[TEPaul]

"Purity" was probably a poor choice of words.My point was that it seems like Walker Cup captain should be reserved for those who've constantly embodied the definition of "amateur".

How one defines amateur is another discussion."


JM:

On the second point first, how one defines amateur as far as maintaining one's amateurism or having it reinstated is only for the USGA "Amateur Status" Committee to consider and decide on. That is stated very clearly in the USGA's "Amateur Statues" Rules.

In the decision making by the USGA's "Amateur Status" Committee there is apparently no such thing for an amateur golfer or Walker Cup captain selection that contemplates or talks about anyone "constantly" being or embodying an "amateur" golfer. If that were the case they probably wouldn't have an "Amateur Status" reinstatement policy and procedure, something they always have had, by the way.


Another thing to consider because it apparently really bothers some lifelong competitive amateur golfers and seemingly some on here; and that is this whole idea that a golfer who has played professionally or has simply been a professional and becomes a "reinstated amateur" in some way exercises an advantage competitively over life-long amateur golfers.

This may be the case in various ways and this is exactly why the USGA has what is known as the "waiting period" (rarely less than a year and sometimes more than two years) for formerly professional golfers to regain their amateur status and during this "waiting period" the amateur reinstatement applicant can do nothing which violates the USGA's Rules on "Amateur Status". This philosophy and logic can also be found in the USGA "Amateur Status" Rules.
 

[JESII]

"I don't think in terms of a stigmatizing pros or ex-pros, but I think the decision can be taken lightly if the consequences continue to be marginalized for the sake of inclusion."


Sully:

Do you think the decision by Holtgrieve (to turn senior pro) was taken lightly and that the consequences were marginalized either when he turned pro or when he got his amateur status back and was then selected as the next Walker Cup captain? If so, who do you think was marginalizing the consequences for the sake of inclusion? Do you think it was the USGA marginalizing the consequences for the sake of inclusion?

Tom,

Please take note of my comments stating I think Jim Holtgrieve is a great selection. Also note that I have no issue with his current status as an amateur golfer...hell, I couldn't very well, could I...this is all just for the sake of discussion...right...

As to his decision making process...obviously a stone guess...I would bet he decided he had accomplished everything he was going to as an amateur and was willing to forego any further opportunities when, at age 50 or so, he turned profefssional.


Who do I think "marginalized the consequences"?

As I said early in this thread, the USGA has seemingly eased their restrictions on reinstating amateur status and I am not sure why, but I do not think it is a good thing.

[TEPaul]

"As I said early in this thread, the USGA has seemingly eased their restrictions on reinstating amateur status and I am not sure why, but I do not think it is a good thing."


Sully:

Do you really? I'm not aware that the USGA has eased their Rules or procedures on reinstating amateur status and I sure have seen plenty of applications come through the process in the last twenty years. There is the exception now and then which might get a lot of notice and criticism like that tour pro who was reinstated in the last 2-3 years who had actually won on tour and had a pretty lucrative career as long as it lasted? What was his name? Was it Brandel Chamblis?

I look at that as an exception and not exactly the USGA relaxing the "Amateur Status" reinstatement Rules or process. That kind of thing with Chamblis (if that was who it was) falls under Rule 9-2d (Players of National Prominence) of the USGA "Amateur Status" Rules under the "Reinstatement" section. Should Chamblis have been considered a player of "national prominence" which would have precluded him under the USGA's Amateur Status Rules of being reinstated as an amateur? Personally, I think he should've been considered by the USGA as a player of national prominence in the context of this particular Amateur Status Rule particularly since he did win on the PGA Tour.

What you may be thinking of though, is that area of USGA "Amateur Status" Rules that has to do with what constitutes a violation of amateur status. That area of the "Amateur Status" Rules has definitely been relaxed in the last few years but that has nothing to do directly with the Rules or process of "Amateur Status" reinstatement.

The first has to do with how a golfer can violate the Amateur Status Rules and lose his amateur status and the second has to do with how a golfer who is not an amateur can have his amateur status reinstated.

[JESII]

Tom,

What I am thinking of is that up until 5 or 6 years ago the standard waiting period was 2 years with circumstances dictating an increase or decrease of 1 year from that.

If a player played "extensively for prize money" they were likely to get a 3 year wait, as Jeff Fortson seems to have. In the last few years that was softened to be typically 1 year waiting period for 5 year and under professionals and 2 years for 5 years or longer...also with the caveat that the USGA can make the waiting period longer or shorter as they see fit.

Are you suggesting that this was not a softening of the rule?

While I think a 3 year waiting period was appropriate for me, if I had applied a couple of years later my waiting period would have likely been 2 years.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Regarding your last post about the "waiting period" for reinstatement, looking back in some old Rule books and comparing that section to today's section on that issue it would appear to me that the reinstatement period probably has been relaxed. I can see that that section of the "Amateur Status" Rules has been rewritten at some point between 2000-2001 and today.


"While I think a 3 year waiting period was appropriate for me, if I had applied a couple of years later my waiting period would have likely been 2 years."





My Dear Young J. Sullivan Jr:

I've heard you say that a number of times and a number of times I've told you if you wanted to get your amateur status back a whole lot quicker (like in 60 days) than you did all you had to do was buy me a couple of cases of really good red wine. You seem very interested in investigating the ramifications behind what's been going on the the USGA's "Amateur Status" reinstatement Rules, but My GOD man have you never heard of good old fashioned BRIBERY??

And just think what it could've meant to you. Instead of just two Pennsylvania Mid-Am championships you might now have four of them and maybe a couple of State amateur championships and a State Open Championship thrown in for good measure! The opportunity was there for you to seriously beat up on lifelong amateurs for up to two years more and previous to the time you did and you apparently completely overlooked it.

There are ways and there are ways, Sully. My philosophy on these things is completely encompassed in that eternally wise remark you hear the likes of Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock use constantly. That remark is, of course, "WHAT IT IS." 

[Bill Shamleffer]

BillS:

[ ]

"I do not know if a Walker Cup player has ever been a reinstated professional."

Frankly I don't either and that's a very good question. Of course we could find the answer to that but off the top of my head I can't think of one. However, I have never known of any amateur status Rule or Regulation that addressed this point.

I thought of one.  David Eger played on a Walker Cup as a reinstated amateur.  (I guess Mr. Eger should now be classified as a "reinstated professional".  )

[TEPaul]

You know young Sullivan Jr, you really are an odd duck. Are you actually trying to convince me and others on here that you are so "pure" of spirit when it comes to golf and amateurism (even of the reinstated variety that some on here seem to think should carry the stigmata of a Venetian courtesan  ) that you do not think a couple of really good cases of red wine are worth up to potentially 3-4 additional Pennsylvania State Amateur and Mid-Amateur championships and even perhaps a State Open championship as an amateur thrown in for good measure?

Do you even realize if those two young amateurs, Davis and Van Sickle, each of whom won the Pa State Open in the last two years had not supplied me with various cases of really good red wine I would've found some way to remove their amateur status from them both some years ago?

I do admit I was somewhat touched when I told Kyle Davis as a really up and coming 15 year old that he needed to get on an annual really good red wine bribery program and he said to me; "Do you mean I have to do that as a 15 year old teenage junior amateur?" I told him if he couldn't buy it then just get his parents to and to not take it personally because as Tony Soprano would say; "It's just business, kid."

[TEPaul]

"I thought of one.  David Eger played on a Walker Cup as a reinstated amateur.  (I guess Mr. Eger should now be classified as a "reinstated professional".  ) "

BillS:

There you go. Good find, and we may even get that personally confirmed as I see that David Eger is back contributing on here again occasionally. But on the other hand, maybe he won't confirm it. I was emailing with him a bit recently but it seems like he's cut that off all of a sudden. He may've smelled a rat in the house. Maybe he just realized he too owes me a couple of cases of really good red wine from a decade or more ago.
 
 
 

[JohnV]

You can only be reinstated once so David can't get his amateur status back again.

Holtgrieve built the reputation that got him named during his amateur career.  If he had built it as a pro, I might be less inclined to think he should be captain.

Typically the wait for reinstatement is from the last time the player played for money or accepted money as a club pro or teaching pro.  Since players frequently wait a year or two to apply, their wait can be pretty short.

The interesting thing about Holtgrieve and others turning 50 and trying the Champions Tour is that with the age for the US Senior Am and many other senior events being 55, a lot of guys can give the CT a shot and then get back to amateur golf about the time they can move into the senior amateur golf ranks.

One good change in the USGA policies is that a player can try Q-School without turning pro until they qualify for the tour.  This lets a lot of guys stay amateur.  In the past a lot of guys became pros simply by applying for q-school so a lot of reinstatements are for guys who were not pros for a long time or with any real success.

[TEPaul]

"You can only be reinstated once so David can't get his amateur status back again."




JohnV:

This is actually what the Am Status Rule on reinstatement (9-2c) now says:

"A person is not normally eligible to be reinstated more than twice."

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Do you know why that was probably changed? When the USGA had the old policy of not more than once the Senior Tour did not exist and so now that it does the USGA has become more merciful and concluded that if they forgave you a mistake as a young guy then they should also forgive you a mistake as an old guy in case you forgot why you thought it was a mistake to act like a "Venetian Courtesan" with the pure spirit of golf when you were a young guy and didn't like it as a "filthy lucre" seeking professional golfer.

Their latest "Am Status" reinstatment Rule on the number of times you can be reinstated is affectionately called at Far Hills; "The New Three Strikes and You're Definitely OUT!" policy.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

reinstated amateur as a Walker Cupper

I think Mitch Voges
amateur as a junior
pro in his twenties
U.S. Amateur champion, Walker Cupper with Eger
pro trying for Senior Tour
amateur playing in U.S. Senior Amateur
I rest my case for the silliness of this amateur/pro stuff.

[John Blain]

You can throw in John Harris and Duke Delcher as former professional golfers who retained their amateur status and went on to play in the Walker Cup...

That's just off the top my head. There may be more.

 -John

[Jeff Fortson]

The days of some form of "pure amateur" golf are over.  With players being allowed to have entries paid for them or waived, college students receiving free education for their golfing prowess, and amateurs having access to free equipment, script (aka money) and access to golf courses they don't have to pay for, all bankrupt the well intended argument of people choosing to play for money.

Why is it that 9 out of every 10 (I could be wrong on this stat but I'm sure I'm not far off) players on U.S. Walker Cup Teams eventually turn pro?  Should they be considered Amateurs?  Aren't they receiving free equipment, tuition and access to golf courses? The days of even mentioning a desire to turn pro affecting your status is over.  I think Lynn made a great point re: Tennis's open system on page 1 of this thread.  I'm not advocating an exact replica but something needs to be done.  If the USGA is willing to reinstate someone's amateur status that person should be welcomed back.  

Obviously, a line needs to be drawn.  I know there are players that should never be allowed to come back and I think that line should be drawn on PGA Tour Status/money earned as a professional.  So far, I think the USGA is doing a fine job of navigating this slippery slope.


Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

JP:

Yeah, and then I think both Harris and Delcher became Senior Tour pros.


Lynn:

You know on some reflection I've just been feeling so damn good about myself since this thread started and I see how many feel so strongly that playing golf for money makes you pretty much akin to a "Venetian Courtesan."

It was not until this thread began that I realized how wonderful I am and how pure of spirit I am to have been a lifelong  pure amateur golfer.

Man, I feel great and I plan on taking that feeling to the course too even when I play like shit! 

[John Blain]

Delcher remained an amateur after the Walker Cup and plays in amateur events on a regular basis...

-John

[TEPaul]

Jeff Fortson:

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say in post #88.

In one paragraph you said you think something needs to be done and in the next paragraph you say you think the USGA has done a good job with Amateur Status (and they are the only ones who deal with that and ever have).

Didn't you contradict yourself? If you think the USGA has done and is doing a good job with amateur status (even on a slippery slope) then what else do you think they should do now? 

Furthermore, Lynn mentioned earlier that golf should follow tennis' "open" system. I guess on reflection I may not understand exactly what that is. Does that mean there is no "amateur status" in tennis any longer, as there is in golf, and any tennis player can play for pay with no consequences to his playing status or to the concept of amateurism?

[Dean Stokes]

This thread took me back to some thoughts I had after watching the US Am on tv this summer.

I wondered if we will ever see an amateur champion over the age of 22 again?

To compete and succeed in that event you would pretty much have to be playing 'full-time' amateur golf. Once you leave college and take a job then you do not have enough time to practise and play competitive events to compete with the college kids.

Any thoughts?

[Peter Pallotta]

I keep reading this thread with much interest, even though I have no stake in it. I'm not sure why.  But I think JES made an interesting point that hasn't really been picked up on, i.e. that Mr. Holtgrieve is a good choice for captain because of the skill set/characteristics he brings to leading an
"increasingly young team in a manner every one of us can appreciate."

I'm trying to decide whether the USGA is making an enlightened choice and symbolic gesture here, one that recognizes both the fundamental change in the nature of amateur sport world-wide, and the never-before-so-extreme disparity in the skill-level between professional and amateur golfers.

Peter

[john_stiles]

Dean,

I think to win the US Amateur, you would be better off staying in school and being paid,  err, on scholarship and playing golf full time.  When you leave college, you are no longer paid to play golf and your practice time can take a real hit.

Or maybe you could be paid by your nation's golf program and maybe win the US Amateur.

Besides, you can sell the cool gifts and equipment you get at every college event to make a little dough on the side.  

[TEPaul]

"To compete and succeed in that event you would pretty much have to be playing 'full-time' amateur golf. Once you leave college and take a job then you do not have enough time to practise and play competitive events to compete with the college kids.

Any thoughts?"


Dean:

That's true and it has been for some decades now. I don't really know the stories on most of the US Amateur champions over the last couple of decades but the last big career amateur gun in that competition who was older was probably Jay Sigel who won it twice in something like three years back in the 1980s. He may've been the last of the US Amateur champions who was a real career amateur but he too turned senior pro when he was 50. Another one I used to know was Canada's Gary Cowan who won the US Amateur twice when it was at stroke play. He was a career amateur but he too turned senior pro when he was 50.

I don't know that the USGA needs to worry about this though, and frankly because college age players most all of which were and are on their way to the pro ranks were so dominating the US Amateur starting back before 1980 that the USGA decided to start the US Mid-Amateur Championships for the career amateurs that once had been competitive in the US Amateur.

Pat Mucci can tell us all about that because apparently he had a real hand in setting up the idea of the US Mid-Am which began back in 1980 or 1981.

Coincidental to this particular thread, Jim Holtrgrieve won the FIRST US Mid-Am championship and remained a career amateur and very successful one until he turned fifty.

[TEPaul]

"I keep reading this thread with much interest, even though I have no stake in it. I'm not sure why.  But I think JES made an interesting point that hasn't really been picked up on, i.e. that Mr. Holtgrieve is a good choice for captain because of the skill set/characteristics he brings to leading an
"increasingly young team in a manner every one of us can appreciate."

I'm trying to decide whether the USGA is making an enlightened choice and symbolic gesture here, one that recognizes both the fundamental change in the nature of amateur sport world-wide, and the never-before-so-extreme disparity in the skill-level between professional and amateur golfers."



Peter:

Hmmm. Are you saying you wonder if the USGA is both going with reality here (that so many of their career amateurs became senior tour pros) and that since the USGA recognizes that most of their Walker Cup teams in the past couple of decades and  these days and obviously into the future will be young amateurs about to go pro anyway that the best thing to do is bring in an old career amateur with a good Walker Cup record that also became a professional tour golfer as a senior?



That is certainly one way of looking at this selection and this thread but there is no question a lot of people on here just do not think that someone who has had anything to do with being a professional player should be selected to lead a USGA team of amateurs. Some even seem to suggest a reinstated amateur should not even be considered a real amateur or a pure amateur.

That last point gets into some pretty controversial issues, in my opinion.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE -
I guess it was a pretty obvious point, huh?

But I did leave out the other side of my wondering - the purists' angle...which comes pretty naturally to me, but which I have a hard time expressing when real people are involved...

Peter

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Your statement of "A Pro is a pro, is a pro." simply isn't the case.  There are many different levels and careers in "professional" golf. 

A local Golf Professional and a Tour level "Professional Golfer" are totally different. 

I worked in the Club Professional business for a few years after college.  I didn't care for the business and applied for reinstatement.  This is quite different from someone who played golf on the Mini Tours, Nationwide Tour or PGA Tour.  In my view, the reinstatement of guys from both fields should be looked at quite differently.  In recent years it seems as if the USGA has greenlighted reinstatements fairly quickly to guys who played an extensive amount on different tours.

I had to wait 2 years to play Amateur golf again and there are now guys who have previously played on the PGA tour who have been reinstated in the same amount of time.  There is something inconsistent with the entire system.

Jamie

I disagree.  The degree of success on tour or as a club pro has no bearing on whether you are pro or not.  Some pros do better than others financially - does this mean the pros at the bottom of the heap aren't pro?  You either are pro or not, despite the USGA badly bluring the line.  Its stuff like our semi pro college kids being accepted as ams that make me think why have any pretense and just eliminate the amateur/pro divide.  For me, I prefer to keep things cut and dry for this sort of stuff.  I don't like the subjectiveness involved because I believe it leaves doors open for corruption or the appearance of such.  However, I believe the meaning of "amateur" is changing in my lifetime.  I now think that amateur can mean to some, that being paid is acceptable so long as it is regulated much more than what we think of as a pro.    

I don't have a problem per se with pros coming back into the amateur ranks because it doesn't effect me - sort of like I don't really care that pros hit the ball a mile, it doesn't effect me.  My only beef is with the philosophy behind allowing guys to change back.  It makes decisions for kids too easy and many aren't realistic, but they don't have to be right away because they can always get reinstated.  Its part of the coddling kids get in our society and part of the reason we have 30 year olds who haven't grown up.  On the other hand, it seems strange that a bunch of blue suits can decide one's golf future based on a decision made at 20 or whatever.  

As I say, I don't really care about this stuff, but it would be lovely to have high level comps purely for proper ams, but I am probably in the minority.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"TE -
I guess it was a pretty obvious point, huh?"



No Peter, I don't think it was obvious. I've been following this thread really closely (how can you tell? ) and I didn't exactly pick up on it.



"But I did leave out the other side of my wondering - the purists' angle...which comes pretty naturally to me, but which I have a hard time expressing when real people are involved..."




The "purist" angle?

On this thread I don't think the word or idea of "purist" is being used in any kind of golf architectural way. The use of the word "purist" in this thread is more cultural, and I think as such it can be and will be probably both controversial and "hot".

I think this thread gets more to the "quick" of what some on this website really feel and frankly don't really like to say on here.

But this thread has brought some of it out----there's no doubt of it, in my opinion.

In my opinion, there are some on this website who know a ton more about this overall subject and its history than most all the contributors on this thread to date and for one reason or another just don't want to get involved in this thread.

I hope they will and I think they should. I think they need to as they have a lot to say and even if this thread is at three pages now they can take it higher and to a whole lot more intelligent or at least realistic level.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()