[TEPaul]

Wooof. I have never seen an attack in print quite like Golf Magazine (and apparently the other three national golf magazines) laid on the USGA over the amateur status violation situation of particularly Ouimet but then Travis.


It's in the three issues of Feb, March and April of 1917. I don't know how to post them but you should take a look----absolutely scathing and the larger issue of whether a national golf association should lead its constituency or follow the will and opinion of its constituency also seems to be clearly raised.

It almost makes me wonder if or how the entire concept of "amateurism" should be viewed at any point in time.


By the way, I'm going to keep digging to see if we can get a clearer picture where Macdonald stood on all this or through all this; it may be pretty interesting and telling.

[PCCraig]

It's crazy considering all he did was open a sporting goods store in downtown boston! Tame by todays standard of course.

However back would you say most high profile Amateur golfers were very well off? Versus Francis who was not as much?

[Lyne Morrison]

Ouimet   -- please

TEPaul - umay look to the left to my icon to view whom ouimet be discussing.


Upheaval was typical of the transition from amateur to professional bodies was it not? I seem to recall there was a big deal made over Rod Laver and Ken Rosewell becoming tennis pros - but I am much too young to know the details. 

Cheers - Lyne

[TEPaul]

Lyne Morrison:

I'm not clear on what your point is. Is there one? 


Pat Craig:

I guess one could make a pretty good case that most of the high-level amateur tournament golfers of that early era were more well-off financially than the professionals at that time but the point is Quimet never intended to become a professional golfer and he never felt he was or that he violated the USGA Amateur status Rules. Part of the anger of the editorials of those early golf magazines seemed to be over the fact they felt the USGA never gave Quimet or his club, The Woodlands, a propere hearing on the matter.

I'm not that clear on the details of the final resolution but as you know Quimet kept his amateur status but he was kept out of amateur competition for two years. As for Travis that had to do with suspicion of him taking money for architecture but around 1920 or so the USGA created what is sometimes called the "architect exception" to the Amateur status Rules.

[Lyne Morrison]

TEPaul just playing with you re a spelling anomaly - a question over a Q vs an O   

Cheers

[TEPaul]

Lyne:

Oh, I see. Thanks.

[Neil_Crafter]

Lyne
Don't worry, TE's posts don't usually have much point to them either! 

[RSLivingston_III]

Thought you guys would appreciate a club from that short lived relationship.

I wasn't aware of those articles and they will be a great reference for writing the blurb about this club in my book.
(I have the USGA articles, I need to find the Am. Golfer issues.)

Thanks for starting up this thread.

[PCCraig]

Lyne Morrison:

I'm not clear on what your point is. Is there one? 


Pat Craig:

I guess one could make a pretty good case that most of the high-level amateur tournament golfers of that early era were more well-off financially than the professionals at that time but the point is Quimet never intended to become a professional golfer and he never felt he was or that he violated the USGA Amateur status Rules. Part of the anger of the editorials of those early golf magazines seemed to be over the fact they felt the USGA never gave Quimet or his club, The Woodlands, a propere hearing on the matter.

I'm not that clear on the details of the final resolution but as you know Quimet kept his amateur status but he was kept out of amateur competition for two years. As for Travis that had to do with suspicion of him taking money for architecture but around 1920 or so the USGA created what is sometimes called the "architect exception" to the Amateur status Rules.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Western Golf Association come out at the same time with their own rules for the Amatuer game, which was later installed at the USGA? I believe Francis was the reason they came out and defended their position at the time.

If that was the case I wonder why Quimet and Travis didn't ever go west to play in the Western Am/Open.

[TEPaul]

Pat Craig:

That's a good question about the Western Golf Association and their position on this. If one reads those Golf magazine articles that are really critical of the USGA's amateur status position on Ouiment and Travis in 1917 it's easy to see those editorials are very much promoting the Western Golf Association in the sense they propose that the WGA become the national golf association of America rather than the USGA and they claim the WGA represents the will and feeling of the American golfer better and more comprehensively than the USGA. Those editorials constantly refer to the USGA as representing only 5% or less of American clubs. They also constantly accuse the USGA's annual meeting of 1917 of what they call "sharp practices" on the Amateur Status Rules and on particularly on the issue of Ouimet and Travis' amateur status.

I think over the early years the WGA and the USGA had at least two major disagreements that looked like it may lead to a major rift but in the end I don't believe that ever happened as the primary concern was to maintain unity within the Rules of American golf.

In the very early years (the first decade of the 20th Century) I think the WGA complained that most of the representation on the USGA was from the East.

It's sort of ironic that Macdonald seemed to be the promoter of the tightest and smallest representation within the membership of the USGA (the whole issue of "Associate" (voting) and "Allied" (non-voting) member clubs) and that he came from Chicago, the home of the WGA, and that he represented the Chicago GC when the USGA was formed in 1895 but we all know Macdonald moved east to New York from Chicago in 1900.

[PCCraig]

Pat Craig:

That's a good question about the Western Golf Association and their position on this. If one reads those Golf magazine articles that are really critical of the USGA's amateur status position on Ouiment and Travis in 1917 it's easy to see those editorials are very much promoting the Western Golf Association in the sense they propose that the WGA become the national golf association of America rather than the USGA and they claim the WGA represents the will and feeling of the American golfer better and more comprehensively than the USGA. Those editorials constantly refer to the USGA as representing only 5% or less of American clubs. They also constantly accuse the USGA's annual meeting of 1917 of what they call "sharp practices" on the Amateur Status Rules and on particularly on the issue of Ouimet and Travis' amateur status.

I think over the early years the WGA and the USGA had at least two major disagreements that looked like it may lead to a major rift but in the end I don't believe that ever happened as the primary concern was to maintain unity within the Rules of American golf.

In the very early years (the first decade of the 20th Century) I think the WGA complained that most of the representation on the USGA was from the East.

It's sort of ironic that Macdonald seemed to be the promoter of the tightest and smallest representation within the membership of the USGA (the whole issue of "Associate" (voting) and "Allied" (non-voting) member clubs) and that he came from Chicago, the home of the WGA, and that he represented the Chicago GC when the USGA was formed in 1895 but we all know Macdonald moved east to New York from Chicago in 1900.

Intersting. What role, if any, do you think the R&A played in the conflits of the WGA and USGA. Perhaps a unity with not only the Rules of Golf but the R&A stacked the cards in favor of the USGA?


Full disclosure- I'm related to one of the 5 founders of the WGA. So I can be biased in my view of the WGA. But this period of time when the WGA was moving hand in hand with the USGA has always been an interest of mine.

[TEPaul]

"What role, if any, do you think the R&A played in the conflits of the WGA and USGA. Perhaps a unity with not only the Rules of Golf but the R&A stacked the cards in favor of the USGA?"


PatC:

That is actually a very good question along about this time and probably an appropriate one as many today may look at the R&A back then during the beginnings of golf in America as perhaps something of a dominating or autocratic organization itself, particularly in the context of the beginnings of the USGA itself.

Personally, I do not believe it was anything of the kind, perhaps quite the opposite. The R&A at St Andrews was actually something of an unwilling participant in the early 1890s to be the organization to run and administer the Rules of Golf globally or even within GB. The records show they had to be constantly encouraged and persuaded at that time to take on that roll. But when they did agree they agreed to act simply as advisors on Rules and such only if other clubs chose to follow the Rules of The Royal and Ancient GC of St. Andrews itself.

I think it was Macdonald himself who was by far and away the biggest promoter that the USGA and American golf should follow the R&A's Rules and maintain unification with them and he was on the Rules Committee of both the USGA and R&A.

I believe it constantly concerned Macdonald, particularly early on, that American golf either via the USGA or the WGA were always thinking of striking out on their own with their own Rules and essentially creating another and somewhat different game from abroad and the R&A.

Issues such as the famous Schnectedy Putter incident (Travis 1904) that lasted for a number of years (in the context of a Rules decision) certainly didn't help with easy unity between America and abroad and between the R&A and USGA. The Schnectedy Putter incident got so hot and so "national" that the president of the United States even eventually weighed in on it for Christ's Sake! 

[JMorgan]

Tom, do you know that Travis' status as an amateur was challenged when he joined Garden City, too?  Other clubs intimated that he was being exempted from paying membership fees at GCGC -- in essence they claimed he was being "paid" by the club to join by not having to pay and was therefore a professional player... .

[Ed Homsey]

The amateur status of Travis was first challenged by a June 1901 article in Outing, by Caspar Whitney, in which he claimed that Travis, along with A.G. Lockwood of Boston, were "playing for free board and transportation" that that they should be denied entry to any amateur tournaments.  Hoteliers and others, including John Duncan Dunn, quickly came to the defense of Travis.  Whitney's article was declared unworthy of "formal recognition" by R.H. Robertson, President of the USGA.

It was later that questions was raised about Travis's membership at Garden City Golf Club.  I am searching my files for Travis's detailed denial of those accusations. 

Ed Homsey
Archivist, Travis Society

[TEPaul]

JMorgan:

Yes I was aware of that and it seems Ed Homsey has identified the details very well that I've read. What I also found interesting is how the USGA, particularly its president dealt with the accuser and what he thought about the manner in which Travis was being accused.

For whatever the reasons, it looks to me like the USGA's philosophy on amateur status got distinctly Victorian and ultra conservative in the teens and during the time of WW1. It seems pretty evident that the scathing attack on that philosophy and over the treatment of Ouiment and Travis by at least one and perhaps the other three major golf magazines of the time got them to rethink, backtrack and create the resolutions on Amateur Status that the did around 1920.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()