[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Fortson,

There are "pure" amateur golfers.

They're just not as good as the "non-pure" amateur golfers.

Many years ago, a USGA Exec Board Member, Arthur Rice I believe, felt that college scholarships voided an amateur's status as the value of that scholarship far exceeded the limits on renumeration as allowed by the USGA at the time.

I believe Arthur Rice's position may have furthered the advent of the Mid-Amateur since the U.S. Amateur was being dominated by college scholarship golfers.

To think that there are NO other candidates qualified to be the Walker Cup Captain, other than an individual who recently competed for about 8 years on the Senior PGA tour seems odd.

Certainly, there must be some amateurs between the ages of 30 and 60 who have had fine careers, who competed in numerous USGA events, who remained amateurs throughout their golfing career, who are poised and mature, who would make fine Captains.

But, again, noone solicited my opinion.

I just think that it's a choice that's contrary to the spirit of the event.

Then again, the Olympics devolved into a professional competition totally obliterating the spirit of amateur athletics.

[Jeff Fortson]

Tom Paul,

You're right.  After reading my last post I can see how my statement contradicts itself.  I should have said that maybe something should be done re: in similarity to tennis's system.  I do think that under the current policies of the USGA in regards to reinstating pros to amateur status that they are doing a fine job.  I hope that clears up what I was trying to say.


Pat,

Jeff Fortson,

There are "pure" amateur golfers.

They're just not as good as the "non-pure" amateur golfers.

Many years ago, a USGA Exec Board Member, Arthur Rice I believe, felt that college scholarships voided an amateur's status as the value of that scholarship far exceeded the limits on renumeration as allowed by the USGA at the time.

I believe Arthur Rice's position may have furthered the advent of the Mid-Amateur since the U.S. Amateur was being dominated by college scholarship golfers.

To think that there are NO other candidates qualified to be the Walker Cup Captain, other than an individual who recently competed for about 8 years on the Senior PGA tour seems odd.

Certainly, there must be some amateurs between the ages of 30 and 60 who have had fine careers, who competed in numerous USGA events, who remained amateurs throughout their golfing career, who are poised and mature, who would make fine Captains.

But, again, noone solicited my opinion.

I just think that it's a choice that's contrary to the spirit of the event.

Then again, the Olympics devolved into a professional competition totally obliterating the spirit of amateur athletics.

I don't know enough about Holtgrieve to comment on his selection.  Like I said in my first few posts, I am biased on this topic as I am a former pro currently in the process of amateur reinstatement so naturally I am on the side of any player receiving amateur status after being a pro should be welcomed back into the amateur world with full immunity. 

If this were the 1960's or 1970's (at least what I know about them from people that were involved with golf then) I would probably agree with the "purist" stance on this topic.  However, golf is in a much different place now.  I don't think it is necessary to regurgitate all the examples of how amateurs can receive money, goods, etc. without being considered a pro and how most good college players are basically like AAA Minor League baseball players waiting to get called up. 

Personally, I don't think a person should be ostracized forever for trying to chase a dream and failing.  Maybe if I had never turned pro I would feel the opposite but I most definitely would contribute being against pros getting their amateur status back due to a fear of many big fish jumping into my pond.  I guess that's as honest as I can put it.

Here's a potentially hypothetical question for you...

Bobby Jones's amateur status was yanked from him, if my mind serves me well, for doing those instructional videos.  Was he ever a Walker Cup Captain after that?  If not, do you think he should have been allowed if he had been asked?  Had he soiled his cloak of purity by accepting money for his knowledge of golf?  I am truly grateful he made those.  I think they are some of the best videos in golf history.  Just an interesting thought. 


Jeff F.

[Bill Shamleffer]

Here's a potentially hypothetical question for you...

Bobby Jones's amateur status was yanked from him, if my mind serves me well, for doing those instructional videos.  Was he ever a Walker Cup Captain after that?  If not, do you think he should have been allowed if he had been asked?  Had he soiled his cloak of purity by accepting money for his knowledge of golf?  I am truly grateful he made those.  I think they are some of the best videos in golf history.  Just an interesting thought. 


Jeff F.

Bobby Jones was playing-captain of the 1928 & 1930 teams.  Amazingly, Francis Ouimet was captain of the next six teams.  The four before WWII and the two after WWII.

[john_stiles]

Holtgrieve was one of the very best amateur players, and then played pretty well as a senior professional from 1998-2004, with little play in 2005.   His money ranking was 60th in 1999, then 64th, 49th, 59th, and finally 68th in last full year 2003 with 19 tourneys.  A very good, solid professional player who did not have a victory but still gathered a number of top ten finishes.

So, amateur status was re-gained in 2007.    After I read one section of the USGA reinstatement rules 9-2d,  you have to wonder to whom this would apply.

" d. Players of National Prominence  -  A player of national prominence who has been in breach of the Rules for more than five years is not normally eligible for reinstatement.  "

And now he can play in the Senior Amateur.  He has been reinstated as an amateur.  He can play in the Senior Amateur.   Looks like he entered the 2008 Senior Amateur.    He can play in the Senior Amateur ?   Incredible.

He certainly appeared to jump the line in the less than 10 items lane and then the hopped on the express lane to get on the fast track to become captain.

A great player for sure,   very well respected by certainly all,   but the USGA thought they should restore his amateur status.

I guess the professional tour is such that there are no longer any amateur players who can be Captain.   Was the amateur status all about the Walker Cup Captain ?

Buddy for a third, or George Zahringer were not in the cards ?    Or maybe it is time for a young captain like Trip.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Fortson,

One of golf's assets has been its ability to resist new wave glamor and glitz, choosing to preserve its traditions rather than cater to the recent trends and pressure from TV.

Integrity isn't something that changes because we're in the year 2008 versus the 50's, 60's or 70's.

Certain values endure.

Like the Olympics, amateur golf is oozing toward "professionalism"

I'd rather have 12 kids from college playing in the Olympics than the All Stars from the NBA.

Likewise, I'd rather have "pure" amateurs competing for the Walker Cup.

What's being lost by many, is the "spirit of the game" in the context of amateur golf.  

While I don't agree with Lynn Shackelford's view, I certainly understand it.
However, I'd like to see those with a "purer" love for the game compete in an amateur event.

To bring up a bad word in golf, "fair", how fair is it when someone whose vocation is that of an accountant, who plays golf as an avocation, competes with someone who spent five years devoted to playing golf to the exclusion of anything outside of the golf world ?

Is that a level playing field ?

Is that within the confines of the concept of "amateur" golf ?

I realize that a dilema exists when it comes to RI's.

They too are entitled to play and compete as amateurs, but, the USGA can maintain a standard that allows "pure" amateurs to represent the amateur contingent in the U.S. by selecting for the Walker Cup only those golfers who have been amateurs during their golfing entire career.

While I'm sure I'll be outvoted, I believe that a 5 year period should be required for golfers who played on a tour and 3 years for those who chose professional golf as an vocation and 2 years for those who accepted remuneration, in one form or another for a particular fete (hole in one).
While the playing field will never be leveled, it's not unreasonable to attempt to flatten the extremes.

While I'd like to see the U.S. win, I don't want to win at the expense of maintaining higher standards. and I don't want those standards to be compromised by fielding a  team of reinstated amateurs, at the playing or captaincy levels.

While some may decry that I'm living in the past, that's where all the wonderful traditions of golf evolved from.  

The presevation of those traditions is far more important than the outcome of any one event.

At what point/threshold do we compromise our standards and our integrity for the sake of winning ?

Some are content to win at any cost, I'm not.

John Stiles,

You made some excellent points.

I believe the USGA made a mistake/s

[JESII]

Tom,

I'm not pure, or trying to pretend to be. I thought my three year wait (the max, other than a lifetime ban) was fine. My only disappointment was that in the last 6 weeks of that 3 years we had the PA Amateur at HVCC and the US Amateur at Merion.



Why do you think the USGA relaxed their stance on reinstating amateur status in the last several years?

Do you think a continued trend of relaxing the rules would be a good thing for amateur golf?

[Bob_Huntley]

Pat,

I cannot think of a better anwer to the question of who should be eligible to captain the Walker Cup team.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"Bobby Jones's amateur status was yanked from him, if my mind serves me well, for doing those instructional videos.  Was he ever a Walker Cup Captain after that?  If not, do you think he should have been allowed if he had been asked?  Had he soiled his cloak of purity by accepting money for his knowledge of golf?  I am truly grateful he made those.  I think they are some of the best videos in golf history.  Just an interesting thought."


Jeff Fortson:

After forfeiting his amateur status Bob Jones never attemtped to get reinstated as an amateur as far as I know. And I don't believe any former Walker Cup captain has been anything other than a lifelong amateur golfer at the time he was a Walker Cup captain but I could be wrong about that. If I am it would seem this thread is sort of much ado about nothing over Holtgrieve's selection setting some kind of new precedent.  


But to go back to Bob Jones and his status following that video and the forfeiting of his amateur status, I suppose one could legitimately ask---what was his status actually for the rest of his life?

That's a pretty interesting question. It seems the circumstances of his amateur status forfeiting are a bit hazy and complicated. I had a man who knew Jones well, Skee Riegal, tell me that Jones did not actually tell the USGA that he was going to make that video. Riegal told me that not only did he not tell the USGA but that they had to go to him and ask him what in the hell did he think he was doing using his reputation as an amateur of great skill for that kind of remuneration (the video) and that he had to know that would automatical forfeit his amateur status.

Bob Crosby, for one, knows a whole lot more about Jones and his life and times than I do and he may say that Skee Riegal is wrong about this.

But Riegal went much farther than that when he told me this story (in a supermarket of all places). He also said that because Jones' amateur status was forfeited like that---it was that event that prompted him to retire from competitive golf altogether. He said Jones then told the USGA that he never wanted to PLAY golf for money and if he was going to be considered by the USGA to be a professional golfer then he was going to quit competitive golf altogether and he did just that.

The accuracy or lack of it of Riegal's story could be checked very easily, however, by simply finding out if Jones formally quit golf as he did BEFORE he decided that he was going to make that video for all that money.

Unfortunately I don't know how to check the dates of those two events against one another but I'm pretty sure someone like Bob Crosby does and can.

But again, if Jones's status as an amateur golfer was forfeited and he said he did not ever wish to PLAY golf as a professional, then what exactly was his status for the rest of his life? Good question! Obviously the USGA viewed him technically as a professional but it seems like Jones did not want to think of himself that way but obviously he could never play in another amateur competition but he never played in a professional one for pay either.

[JSlonis]

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

How can you not see a distinction between a "Club" Professional or an Asst. Club Professional and a Professional Golfer(Tour level).  The two jobs are totally different, and the skill set of actually playing the game are miles apart.  While there are a good amount of PGA Club Pro's who are outstanding players, they can't begin to compare with a Tour level professional.  In my view, the USGA has to look quite differently at the reinstatement of a PGA Club Professional who has worked in the business for 5 years compared with someone who played on the Nationwide/PGA Tour for 5 years.  The USGA has in the past made a distinction that success in the game and success monetarily has a bearing on your reinstatement.

There are different levels to professionalism in many sports.  There are a lot of guys kicking around at the Single A level in baseball who never make it to the Major Leagues, but I suppose they're still called professional baseball players.  The difference between a Club Pro and Touring Pro is much more vast than that.

[TEPaul]

"Why do you think the USGA relaxed their stance on reinstating amateur status in the last several years?"


Sully:

I just don't know. I could guess but it would just be speculation. I could probably try to ask some of those I know on the USGA, on the Exec Committee or those on the Exec Committee who are on the "Amateur Status" Committee but I doubt I'd get a clear answer, but who knows, maybe I would. I have got to think that the reasons behind relaxing the reinstatement period and relaxing what constitutes the violations of the USGA's "Amateur Status" Rules had to have been discussed and at length in that committee and on the board level because we surely do know those Rules have been both relaxed and rewritten in recent years.




"Do you think a continued trend of relaxing the rules would be a good thing for amateur golf?"


I just don't know, Sully, but to me it is an absolutely enormous question and issue and one that certainly could dramatically alter the future of not just the USGA but also the future of golf, depending of course on what they decide to do in the future as well as the way the world of potential competitive golfers goes in the future.

I do know one thing though, and that is the world of professionalism and commercialism in golf is just so very different than it used to be when these USGA "Amateur Status" Rules, procedures and philosophy was first created. It is so much bigger and more powerful and prevalent now and it is all around the USGA and the R&A like it never was before.

So what are they going to do? What can they do? I know they can't stop it. I doubt they can even slow it down. They can go along with these realities and do what they seem to be doing or they can turn their back on these realities as if they were not happening and go back to the way things once were in the world of golf but clearly are no longer.

In my opinion, what the USGA and R&A do in the future in the areas of not just amateur status but PARTICULARLY I&B which they also control in golf, are completely huge issues that could mean their survival or not at some point as well as what the game will be like in the future.

This idea of "open" golf which is the road tennis took may be an option but I do not understand at this point what it is or really means, and certainly not in the context of the philosophy of "amateurism" as golf, the USGA and the R&A think of it or once did.

I wish someone would try to tell me what an "open" system would mean in the context of amateurism and professionalism in golf.

[TEPaul]

"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."





There are so many contradictions in that statement I can't even begin to count them all. Sean, if you really don't care about this 'stuff' then why do you feel the need to even comment on it?

[JESII]

Bobby Jones captained the inaugural Eisenhower Cup U.S. team at St. Andrews in 1958.

[BCrosby]

Sully - Did Jones have to be an amateur to captain that team?

Tom/Sully - You guys raise a good question. I don't think Jones' status vis a vis the USGA was ever resolved after he retired. My impression was that Jones didn't care. He made films, designed and promoted golf clubs for Spalding, appeared in some advertising and wrote books for big advance fees and so forth.

On the other hand he never tried to play in another tournament where his status mattered.

Remember in the mid-20's the USGA beat him up pretty good about accepting a house from some friends in Atlanta. There was a big stink. So his grandfather - Big Bob - said fine, give the house back, I'll loan you the money for the purchase price and you pay me back at the rate of $1.00 per year until paid in full. And that's what happened. (I've few doubts that Big Bob went back to the same group of friends and asked them to participate in the loan.) And the USGA was happy. Very odd.

He might have been reinstated at some point, but if so it was probably on an honorary basis. I don't think Jones took any affirmative steps to make it happen, but would love to see any info to the contrary. A way to check into it might be to see if he ever served on a USGA committe after he retired.

Bob 

[JESII]

I don't know Bob, I was just throwing that into the mix as a precedent in support of this conversation about Jim Hotgrieve.

I really have no idea what his status was officially at the time.

I think it is interesting that he never pursued reinstatement...

[TEPaul]

Guys:

Very good point about Jones captaining the Eisenhower Cup in 1958. I hate to ask a stupid question but the Eisenhower Cup or at least our US team for it has always been under the auspices of the USGA, hasn't it?

[john_stiles]

The sponsor was the  World Amateur Golf Council and is now under International Golf Federation.  These are comprised of the national governing bodies (USGA).   

WAGC/IGF was started by USGA and the present offfice is in Far Hills.

All players must be amateur players under Rules of Amateur Status of the R&A or USGA.   Nothing about Captains.

From the IGF website,

"   The USGA has received too many invitations for international matches against individual countries to possibly be able to attend them all.  "

"  January, 1958:

The USGA Executive Committee, discussing yet another of these generous invitations – this time from Japan – proposes that it's time an international team competition be established so that all countries can take part in these types of events.

March, 1958:

Representatives from the USGA go to Scotland to discuss the idea with representatives from the R&A.  The concept is enthusiastically received.

May, 1958:

Representatives from 35 countries meet in Washington, D.C., hosted by the USGA and the R&A, to establish the World Amateur Golf Council, so that it may conduct the World Amateur Team Championship.  The meeting is arranged through cooperation with Pan American Airlines and the U.S. Department of State, and the trips of all attendees are funded by an anonymous group, the Friends of American Golf.  President Dwight D. Eisenhower welcomes the group in the White House Rose Garden.  The Council is begun with 32 Member Organizations and governing Articles are established.   "

[JESII]

John,

That's certainly a better answer to Tom's question than what I had planned...

"I think so Tom"

[TEPaul]

John:

Thanks for that info. The original Eisenhower Cup, the World Amateur Team championship etc seems to be under the auspices of the USGA and other world amateur organizations.

Bob Jones was the captain of the first Eisenhower Cup team for the USA and I doubt anyone could say Jones was an amateur at that point or ever had his amateur status formally reinstated as Holtgrieve has. I went through a lot of this history and background material on some websites as you did and lastly, as you noted in your post, none of it says a thing about the necessity that a non-playing captain must be or is recommended to be an amateur or certainly a lifelong amateur.

In the eyes of the USGA and R&A and their fairly unified Rules on Amateur Status there also seems to be no distinction whatsoever between a reinstated amateur and what might be called a lifelong amateur.

It is also interesting to see in the R&A's book on "Amateur Status" Rules that an amateur golfer who, for instance receives a very large value prize for a hole in one or whatever, does forfeit his amateur status but is not considered to be a professional golfer. The R&A's site actually said he would basically be considered in "no-man's land". The British always have had a pretty sly sense of humour.

It is additionally interesting to see what the USGA/R&A "Amateur Status" Rules consider to be a golfer of "skill and reputation".

I should also point out that as an amateur golfer involved in golf administration via the boards of GAP and the PA Golf Association, it looks like I could never violate any of these amateur status Rules by accepting bribes of cases of really good red wine for favors rendered regarding amateur status issues to amateur golfers and amateur status reinstatment applicants, so if anyone would like me to list on here where you all can send cases of really good red wine for services rendered in that vein, I would be glad to do that for you. Lastly, all requests for favors rendered must include prepayment and there are no guarantees whatsoever inferred. I am TEPaul and I endorse this statement.

[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

How can you not see a distinction between a "Club" Professional or an Asst. Club Professional and a Professional Golfer(Tour level).  The two jobs are totally different, and the skill set of actually playing the game are miles apart.  While there are a good amount of PGA Club Pro's who are outstanding players, they can't begin to compare with a Tour level professional.  In my view, the USGA has to look quite differently at the reinstatement of a PGA Club Professional who has worked in the business for 5 years compared with someone who played on the Nationwide/PGA Tour for 5 years.  The USGA has in the past made a distinction that success in the game and success monetarily has a bearing on your reinstatement.

There are different levels to professionalism in many sports.  There are a lot of guys kicking around at the Single A level in baseball who never make it to the Major Leagues, but I suppose they're still called professional baseball players.  The difference between a Club Pro and Touring Pro is much more vast than that.

Jamie

Of course I can distinguish the difference between tour players and club pros, but they are both pros and I don't see why one type of pro should be favoured for amateur reinstatement over another type of pro.  I don't see why the success of a pro should count against him when trying for reinstatement.  As I say, at the end of the day I don't really care, but the USGA is on a seriously slippery slope which further blurs the line between amateurs and pros.  It would be much more simple to have a rule and stick to it and if I were in charge this is what I would lobby for. 

Ciao

[john_stiles]

TP,

It would be a surprise if any mention was made of the requirements for a captain.     It would seem natural that an amateur would be selected as captain for Walker Cup and without a doubt,  Jim Holtgrieve is now a reinstated amateur.

Being reinstated in 2007,  with his solid professional career, and so soon after his professional career, is simply incredible.   The Champions Tour  qualification is very difficult for non-champions to make, and then difficult to stay on the Tour. 

It just seems that the USGA's judgement for reinstatement doesn't fit the amateur status rules, especially when you have rule 9-2d.   " Players of National Prominence  -  A player of national prominence who has been in breach of the Rules for more than five years is not normally eligible for reinstatement."

And I realize it is the  'not normally'  that is the only possible explanation.

He might be emminently qualified and someday even be President of the USGA but then read 9-2d,  I just don't see how such a qualified professional could enter the US Senior Amateur so soon after his long professional career.

Substitute any other wonderful person's name who I admire, and my thought would be the same.

Maybe,  the rules committee needs to issue a decision with respect to 9-2d.    

Yikes !    Your mind really starts to spin when you read the amateur status 'rules.'

[Patrick_Mucci]

TP,

It would be a surprise if any mention was made of the requirements for a captain.     It would seem natural that an amateur would be selected as captain for Walker Cup and without a doubt,  Jim Holtgrieve is now a reinstated amateur.

Being reinstated in 2007,  with his solid professional career, and so soon after his professional career, is simply incredible.   The Champions Tour  qualification is very difficult for non-champions to make, and then difficult to stay on the Tour. 

It just seems that the USGA's judgement for reinstatement doesn't fit the amateur status rules, especially when you have rule 9-2d.   " Players of National Prominence  -  A player of national prominence who has been in breach of the Rules for more than five years is not normally eligible for reinstatement."



John Stiles,

I wonder why the USGA made such a significant exception ?

Did they issue a comment when amateur reinstatement was granted in 2007 ?

And I realize it is the  'not normally'  that is the only possible explanation.

He might be emminently qualified and someday even be President of the USGA but then read 9-2d,  I just don't see how such a qualified professional could enter the US Senior Amateur so soon after his long professional career.

Substitute any other wonderful person's name who I admire, and my thought would be the same.

Maybe,  the rules committee needs to issue a decision with respect to 9-2d.    

Yikes !    Your mind really starts to spin when you read the amateur status 'rules.'

[TEPaul]

John Stiles:

The words "not normally" in the "Amateur Status" Rules (9-2d) are probably not the words in question here. The words to consider is what the USGA's "Amateur Status" Committee means by "National Promenance" or means by "National Prominence" in the case of Jim Holtgrieve's amateur reinstatement. Like a lot of the "Rules" of the USGA, including their playing Rules, they do not necessarily provide hard and fast, black and white and cut and dried definitions for what some of those terms they use mean. Some of them are pretty much dealt with and considered on a case by case, incident by incident, subject by subject basis. That's the way it's always been with the USGA and they have always been pretty clear about it when it comes to the interpretation of various situations in the context of their various "Rules".

Their decisions on these things, therefore, may not exactly conform to your opinion or my opinion or Patrick Mucci's opinion of what some of these kinds of things mean.

Patrick is right about one thing, though, and that is they did not ask for his opinion on this matter. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Stiles:

The words "not normally" in the "Amateur Status" Rules (9-2d) are probably not the words in question here.

Of course they are.

The words to consider is what the USGA's "Amateur Status" Committee means by "National Promenance" or means by "National Prominence" in the case of Jim Holtgrieve's amateur reinstatement.

Are you now going to tell us that it depends on what the definition of the word "is" is ?

Defining or better yet, understanding the meaning of the words "National Prominance" is fairly simple to even those who spent five years in the fourth grade, such as yourself.

Like a lot of the "Rules" of the USGA, including their playing Rules, they do not necessarily provide hard and fast, black and white and cut and dried definitions for what some of those terms they use mean.

Please, the language is clear, or cut and dried, or black and white, or hard and fast, or however you want to categorize it. 

Please have your faithful companion, Coorshaw read the rule and explain the words to you.

Some of them are pretty much dealt with and considered on a case by case, incident by incident, subject by subject basis.

Holtgrieve's application for Amateur Reinstatement is a case/incident/subject specific basis.
That's what John Stiles is talking about, not some nebulous, vague, abstract, esoteric ruling you twit.

That's the way it's always been with the USGA and they have always been pretty clear about it when it comes to the interpretation of various situations in the context of their various "Rules".

Thanks for the Al Kelly lesson in doublespeak.
But, John's point remains unaddressed.

Their decisions on these things, therefore, may not exactly conform to your opinion or my opinion or Patrick Mucci's opinion of what some of these kinds of things mean.

Please, this is a straight forward issue.
It's not complicated or difficult to grasp.
To blindly defend the USGA's action without presenting a reasonable explanation while offering some generalized mumbo-jumbo is called obfuscation.

Patrick is right about one thing, though, and that is they did not ask for his opinion on this matter. 

That's probably because they could figure out what it was and disagreed with it.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I'm so glad you made that last post, as I expected you to. There is no reason to quote it or any of it because in its entirety you are simply wrong.

The basis of a whole lot of the USGA's "Rules" on a number of things including their playing Rules and their Amateur Status Rules are simply open to interpretation and that is precisely WHY they do not bother to create exact and specific definitions for them. There is a reason for that and a very good one that apparently has escaped you (and a lot of others) and will continue to.

So, then, whose interpretation are some of those Rules and the wording in them open to? It is only open to those on the USGA Amateur Status Committee and those on the board level that the Amateur Status Committee takes their decisions and recommendations to.

If you don't believe me on this point, then just take the time to read the Rules on Amateur status as well as some of the playing Rules, particularly Rule 33.

I would have to say in the case of Jim Holtgrieve, the USGA Amateur Status Committee and the Board level probably did not consider Holtgrieve to be a player of "National Prominence". Did you happen to notice they have not included in their Amateur Status Rules what that specifically means?? Have you ever asked yourself why that is? Apparently not.

This all goes to the most salient point of all about some of the USGA's "Rules" and that is if you really want to know what they mean in any specific circumstance the best thing to do, the only thing to do, is not just assume you know what they mean, but to call them up and ask them what they mean in any specific circumstance.

That is the way to do it, Patrick; it always is and it always has been. And that is why they (the USGA Amateur Status Committee and the Board level) did not and do not ask for YOUR OPINION!

Their interpretation, their opinion and their decision is all that matters and if you don't understand even that just call them up and ask them why that is with these matters and why that is all that does matter. You may not agree with some of their interpretations and opinions and decisions but that doesn't matter either. 

It just amazes me that as long as you've been around the USGA you do not yet understand this because it has been that way as long as the USGA has had Rules.

[JESII]

John and Pat,

The reinstatement Rule was re-written at some point in the last 5 years. Previously, it did not make a distinction as to the time frame an individual played professionally with respect to any waiting period or eligibility for reinstatement. I suspect, if Jim was reinstated in early 2007 that his application was submitted and reviewed and ruled upon prior to the current ruling being written...someone will be able to clarify the date of the re-write.

As to his professional playing record garnering "national prominence", I would say the USGA has a pretty simple precedent set on that. Dillard Pruitt won a PGA Tour event

Quoted from a PGA Tour Profile / Q&A page:

Editor's note: PGA TOUR Tournament Official Dillard Pruitt has seen the game from both sides. He played the PGA TOUR from 1988-96 and won the 1991 Chattanooga Classic. He now works as a PGA TOUR rules official and will share his knowledge weekly with PGATOUR.com viewers.

I don't think 60th place on the Senior Tour Money list qualifies for national prominence, although it is certainly admirable.


For what it's worth, I agree that "National Prominence" are the key words in this ruling.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()