Amateur Tournament Golf

[BCrosby]

"...there is a distinct advantage those former professionals have over life long amateurs and it is a shame that there is are no events for golfers who stayed amateurs forever."

Agreed. Perhaps we adopt a rule that reinstated pro's can't play in Mid-Am's?

Limit them to the Am's. We need them there as bulwarks against the scholarship D-1 college guys.

Bob 

[jeffwarne]

"...there is a distinct advantage those former professionals have over life long amateurs and it is a shame that there is are no events for golfers who stayed amateurs forever."

Agreed. Perhaps we adopt a rule that reinstated pro's can't play in Mid-Am's?

Limit them to the Am's. We need them there as bulwarks against the scholarship D-1 college guys.

Bob 

Dilllard Pruitt won a PGA TOUR event and played the PGA tour for 8 years.

The USGA reinstated him as an amateur.
nuff said.

It's always interesting to me that guys can make their living exclusively PLAYING the game(in Pruitt's case successfully) for a number of years, then become amateurs again, but a guy regripping clubs and folding shirts who plays little or none, is considered a professional.

Regardless of what a guy does for a living after competing professionally, the experience he carries does not go away  and is a distinct adantage over a lifelong amateur.

Doesn't mean he's not a great guy, just that the USGA should rethink their policy.

or at least rename it the US Mid Pro-am

[Chris Cupit]

Funny you should mention Dillard Pruitt--I played in a Four-Ball a month or so ago and my partner and I had qualified well during stroke play and were looking forward to an "easy" first round draw.  Of course, Dillard was part of the team we drew!  Let me say he was a great guy to play with--funny, interesting and I can't say enough nice things about him.

However, I don't think it is right for him to play in Amateur events.  If I were King of Golf for a day here is what I would do:

Given how ingrained scholarships are I would not declare scholarship golfers professionals.  (While I think they are pros in "my world" colleges would be actual learning institutions and if you happened to be talented at a sport you could play but no athletic scholarships!)

Anyway--back to golf.

Up to age 25 anyone can try and pursue their dream to be Tiger Woods and if things don't work out, one can get their amateur status back.

After age 25 if you are still playing on any tour or are a PGA member who is still participating in section tournaments, that person would never be eligible for any national championship or national championship team.

The US Mid-Am would be reserved for all amateur players over 25.  Re-instated amateurs would be eligible for the Mid-Am at age 30 no matter when they got their status back.  (Effectively a minimum 5 year penalty).

I would leave it up to state and regional golf associations as to how they would treat amateur status.

The US-Mid-am--the Former Golf Pro Open

   

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Great topic.  Completely agree with Will's post.  And Bill's addition is spot on for me.  I have three children 10 or younger.  Am and Mid-am qualifiers/tournaments give me something to shoot for during the season and an excuse to get out and practice some.  One October rolls around, my golf game lacks purpose.

Don't know the answer for reinstated pros.  I'm good friends with several of them, and they deserve a chance to compete just like the rest of us.  No doubt their tournament experience helps when the competition starts, but that's part of the game.  Not sure you can regulate it.

[Chris Cupit]

Great topic.  Completely agree with Will's post.  And Bill's addition is spot on for me.  I have three children 10 or younger.  Am and Mid-am qualifiers/tournaments give me something to shoot for during the season and an excuse to get out and practice some.  One October rolls around, my golf game lacks purpose.

Don't know the answer for reinstated pros.  I'm good friends with several of them, and they deserve a chance to compete just like the rest of us.  No doubt their tournament experience helps when the competition starts, but that's part of the game.  Not sure you can regulate it.

Jay,

Isn't the point that the golf pros had a chance to compete while others at that same point in their lives did not or certainly did not at a professionally level--dedicating their lives to it?  They HAD their chance to compete when so many true amateurs did not.  A scratch golfer who continues after age 22 (college) and spends 5-7 years doing nothing but playing against some great competition has an advantage that will never go away. 

If it is something you can't regulate then just get rid of any differentiation between the two.  Frankly, shamateurism is worse and I would rather Stop pretending the fiction that we have today.   Again, nothing against any person individually but I really hope a former PGA tour winner wins the us amateur one day, plays in the masters as an "amateur"  and represents the us on the walker cup! 

[Chris Cupit]

I am not embarassed by the fact that amateur golf is not played at the level of professionals. It is not supposed to be.  Isn't that the point?  Why in the world a former golf pro would want to play against a bunch of life long amateurs is beyond me anyway. Kind of like a guy wanting to play in a girl's league or a 15 year old wanting easier pickings against the 12 year olds after he realizes he isn't as good as he thought

One of the saddest things is watching the revolving door or re-in statements. Guys try professionally from ages 22-30, gets a job for a while, plays am golf from 35-49 and then turns pro again as a senior.  Of course, when that fails, he goes back to the cocktail circuit of amateur golf where he is a big fish again.  Sad.  Lives where choices have no consequences--the American dream!

BTW I do realize in the grand scheme of things this is no big deal, but for a game that used to give a damn about integrity and a notion of amateurism, it is a long slide in the wrong direction.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Chris -- I certainly understand both sides of the argument.  I guess it doesn't bother me as much as some b/c I wasn't ever good enough to make a living playing golf so I chose not to try.  I chose, instead, to do other things like get a job and start a family.  Those guys that try out the pro circuit are chasing their dreams, and most don't make it.  In the end, they get a late start on all the things I chose to do when I left college.  I wouldn't trade places with them in a million years.  The mini tour life just doesn't appeal to me.  If these guys get a chance to relive the rush of competitive golf by placing top 20 in a state am, then so be it.  I'll struggle to make the cut, and then go home to my great kids -- kids thate wouldn't even exist if I'd chosen to pursue a golf career. 

Lets face it... the playing field will never be level.  In NC, we have some elite career amateurs that have dominated the scene for decades.  Though they never technically went pro, they play probably 200 rounds a year.  That's more than most pros.  That's their right and their career accomplishments speak for themselves, but I'm happy to be a middling mid-am that hopes to win club tournaments and place top 20 in statewide events so I don't have to take a day off work to try and qualify... with the occasional USGA event thrown in to boost my ego.

By the way, my stance is based on the mini tour guys.  It does irritate me to see former PGA players compete in am events.  I know a guy that played on Tour for many years, quit, and still maintains his PGA membership.  He's been to the mountain top... in his mind he has no more to prove and doesn't want to sully a fine pro career by competing against we hackers.  He has the right idea.

[Chris Cupit]

Chris -- I certainly understand both sides of the argument.  I guess it doesn't bother me as much as some b/c I wasn't ever good enough to make a living playing golf so I chose not to try.  I chose, instead, to do other things like get a job and start a family.  Those guys that try out the pro circuit are chasing their dreams, and most don't make it.  In the end, they get a late start on all the things I chose to do when I left college.  I wouldn't trade places with them in a million years.  The mini tour life just doesn't appeal to me.  If these guys get a chance to relive the rush of competitive golf by placing top 20 in a state am, then so be it.  I'll struggle to make the cut, and then go home to my great kids -- kids thate wouldn't even exist if I'd chosen to pursue a golf career. 

Lets face it... the playing field will never be level.  In NC, we have some elite career amateurs that have dominated the scene for decades.  Though they never technically went pro, they play probably 200 rounds a year.  That's more than most pros.  That's their right and their career accomplishments speak for themselves, but I'm happy to be a middling mid-am that hopes to win club tournaments and place top 20 in statewide events so I don't have to take a day off work to try and qualify... with the occasional USGA event thrown in to boost my ego.

By the way, my stance is based on the mini tour guys.  It does irritate me to see former PGA players compete in am events.  I know a guy that played on Tour for many years, quit, and still maintains his PGA membership.  He's been to the mountain top... in his mind he has no more to prove and doesn't want to sully a fine pro career by competing against we hackers.  He has the right idea.

I hear you.  I just hate that the USGA, as an association founded by amateurs truly does not have one championship for the career amateur player.

One quick story and then I'll go back to the nineteenth century where I belong ( ):

I was working the 2005 Mid-Am as a rules official.  One of the GA players who is a career amateur could not have been happy or more excited to be at the event.  This will most likely be the only USGA championship he ever plays in.  Anyway, at the cocktail party the night before, in all sincerity he came and thanked me for helping out and then asked if the USGA ever considered creating an event for "amateurs".  He wasn't trying to be funny and I am sure he saw the slight shock in my face as he went on to say that he meant no offense but that he had no business trying to play against "these guys" many of whom had played professionally for years.  He really thought it would be a neat idea to have a championship for "actual" amateurs.  His comments were a sad reflection on the state of national amateur golf.

I bet 40% of ALL qualifiers for the US Mid-AM are former golf pros and when you look at the % that make match play and truly compete I bet the % is closer to 65%.  It may be inevitable and there may be no going back--I just hate to play fast and loose with the term "amateur". 

[Mac Plumart]

Well, Chris...what are you waiting for.  Launch it!!!  I think it is a great idea.  Host it at that course in Tennessee that holds dear to its heart the spirit of amateurism.  What is that course again?

Seriously, it is a GREAT idea.  I'd be interested in helping getting it rolling, if I could be of assistance.

[Mike_Young]

I am not embarassed by the fact that amateur golf is not played at the level of professionals. It is not supposed to be.  Isn't that the point?  Why in the world a former golf pro would want to play against a bunch of life long amateurs is beyond me anyway. Kind of like a guy wanting to play in a girl's league or a 15 year old wanting easier pickings against the 12 year olds after he realizes he isn't as good as he thought

One of the saddest things is watching the revolving door or re-in statements. Guys try professionally from ages 22-30, gets a job for a while, plays am golf from 35-49 and then turns pro again as a senior.  Of course, when that fails, he goes back to the cocktail circuit of amateur golf where he is a big fish again.  Sad.  Lives where choices have no consequences--the American dream!

BTW I do realize in the grand scheme of things this is no big deal, but for a game that used to give a damn about integrity and a notion of amateurism, it is a long slide in the wrong direction.

Amen...you make the points I was trying to state.

Truth is these reinstated pros would have a much better chance against the local club pros....oops...now we got another topic.  The monday Sectionals have about four guys that win most of them and reality is they teach golf all day and have a distinct advantage over the club pros.  The club pros seem to be agitated also.
but he entire thing is funny.  You don't see John Smoltz trying to lay church softball. 

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

If I practice my butt off, I think I could place top 100 in the "Never Played College Golf or Turned Pro, Married to a Demanding Wife with 3 Children Under 11, With A Real Job" Amateur Championship.  Chris -- your organization skills to establish such an event would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Mac Plumart]

Chris is good...but I don't know if he is THAT good Jay.

[Bill Brightly]

Will's post nailed the reasons. But I think there is another group who play, guys with virtually no chance of winning, but simply enjoy the feeling that you get in a medal play tournament. I was always a good match player, but TERRIBLE in the stoke play qualifying for our club championship. So I started signing up for mid-am qualifiers to get better at stroke play. It took me four times before I made a cut, but my club championship qualifying scores got much better.

I also think there are many amateurs who did not play competitive golf in high school and college, maybe they played other sports, or maybe that just became decent at golf later in life (I am in this group.) Amateur tournaments are a great way to test your game, and the mental challenge of managing your score for the whole round is FAR nore difficult than match play. In fact, it is an element of the game that very few amateurs experience. Imagine if there was a stroke play event for 16-20 handicaps. Imagine those guys having to finish each bad hole, no more triple bogey max, or picking up and saying: "your hole, partner."

For competitive people, amateurs tourneys are a perfect barometer to measure your game under stress. So while my record is nothing to brag about (one mid-am qualified, one MGA senior open cut made, 6th in the NJ pre-senior am,) those rounds represent some of my proudest personal accomplishments in golf.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Imagine those guys having to finish each bad hole, no more triple bogey max, or picking up and saying: "your hole, partner."

Bill -- Have you been following me at tournaments?  My scorecards in virtually all of my am/midam events in the last 3 years read like so... 13 pars, 2 birdies, one bogey, one double, one triple.  missed cut.  those big numbers have a way of creeping in during two days of sress-filled medal play.

[Dale Jackson]

I think the issue is more complicated than presented so far.  It is easy to say a former PGA Tour winner should be regarded with scepticism as a reinstated amateur (and Dilliard Pruitt won the Canadian Amateur several years back, and was by all accounts a pleasure to play with and a gracious winner).

But there are so many degrees of grey here.  Do you exclude the player who played the Nationwide Tour for 5 years and was a winner, or played for 5 years and barely scraped by?  Or played mini tours with some success but went no further, or graduated college, turned pro and tried to make a living playing golf for 2 or 3 but could not?  Or turned pro, worked as a club pro and played mini tours during the winter.  It goes on.

One of the unfortunate aspects of young men turning pro and not able to make a living is that they then enter the "real world" and no longer have an outlet to play competitive golf without regaining their amateur status.  So many lose desire and interest in golf, a game that can be a joy for a lifetime.

I do not have the magic answer but the issue for everyone, especially the ruling bodies is very complicated.

[BCrosby]

The issue is complicated. One example. What do you do about an 'amateur' who works for a resort whose job is to play golf everyday with VIP guests? Or someone who works for a major investment firm whose job is to organize and play in golf outings with clients?

I'd bet a significant percentage of players who get through Mid-Am qualifiers fall into those sorts of salesman/amateur categories. When you add reinstated pros to the field, there is not much room left for the working stiff amateur.

But those sorts of complications don't mean we should throw our hands in the air. If you can't fashion a rule for the salesman/amateur (I have no idea how you would draft a workable definition for that kind of player), you can fashion a clear rule to exclude former pros.

I agree with Chris and Mike. There ought to be mid-Ams for players who were never pros. It won't be perfect, some salesmen/amateurs who, in effect, play golf for a living, would be allowed to compete and would continue to do well. But overall it would be an improvement.

Bob

[Brent Hutto]

I agree with Chris and Mike. There ought to be mid-Ams for players who were never pros. It won't be perfect, some salesmen/amateurs who, in effect, play golf for a living, would be allowed to compete and would continue to do well. But overall it would be an improvement.

And even so there's a difference between a guy who has played insurance-man golf for 20 years and a guy who played in sixty or seventy bloody PGA Tour events back in the day. It's always seemed inconceivable to me that guys who played week in and week out in the highest level of professional golf could ever be classed as an "amateurs" I don't care how long they've been away from it. That's a level of experience that no true amateur could ever amass if he played until he was 100 years old.

P.S. But Bob's point is definitely well taken. Just because you can't make a rule that eliminates every type of semi-pro playing as a "amateur" certainly doesn't mean you should just let everyone in no matter how much professional experience they might have.

P.P.S. And then there's the guys who played on Tour in their 20's and 30's then retired from "professional" golf to be an insurance rep who plays golf three days a week with clients and plays in "amateur" tournaments the other four days a week.

[jeffwarne]

The issue is complicated. One example. What do you do about an 'amateur' who works for a resort whose job is to play golf everyday with VIP guests? Or someone who works for a major investment firm whose job is to organize and play in golf outings with clients?

I'd bet a significant percentage of players who get through Mid-Am qualifiers fall into those sorts of salesman/amateur categories. When you add reinstated pros to the field, there is not much room left for the working stiff amateur.

But those sorts of complications don't mean we should throw our hands in the air. If you can't fashion a rule for the salesman/amateur (I have no idea how you would draft a workable definition for that kind of player), you can fashion a clear rule to exclude former pros.

I agree with Chris and Mike. There ought to be mid-Ams for players who were never pros. It won't be perfect, some salesmen/amateurs who, in effect, play golf for a living, would be allowed to compete and would continue to do well. But overall it would be an improvement.

Bob

Bob,
Playing golf with VIP guests and clients, who are almost always beginners/high handicaps(usually counterproductive ), is not the same as competing in PGA tour events.
There are always going to be people who play a lot of golf-no one's disputing that.

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

Hosting 18 handicappers in a corporate golf outing is indeed not the same as playing in a PGA event. But it's not inconsequential either.

Guys rendering salesman/amateur services for their employers are playing and practising every day. They were chosen for their 'jobs' because of their golfing skills and the thrill bad golfers get from rubbing shoulders with really good players. To maintain their status, they have massive incentives to qualify for top-flight amateur events and gear their schedules accordingly.

They don't have the advantages of having played on the tour, yes. But they have plenty of other advantages that make a predicatable difference in Mid-Am qualifiers.

Bob

[JESII]

Yes Bob, but the Mid amateur concept was initially formed specifically for that very insurance guy you're referring to...

I like this topic and will jump into the fray later today, but for starters:

Does anyone know just what the USGA has as its goal/intention with their Amateur Status Reinstatement policies?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Wher does one start to explain the obsession that is playing Amatuer golf.
It has been a long road so far, a love hate realtionship that only others in the same  boat can fully understand.
The joy of playing great courses, the frustrations of performances not always being what one wants, versus the joys of State Championships, USGA events and the acolades of player of the year.

But it is truly the self examination that keeps us going, self versus self in actuality...whether that be mental, mechanical, physical or just the course.
There have been many failures along the way, but that one moment of pure ecstacy when it feels like it had all come together, in the zone of zen..the course looks and smells beautiful, the fluid flow of the endless mechnaical adventure appears effortless, the relentless search for perfection for one fleeting moment is there..eureka......and then is has gone again....

I love it the thrill of competition, not the field but myself.....

[Chris Cupit]

I would add that even for the unsuccessfull professional player, the opportunity to compete at a professional level of competition week in and week out over an extended period of time (several years say) is an enormous competitive advantage particualrly when you consider that 95% of the genuine amateurs they would later compete against may get a chance to play in 3-4 events a year!

In 2-3 years of mini tours even the unsuccessfull pro has gained experience greater than what a lifetime amateur may ever achieve.

Let's not forget that my idea would only put a drop dead date on former golf pros eleigibilty for national championships and teams.  State and regional associations and certainly independent events could always invite whomever they wish. Why not have some standard of amateurism for a tiny fraction of our most cherished championships?

I do not care how unsuccesssful a player may be but if I took ANY college player, gave him enough money so that he could spend five years chasing his dream by plaiyng 20 events a year against some future great players all the while he is practicing every day with no other responsibilities, he will be a far better competitive player five years after he has quit the tour than 99% of career amateurs who at a similar time in their lives (ages 22-27) were beginning a family or work career.  That advantage will NEVER go away.

BTW, Dillard also won the Sunehanna Tournament--a huge amateur event several years ago.  Like I said, he is a great guy and this shouldn't be about him or anyone else in particular.  But, should he be eligible to represent the US on a Walker Cup Team?  All I am saying is tighten up the rules for a handful of events.  (US Amateur, US Pub Links, US Midam, Walker Cup, Eisenhower Teams).

As for amateurs who happen to have jobs that give them great playing opportunities and access to lots of events, (or who happen to be members of the lucky sperm club and who have no work responsibilities), good for them and that's just life. I am not seeking a level playing field as that is a silly notion.  I would only advocate for a system that recognizes the lifetime benefits that CHOOSING to play professionally gives players and ask that in a tiny handful of events they be ineligible.  

[Chris Cupit]

Yes Bob, but the Mid amateur concept was initially formed specifically for that very insurance guy you're referring to...

I like this topic and will jump into the fray later today, but for starters:

Does anyone know just what the USGA has as its goal/intention with their Amateur Status Reinstatement policies?

Jim,

I do know that the USGA, by and with the cooperation of state and regional associations, has been looking to liberalize and streamline the re-instatement process the past few years.  Overwhelmingly, people like me are referred to as guys that favor the "Death Penalty" for former golf pros, which I think gives some insight into how they feel.  Again, I don't think I would describe my position that way.

[David Egan]

I think the issue is more complicated than presented so far.  It is easy to say a former PGA Tour winner should be regarded with scepticism as a reinstated amateur (and Dilliard Pruitt won the Canadian Amateur several years back, and was by all accounts a pleasure to play with and a gracious winner).

But there are so many degrees of grey here.  Do you exclude the player who played the Nationwide Tour for 5 years and was a winner, or played for 5 years and barely scraped by?  Or played mini tours with some success but went no further, or graduated college, turned pro and tried to make a living playing golf for 2 or 3 but could not?  Or turned pro, worked as a club pro and played mini tours during the winter.  It goes on.

One of the unfortunate aspects of young men turning pro and not able to make a living is that they then enter the "real world" and no longer have an outlet to play competitive golf without regaining their amateur status.  So many lose desire and interest in golf, a game that can be a joy for a lifetime.

I do not have the magic answer but the issue for everyone, especially the ruling bodies is very complicated.

I don't think it's complicated at all. If you turn pro, you are a pro forever even if you had no success as a pro.  I think that part of the decision of going pro should be understanding and accepting that the amateur game is no longer an option.  And, for guys who are former or unsuccessful pros, there are still plenty of opportunities to compete.

[Bill Brightly]

Even though I am someone who would benefit by the exclusion of re-instated professionals, I have no problem with them competing in the same events as I do. It is obvious that they tried and failed to make a go of it as a pro. They just came to the end of their dream a little later in life than other top amateurs. Who am I to deny them the thrill of competing at the best level they can? They tried pro golf and could not make it, so they returned to their proper level and now play against other great amateurs. It seems selfish to try to exclude them.

By the same token, I would love to enter an event that excluded former pros, and perhaps a range of other exclusions. For example, no former state am, met am, mid-am winners, etc. Hell, even exclude all one-time club champions! That would leave a field of decent amateurs, all of whom have never won before. Imagine the nerves in THAT final pairing!