent at the top) both reflect to a large degree the evolution of the cultures of the countries and regions they represent. To do otherwise, for intance to be as strigent on amateur status rules and regulations as a man like C.B. Macdonald was in his culure and time would be about as "hide-bound" and anachronistic as it could possibly get. If either the USGA or R&A tried to enforce the types of rules they had on amateurism in golf back then I doubt they'd find anyone who'd follow them or even pay one iota of attention to them. There's nothing wrong with those that administer to the game trying to preserve and protect some of golf's best and most fundamental traditions (perhaps including amateurism) but they should never act like golf itself is some separate ethos or some separate way of life that way (amateurism). It isn't---it has to change as cultures change or it won't represent anything or anyone after a while.

But there is a good deal that entities such as the USGA and R&A can do to protect some of the traditions of amateurism and perhaps well into the future. But they need to stay current and realistic. Rich doesn't like to admit it but tennis's amateur rulling body completely blew this administrative mission or responsibility about three decades ago. One isn't even aware of regional, state and national amateur tennis competitions today they way they were about three decades ago. That's pretty much all gone now but it certainly isn't in amateur golf around this nation and around the world.

Let's hope the same doesn't happen to regional, state, national and international amateur golf competition.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2005, 12:26:34 PM by TEPaul »

John Yerger

Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #64 on: September 17, 2005, 12:53:42 PM »
Tom
I agree with you but I do believe that there current approach to  what constitutes an amateur, as it has evolved, has affected the USGA"s approach to the re-instatement of former professionals. Should there be a longer re-instatement period for former members of the PGA Tour, such as Dillard Pruitt, who regretably is the poster child for many people, I believe it should. For someone who was Class A professional putting up with bad swings and carts, I don't think it should. Unlike the golf ball, the USGA can get the genie back in the bottle and correct this. As you know, Tillinghast and Travis lost ther amateur status because of the USGA's inane attempt to keep the game "pure". They quickly realized the folly of the definition of amateur and changed it.

I know that some members of Sunnehanna used to buy insurance policies from some amateur golfers, who were in that profession, as an "incentive" for them to play in the Sunnehanna Amateur. They bought lumber from another top amateur  His name should be easy to figure out. It certainly was a class issue.

 Todays relaxation of what are considered special benefits will help good players with limited resources compete nationally if they have the ability and a support system willing to subsidize them. As far as the re-instatement issue, do I think Jeff Daniels, who won the Pa State Open four years ago,should already be playing in amateur events?  I don't believe he should.  
Thankfully, state and regional organization are still the first events many people play in and where the vast majority of people compete.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #65 on: September 17, 2005, 02:37:30 PM »
Rich

It is your priveledge to continue the charade of comparing business success to success in golf.  I don't mind people taking the piss.  If it makes you happy to play straight up, fair enough.  I don't need to trust you on this one though.  I am sure that playing Tiger with shots would be funner (for both of us) if I had shots.  

Ciao

Sean
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

TEPaul

Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #66 on: September 17, 2005, 11:07:49 PM »
John:

I realize Jeff Daniel who won the Pa Open four years ago is an amateur now. Like many reinstatements his waiting period can begin with his last act contrary to amateurism. If that began following his Pa Open win that is not necessarily a determination in his waiting period.

Dillard Pruitt's reinstatement certainly may be one of the most controversial reinstatments in Amateur reinstatement history. His situation may precipitate a more stringent set of "amateur status" rules that preclude certain professional golfers from ever being reinstated to amateur status.

In my time on the committee within GAP that intially processes amateur status reinstatement applications all the applicants (probably about 200) had professional resumes that fell within the guidelines of amateur status reinstatement. The only one I remember we turned down at the local level was some guy who once was a pro, who received his amateur reinstatement, did not have a low enough handicap to enter a US Open qualifier, so he turned pro again for the qualifier, missed by a mile and promptly filed another amateur status reinstatement application. We voted that his reinstatement application not be approved and sent it on to the USGA where all of them go.

Wayne_Kozun

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #67 on: September 18, 2005, 12:34:48 PM »
In golfs earliest years, the best players many times did not turn professional because they came from money or were successful business people. The modest profeesional purses were not as attractive. This accounts for players like Dr Ed Updegraff, Bill Hyndman, Ed Tutwiler, Dick Siderowf et al not turning professional. Now the money makes the Tour(s) an option.
Don't forget it was also considered vulgar (in the Latin sense of the word) to be a professional and at the time no "gentleman" would ever become a golf professional.  Golf professionals were not considered to have any more social standing than the guy who emptied the latrines.

Jeff Fortson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #68 on: September 18, 2005, 01:17:30 PM »
This thread is hilarious.

Yes, there are some pros that have been reinstated that probably should not have been.  You know, like guys that have won on tour.  They probably shouldn't be allowed.  

However, a guy that was a club pro or turned pro to try to go to Q-School in the past and never really made it shoud have the ability to turn back to being an ameteur.  Usually, these guys end up having "real jobs" and have as little or less time to practice than their peers.

Plus, if anyone thinks Bobby Jones, Frank Stranahan, Trip Kuehne, etc., etc. were or are "true amateurs" then they need their head checked.  These guys were all fed with a silver spoon and never had the need to turn professional as money was never an issue for them.  They practiced and played as much as professionals and no one ever screamed that it was unfair.

Give me a break. ::)


Jeff F.
#nowhitebelt

JohnV

Re:The reinstated pros and the MidAms--(a little OT)
« Reply #69 on: September 18, 2005, 01:24:47 PM »
Ah, the usual suspects on both sides of this old argument that we've had many times.

As one who was at the US Mid-Amateur, I can say without a hint of doubt that none of the 4 gentlemen who were the cause of this discussion are anywhere near the quality of the lowest players on the PGA Tour (or the Nationwide Tour) at this point in their careers.  Very good amateurs at this point, but not even close to the guys who earn their living at golf.

The doyen of the US Mid-Amateur, Dr. Bob Hooper, told me a story about how, in the early days of the Mid-Am, he was concerned about the number of reinstated ams playing and wrote a letter to Joe Dey saying that he would like to discuss it with him at the next US Open.  Dey replied, that he would be happy to discuss it, but before he did, Bob should realize that he (Dey) didn't believe in the death penalty.  Bob took that advice and decided to let it lie.

As for Dillard Pruitt, tell me what he has won in the last couple of years?  Has he been dominating at some amateur events that I haven't read about in the agate type of Golfweek?  Seems like he isn't as advantaged as some some were thinking when he returned to the amateur ranks and got hot at Sunnehanna.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back