[TEPaul]

David Tepper:

I guess one could argue anything he wanted to about tennis but I doubt its amateur grass roots popularity and coverage, and certainly within general clubs and country clubs is anything remotely like it once was before those professional organizations such as Donald Dell's began to take hold back in the 1960s.

Back then it was basically part of the world of the old USLTA (which was something quite akin to golf's USGA).

I guess one could track the amount of tennis players (or non professional tennis players) in America today in relation to back then and if that was done something tells me it would be down dramatically.

Tennis lost most of its amateur grass roots base when it went "open" in my opinion. Obviously the professional side of tennis is much stronger than it was back then but I think at the expense of the amateur side.

This is not something I ever want to see in the future of golf!

I do feel somewhat fortunate in an historical sense to have known really well most of the people who ran the USLTA back then (or my parents did). What they let happen to the USLTA and amateur tennis was most definitely not something they intended to let happen. In my opinion, it was pretty much a classic example of mismanagement of amateur tennis going into the future. In effect those burgeoning professional organizations just rolled right over them and pretty much took them out.

One thing in defensive of the old USLTA, though, is I do not believe they had anything like the seminal toe-hold in their game with playing Rules (which in tennis never were and never will be even remotely as complex as golf's playing Rules) and I&B that the R&A and the USGA have always had and still very much have in golf.

Then there's the issue of "amateur status" Rules that the old USLTA had quite akin to the USGA's "amateur status" rules. There's no question the old USLTA wasn't dealing with that very well. But when it comes to the USGA holding the old traditional line on its "amateur status" rules and regs it really is in pretty much a position of the Dutch kid with his finger in the dyke.

By that I mean they can continue to hold strong to the old traditional rules and regs of amateurism but the world is changing that way (because professionalism has gotten and is getting so much more pervasive and strong and there's not a helluva lot they can do to stop the world of sports or golf from doing that). They could get into taking away the amateur status of a ton of up-and-coming young teenager amateurs like a Michele Wie at 14 years old or of a young Tiger Woods for what his Dad probably did but if they did that en masse  with young kids into the future all they would be doing is presiding over their own eventual marginalization and irrelevence and ultimate demise.

But I do understand that I do not want to be in a position into the future, even philosophically, like the Dutch kid with his finger in the dyke against the onslaught of the sea beyond. I do recognize that myself and people who think as I do may not be able to do a thing under the sun to stop it and how it will change "amateurism" over time. Commercialism and professionalism is a total reality and in every way it is just not akin to or compatible with the old spirit and reality of what old-line amateurism was and was all about.

[Jeff Fortson]

I am obviously biased on this topic as I am currently in the process of waiting out my "time" for reinstatement of amateur status.  So I expect my remarks to be taken with a grain of salt.

As a child my dream was to play in major championships and make golf my life, so once I was done with collegiate golf I turned pro.  I got a job at a resort in the Palm Springs area to pay the bills and got sucked in to the club professional world.  I was a club pro for 7-8 years and played in professional tournaments sparingly.  I did have some success at the club pro level but nothing noteworthy. 

My last job as a club professional was at Riviera Country Club and a gentleman wanted to take some lessons from me which I of course obliged.  In the course of teaching this gentleman for about a year we grew close and played together a few times and he took a liking to me and eventually asked the question... "why didn't you ever try to play on Tour?"  I gave hum my life story and how it didn't give me the opportunity to give that avenue a real shot.  Out of complete complete charity he gave me the opportunity of a lifetime and sponsored me for two years to try to play.  He wanted to give me a chance at my dreams and it is something I will never forget or be able to appropriately thank him for. 

I played for two years and never got passed 2nd Stage of Q-School and missed the U.S. Open by a shot twice.  I was so close but it wasn't meant to be.  I retired from professional golf on February 15, 2007.  After months of a jaded outlook on playing golf I was drawn back into the spirit of competition that only golf provides me and decided to submit an application for reinstatement as an amateur.  I filled out a lengthy questionaire from the USGA and paid $150 to apply for my reinstatement.  After a few lengthy dialogues with the staff that looks over these applications at the USGA they made a decision to force me to not compete for 3 years from my last professional event.  I receive my reinstatement of amateur status on February 15, 2010. 

I am not a household name in the golf world, never played in a PGA Tour event and never played in a major.  I made a total of @ $200,000 in prize money in 9-10 years of technically being a "professional".  Now, I understand the deep traditions of golf and I understand the "purity" of amateur golf vs. professional golf.  However, I don't see how anyone in my situation or even less success could be considered a threat to the integrity of amateur purity.

Obviously, I have high aspirations as an amateur.  I would love to win an amateur "major" and make a Walker Cup.  What are my chances of doing either?... probably pretty slim.  I think the line should be drawn on how much success and status one has had playing at the highest level of professional golf in making this decision and I think the USGA has done a great job of protecting this so far.  For those like me that took a shot at a dream of playing on Tour and failed with little to no "real" success I don't see how that changes the landscape of amateur golf.  If Brad Faxon were to try I would totally be against it.  But come on, a guy like me who taught Mrs. Havacamp for 7-8 years and played minitours for 2 years with two failed attempts at Q-School?  Where is the danger?

I agree with Tom Paul on his take and I also agree with Lynn Shackelford a little bit re: tennis's open system.  I am no better than the best amateurs in the country and hope to someday be considered one of those guys.


Jeff F.

[Sean_A]

Not that it really matters to me, but I would prefer to see true amateurs involved in the Walker Cup.  That means none of these semi pro guys playing major college golf who play in more tournies than some pros and no reinstated pros. 

I think the problem many have with the so called amateur in the US is that some of these guys are in effect paid with equipment, scholarships etc. or their families are fed money.  The line is too blurrrrry.  If the USGA isn't going to enforce a more stringent definition of amateurism than it may as well be opened up.  However, even if the game were opened up, I would like to see the Walker Cup for proper ams only.  That is how it started and that is how it should be now.  Its a pity its infested with guys who are basically semi pro - which is to say they are pros.  I spose this is part of the reason I don't really follow it or any big amateur stuff.  If I am gonna watch pros, I want to watch the best playing the best courses in the best majors. 

Ciao 

[David_Tepper]

TEPaul -

I appreciate your perspective and your comments. I simply think your observations and conclusions are mistaken.

As an competitive amateur tennis player in the 1960's and a tennis shop owner in the 1970's (and a lifetime subscriber to World Tennis magazine at the age of 14!), I had a pretty good front row seat to the opening of tennis in the late 1960's (I think 1968 was the first actual year of open tennis) and the boom that followed in the 1970's. I even wrote a term paper on the pro's and con's of open tennis for a high school English class.

There is no doubt in my mind that the tennis boom would never have happened without open tennis. There is no doubt in my mind that more tennis is now played across a broader spectrum of the population than their was 40-50 years ago.  The breadth and depth of collegiate tennis is exponentially greater than it was 40 years ago.  There is more tennis now televised in one week than there used to be in one year back in the days of "shamateur" tennis.

There is certainly less pomposity, hypocrisy and prejudice in the game than their used to be.             I think that is a pretty good thing.

DT

[Pat Burke]

This is a tough one.  I probably have more of a problem with reinstated amateurs PLAYING a Walker Cup than captaining one, but I have NO demonstrable facts for that, just a feeling.
I do not know MR. Holtgrieve, but have heard nothing but positive regarding him.  It seems that the bigger problem may be. Mr Holtgrieve turned pro to take advantage of a financial opportunity, turning away from lifelong amateur status, and was given that status back pretty quickly.
As far as whether he should be the captain or not, I wonder if the captaincy was given to an Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus, if that would be a concern.
Holtgrieve is neither of these giants of the game, but if being a pro disqualifies someone...

[TEPaul]

David Tepper:

I've never been a tennis player but if you say there is more tennis played non-professionally today than there was 40-50 years ago I would very much like to see those comparative stats, and I believe I would be very surprised. Obviously, there is much more professional tennis played today than back then but I did not believe there was anything like the amount of amateur tennis played today, particularly top-flight amateur competitive tennis compared to back then. For instance, the US Amateur Championship used to be a pretty big deal back then, right? Does it even exist anymore?

This is not what I want to see for the future of local, state and national amateur competitive golf and all those amateur championships. If golf becomes "open" like tennis did I don't see the vertically integrated amateur association structure in America surviving.

[JESII]

Not that it really matters to me, but I would prefer to see true amateurs involved in the Walker Cup.  That means none of these semi pro guys playing major college golf who play in more tournies than some pros and no reinstated pros. 

I think the problem many have with the so called amateur in the US is that some of these guys are in effect paid with equipment, scholarships etc. or their families are fed money.  The line is too blurrrrry.  If the USGA isn't going to enforce a more stringent definition of amateurism than it may as well be opened up.  However, even if the game were opened up, I would like to see the Walker Cup for proper ams only.  That is how it started and that is how it should be now.  Its a pity its infested with guys who are basically semi pro - which is to say they are pros.  I spose this is part of the reason I don't really follow it or any big amateur stuff.  If I am gonna watch pros, I want to watch the best playing the best courses in the best majors. 

Ciao 

Sean,

Are you aware of the European amateur program with respect to equipment, travel expenses, scholarships etc...?

[TEPaul]

Pat Burke:

A professional golfer is never going to be the captain of the Walker Cup. That's an amateur event put on by an amateur golf association and the captain will always be an amateur.

My point is, if the USGA is going to reinstate someone as an amateur golfer they are not going to do that with strings attached or some qualification that he really isn't a complete amateur golfer again because he was once a professional. That has never happened before and it never will. If the USGA is going to act like that or expect others to act like that towards reinstated amateurs then the best policy would probably be for the USGA to just not reinstate a single person as an amateur again who has ever turned professional or violated the "amateur status Rules and Regulations.

If that's the way some people view former professional golfers who've been reinstated and the USGA wants to take that kind of position in the future they can just do away with amateur reinstatement (which has been going on for close to a century) altogether and if anyone ever turns professional or violates amateur status Rules they would just be gone for good from the ranks of amateurism in the eyes of the USGA and with everyone who conforms to the USGA's amateur rules for competitions and so forth.

[JESII]

For sake of conversation Tom, do you think there would be any value to the USGA terminating its Amateur Status reinstatement policy?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

No I do not. To do that would potentially leave a lot of people who could not or chose not to play professional golf out in left field and I don't like that. If someone turns professional and after not too much time realizes that was not the right decision for them I think amateur reinstatement should be available to them and that's essentially the way the Rules have always worked.

I'm sure you've read the USGA Rules and Regs on amateur reinstatement. It is slightly subjective but for instance professional icons like a Palmer or Nicklaus or Woods or someone who's basically been a career long professional golfer is never going to get his amateur status back again. You do realize that don't you?

You played professional for a while. How would you like it if they refused to ever reinstate you as an amateur. How would you like it if you turned pro and after a month you realized that was a mistake and they refused to ever reinstate you?

Do you think something like that is a good idea---even for the sake of conversation?

There have been some who have tried to play ridiculous games with professionalism and amateurism and one guy who tried to do that I personally recommended turning down his reinstatement application at the local level, so it never even got to the USGA.

[JESII]

Tom,

I think...for the sake of argument or discussion...that the integrity of the Amateur Game would be much stronger if they would not reinstate amateur status...

I am sure there are negatives, but strengthening the integrity of the Amateur Game just might be a good thing for golf.

[David_Tepper]

TEPaul -

I have not been an active tennis player for a couple of decades, since the time I decided to become thoroughly mediocre golfer!

As I mentioned in my prior post, the growth in tennis at the collegiate level is light years ahead of where it was 40-50 years ago. In the 1960's, there were no credible college tennis teams in the Northeast outside of the Ivy League and Army/Navy. Now there are as many quality tennis teams outside the Ivy League in the Northeast as there in it. Few colleges had indoor tennis facilities back then, now they are ubiquitous. 

I can offer your this observed information as to the strength/growth of tennis in the 21st century. In the 1970's, the Olympic Club in San Francisco had 4 tennis courts (none lit for night play) and employed 1 teaching professional to service the tennis program. There was no organized inter-club team competition among tennis clubs in Northern California.

The OC now has 8 courts (4 lit for night play) and employs 3 teaching pro's to give lessons and organize/supervise all the events and competitions in which the members participate. The men compete on teams in Northern California Tennis Association sponsored inter-club leagues in at least 4 different levels of play. There are women's teams competing in 2 inter-club leagues as well. NONE of that existed 40-50 years ago! I am quite sure that kind of growth is neither unique to the Olympic Club or Northern California.

Professionals will invariably dominate open competition in any sport. Personally, I think a sport played at the highest level by its most accomplished participants is the best way to promote the interest and growth that sport at ALL levels of participation.

DT   

[Phil_the_Author]

Sully,

You asked, "For sake of conversation Tom, do you think there would be any value to the USGA terminating its Amateur Status reinstatement policy?"

The history of amateur status reinstatement by the USGA goes back almost to the USGA's beginning. For example, in 1916 when it issued its controversial ruling declaring Golf Architects and writers to be deemed professional golfers it also included with it an ability for those affected to apply for their reinstatement as amateurs.

Tilly acknowledged this in his writings as one so affected. He also refused to apply for it, and when it was turned over just a few years later, he still kept his standing as a professional golfer and never played in either amateur or open competitions again.

I am uncertain as to whether there was an earlier reinstatement policy, but felt it important for this discussion that an understanding of how long the USGA itself has recognized a need for a fair and honorable amateur standing reinstatement to some players who wanted to no longer be regarded as professionals be given...

[Sean_A]

Not that it really matters to me, but I would prefer to see true amateurs involved in the Walker Cup.  That means none of these semi pro guys playing major college golf who play in more tournies than some pros and no reinstated pros. 

I think the problem many have with the so called amateur in the US is that some of these guys are in effect paid with equipment, scholarships etc. or their families are fed money.  The line is too blurrrrry.  If the USGA isn't going to enforce a more stringent definition of amateurism than it may as well be opened up.  However, even if the game were opened up, I would like to see the Walker Cup for proper ams only.  That is how it started and that is how it should be now.  Its a pity its infested with guys who are basically semi pro - which is to say they are pros.  I spose this is part of the reason I don't really follow it or any big amateur stuff.  If I am gonna watch pros, I want to watch the best playing the best courses in the best majors. 

Ciao 

Sean,

Are you aware of the European amateur program with respect to equipment, travel expenses, scholarships etc...?

Sully

I don't have a clue what the UK offers in terms of support for blossoming top flight golfers.  I know some (a significant percentage of the very best players) go to the States for college and I assume they can receive some additional "support" from manufacturers.  There are a few programs with teaching (Nick Faldo runs one) and some universities offer golf programs.  I spose some companies may offer "support" for amateurs, but I don't know of any cases and college golf is not a big deal at all as is the case with college sport in general over here.  Only the Oxford-Cambridge rivalry garnishes any sort of national press.   

I have the impression that a significant percentage of young ams turn pro because they don't want to attend university or even sit A Levels.  This would suggest that there isn't another outlet which offers enough "support" to live off, but I could be wrong.  I think this has always been the case in the UK.  Teenagers turn pro not long after leaving school or get out of golf.  Many work toward PGA qualification as an unofficial ass. pro.  How else can they make a living?  The vast majority of these guys who stick around end up as club pros which I think is the intention if these kids are realistic with themselves.  I don't know how many 20 year old ass. pros I see behind counters bored out of their minds.  Every single one of these kids I come across I strongly encourage to attend university first and even go to the States if they have the game, but deep down most know they don't.  However, the link between further education and golf has never been strong in the UK like how it developed in the US hence the reason some of the very best ams go to uni in the States.  For a guy wanting to eventually play on a tour, what better place to learn your craft while not being under the pressure of having to earn a living? 

Unfortunately or not, that sort of opportunity just doesn't exist over here.  College golf programs are run much more like university clubs rather than a "proper" (proper meaning at the big unis some of these kids are essentially semi pro - hoping to turn pro and get rich) program like we see in the States.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I think...for the sake of argument or discussion...that the integrity of the Amateur Game would be much stronger if they would not reinstate amateur status...

I am sure there are negatives, but strengthening the integrity of the Amateur Game just might be a good thing for golf."



Sully:

I'm sort of amazed that YOU would say that but since you did I sure will give a considered answer and the pros and cons some real thought. Looked at only in the light of maintaining something like the old fashioned traditional philosophy on amateurism it might be a good thing for golf or for amateurism's survival as it once was but of course there would be some negatives, and the primary one would be the marginalizing of literally thousands of golfers who turned pro young and then decided professional golf was not for them. Does our national amateur golf association really want to marginalize them for the rest of their lives? Then there would probably be an issue with young teenage potentially good golfers and with burgeoning organizations like the AJGA. Would they totally conform to strict amateur status Rules and Regs with that group since these teenage organizations like the AJGA seem to me like mini-farm organizations for future professional golfers or at least to be totally positioned at this point to be that. Even the PGA has a junior golf association or tour. I know since Mike Shaney our last competitions director went to work for it.

I've got to go mow a field which is a good time and opportunity to think about this. If I hit a really big rock while mowing I'm going to blame it on you, OK? 

[JESII]

Tom,

Do you think it is a good thing for golf in Philadelphia that every kid that can break an egg turns pro in their early - to - mid twenties and 95% of them turn amateur again a few years later?

Do you think the prospect of never regaining amateur status would effect the decision on the front end?   I do.

[Jeff Fortson]

Other than some archaic form of "purity" what is the problem with a person trying to attempt playing for a living, realizing they can't make it and then waiting out a period of time and being recycled back into amateur golf?  What's the reason for the anti-reinstatement stance?  I'm honestly not trying to sound nasty and I don't want it taken that way, I'm simply curious as to why there seems to be many that feel once you make the decision to become a pro you should forever be banned from amateur golf.  Is it that possibly good lifelong amateurs don't want good players having the chance to come back into their pond?


Jeff F.

[Ronald Montesano]

Good point on fearing the return of good players to the pond.  Lifelongs rarely develop the hardened competitive nature of the failed pro.  Terrence Miskell is a good example down in Texas.  Now that Kuehne is done, Miskell seems to a be a likely replacement as Texas' top am.  Problem is, he played pro.  Lots of them did...look at the top Mid-Ams from the 90s and 00s and most of them gave one tour or another a shot.

I think that the competitive nature of the Walker Cup has changed the face of the captain.  The USGA wants wins, not fraternally-charged losses.   Unlike the non-competitive Curtis Cup, which will continue to be non-competitive until Europe is included (imagine a European team with Azahara Munyoz and the other collegiate Spaniards!) the Walker Cup is a battleground like the Ryder Cup that will continue to bear the fruit of intense competition.  You will no longer see ceremonial US captains of the men's side.

These would be my five votes for USGA Walker Cup captain, in no particular order:

Trip Kuehne
Tim Jackson
Jerry Courville, Jr. (did he turn pro?  if so, bounce him.)
George Zahringer
Kemp Richardson
Spider Miller

Danny Green would be fun to watch, but I agree that he is a long shot.

[Bob_Huntley]

Other than some archaic form of "purity" what is the problem with a person trying to attempt playing for a living, realizing they can't make it and then waiting out a period of time and being recycled back into amateur golf?  What's the reason for the anti-reinstatement stance?  I'm honestly not trying to sound nasty and I don't want it taken that way, I'm simply curious as to why there seems to be many that feel once you make the decision to become a pro you should forever be banned from amateur golf.  Is it that possibly good lifelong amateurs don't want good players having the chance to come back into their pond?


Jeff F.

Jeff,

I think that many of us do not have any objection to the reinstatement process. My objection is to the  player who has won a bunch of money and competed at a high level, coming back and winning USGA  amateur titles.  A bigger gripe on my part, is for the USGA  to choose a reinstated professional golfer to be the captain of a team that is supposed to represent all that is good about "upholding golf's traditions."   

Bob

[John Blain]

Jeff Fortson,
 I completely agree with what you are saying. If someone wants to try playing professionally and it doesn't work out why make him an outcast? I have no problem with Jim Holtgrieve being a former professional. He thought he had the game to play the Champions tour and found out he didn't. Where is the crime? Besides, were John Harris and Jay Sigel ever really amateurs in the true sense of the word? I think not.

Ron,

Courville turned professional (teaching and playing some State Opens) so it is likely he will never captain a Walker Cup.
Kemp Richardson is a fine player but never having played on a Walker Cup would hurt his chances - as it probably should.

 -John

[Ronald Montesano]

Now, Bob, hold on one second.  As long as collegians/future pros are eligible for the Walker Cup USA side, there is nothing at all about "upholding what is right and good."  If you want THAT sort of team, have a USA v. GBI team match of mid-ams, but do not make the mistake of applying such lofty principles to the Walker Cup.

[Ronald Montesano]

Ron,

Courville turned professional (teaching and playing some State Opens) so it is likely he will never captain a Walker Cup.
Kemp Richardson is a fine player but never having played on a Walker Cup would hurt his chances - as it probably should.

 -John

I guess we're drawing a line then...if you have Walker Cup experience, then you have a right to be a captain.  If you don't, then you shan't (excepting exceptional circumstances.)

Please elaborate how John Harris and Jay Sigel were not "amateurs."  They were successful businessmen, but where did they commit some felony that placed their status at risk?  Elaboration, please.

[John Blain]

Harris and Sigel were indeed amateurs but "professional" amateurs. Not that there is anything wrong with that but these guys basically played a schedule not unlike a tour player.

To your other point, I think a Walker Cup captain should be an amateur - reinstated or not. If Jerry Courville remains a professional he should not be considered for captaincy - in my opinion.

-John

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

Do you think it is a good thing for golf in Philadelphia that every kid that can break an egg turns pro in their early - to - mid twenties and 95% of them turn amateur again a few years later?

Do you think the prospect of never regaining amateur status would effect the decision on the front end?   I do."


Sully:

I could not possibly imagine that the propect of never regaining one's amateur status would NOT effect the decision of a vast majority of those who now consider turning pro. I'm also not sure that influencing those kids not to turn pro in that manner has ever been the intention of the USGA but perhaps it should be. The ones I'm concerned about are those who would do it anyway and then realize it was a mistake for them. They would not be playing professional golf and amateur golf would never be open to them again. I see that as effectively marginalizing people the USGA may not want to marginalize.

Do you think some kind of perceived stigma should be attached to those reinstated amateurs who took money to play golf, even if briefly?

[TEPaul]

RonaldM:

Danny Green is an interesting character and at this point he has developed quite a career as an amateur. However, I most certainly do remember hearing (directly) the buzz amongst both spectators and it seems some USGA people when he was competing in the US Amateur at Merion quite a few years ago. I believe he got to the finals and lost to that really heavy fellow from South Carolina. It seemed some of the bigwigs were extremely concerned that he might win the amateur because they simply did not at all like what they believed he did for a living.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()