TV Tonight - "The Greatest Game Ever Played"

[Tim Johnson]

Philippe
You are absolutely correct. Living downtown I was always looking for a close round of golf and there just wasnt one to be found of any note. I agree, the trees have grown in to make for a great golf course. I just Google Earthed it and it appears to be about 9 holes could be on that section. The course across the street is only a Par 3 and it is not the good. Like many Quebecer's, I wonder how life would be different in QC if the Olympics never came, that course might still be there and it would be a gem.......and they still wouldnt be paying off the debt of the Big Owe.

[DMoriarty]

I know. I was surprised, too. Sometimes it's a case of the long time amateur finally turning pro, but surely that's not it here. Without being too controversial it seems that the powers that be (USGA and R&A) could really look the other way when it came to a favored (amateur) son dabling in commercial ventures. See, the Bobby Jones instructional movies. Of course I'm not aware of the actual contemporaneous phrasing and interpretations of the rules of amateur status, but I can't imagine either of these ventures wouldn't make the player a professional.

Actually Ouimet lost his eligibility in 1915 after he broke away from Wright and Ditson and started his own sporting goods store with a friend.  At the same time golf architects who were being paid for their services also lost their eligibility.

This was extremely controversial decision especially with regard to Ouimet, who was very well liked and popular with both golfing society the general public. The reason he lost his amateur status was because his sporting goods store sold golf equipment, and the conventional wisdom (than and now) is that Ouimet got a raw deal. This ad makes me wonder, though.   It seems that Ouimet, the shirt company, and/or Wright and Ditson (Ouimet's employer at the time) are directly capitalizing on Ouimet's fame as a golfer.
_____________________________________________________

[Mark McKeever]

I'm writing Chapter 2...
 
Mark

[Andy Stamm]

Actually Ouimet lost his eligibility in 1915 after he broke away from Wright and Ditson and started his own sporting goods store with a friend.  At the same time golf architects who were being paid for their services also lost their eligibility.

This was extremely controversial decision especially with regard to Ouimet, who was very well liked and popular with both golfing society the general public. The reason he lost his amateur status was because his sporting goods store sold golf equipment, and the conventional wisdom (than and now) is that Ouimet got a raw deal. This ad makes me wonder, though.   It seems that Ouimet, the shirt company, and/or Wright and Ditson (Ouimet's employer at the time) are directly capitalizing on Ouimet's fame as a golfer.

I do recall that now, but then he was reinstated. If this was the reason that he was declared a professional, maybe he didn't get raw deal that seems to be common understanding of the events. But, if he appeared in the ad after being deemed a pro and before applying for reinstatement, well, why not? How long was he a professional?

[DMoriarty]

I believe the ruling was in the latter part of the 1915.  The letter is dated March 1914.  The reason usually given for the ruling was because he owned a sporting goods store, but i wonder if this ad (or others like it, if there are any) had something to do with it.  I think had he not gone into the sporting goods business or had got out of the business he would have retained his amateur status.    For example John G. Anderson (one of the more prominent golf writers of the time) was employed by Wanamaker's as a wholesale buyer and seller of golf equipment, and he gave up his position after the ruling in order to retain his amateur status.  (Ironically, his byline almost always noted he was runner up in the 1915 Amateur, which seems a pretty direct effort to capitalize on his status as a golfer to me, but writers were not excluded under the 1915 ruling.)  

As for how long he was a "professional," I don't think the he ever considered himself such. It was written that he felt that, while the USGA could bar him from the Amateur Championship, the USGA could not make him a "professional", and that his position was that if he ever won any prize money he would not accept the money..  (Not sure if this ever happened or not.)     I think he was reinstated in 1919.

My guess is that he was never directly paid for the ad, but wrote it as part of his employment for Wright and Ditson.  But then that more questions.  

[Andy Stamm]

Owning a store is maybe borderline, but surely appearing in an ad in which he appears swinging a club that says explicity that he "endorses" a shirt made for and marketed to golfers is not appropriate for an amateur, assuming he was compensated for the ad. Even if he wasn't paid but gave permission and sold the shirts, that has to be too much.

Wasn't there some scrutiny of Eddie Lowery's 'preferential employment status/compensation based on golfing renown' of his stable of amateurs as well?

[Dave McCollum]

While watching the movie, I read Ouimet’s write up on Wikipedia.  Said he was reinstated after his service in WWI.  He was a Lieutenant.  After serving in that mess as an officer and gentleman, I guess they decided to cut him some slack.

[jeffwarne]

Actually Ouimet lost his eligibility in 1915 after he broke away from Wright and Ditson and started his own sporting goods store with a friend.  At the same time golf architects who were being paid for their services also lost their eligibility.

This was extremely controversial decision especially with regard to Ouimet, who was very well liked and popular with both golfing society the general public. The reason he lost his amateur status was because his sporting goods store sold golf equipment, and the conventional wisdom (than and now) is that Ouimet got a raw deal. This ad makes me wonder, though.   It seems that Ouimet, the shirt company, and/or Wright and Ditson (Ouimet's employer at the time) are directly capitalizing on Ouimet's fame as a golfer.

I do recall that now, but then he was reinstated. If this was the reason that he was declared a professional, maybe he didn't get raw deal that seems to be common understanding of the events. But, if he appeared in the ad after being deemed a pro and before applying for reinstatement, well, why not? How long was he a professional?

Wouldn't giving advice all day long when caddying make him a professional?
Although I think there was some kind of deal where he got out of caddying at a certain age and went to work at the sporting goods shop to avoid being a pro.
Certainly those ads are "making a living from the game"
particularly in that era of elitism.

I crack up when professional full time caddies who spend their entire day advising others on their golf (for money)are considered eligible for amateur events, yet someone selling golf shirts isn't

[Dave McCollum]

Owning a store is maybe borderline, but surely appearing in an ad in which he appears swinging a club that says explicity that he "endorses" a shirt made for and marketed to golfers is not appropriate for an amateur, assuming he was compensated for the ad. Even if he wasn't paid but gave permission and sold the shirts, that has to be too much.

Wasn't there some scrutiny of Eddie Lowery's 'preferential employment status/compensation based on golfing renown' of his stable of amateurs as well?

Read about that one, as well.  Harvey Ward lost his amatuer status for awhile because of that.  

[DMoriarty]

Wouldn't giving advice all day long when caddying make him a professional?
Although I think there was some kind of deal where he got out of caddying at a certain age and went to work at the sporting goods shop to avoid being a pro.
Certainly those ads are "making a living from the game"
particularly in that era of elitism.

I crack up when professional full time caddies who spend their entire day advising others on their golf (for money)are considered eligible for amateur events, yet someone selling golf shirts isn't

I think caddying was considered okay up to the age of 16, and I think he quit at that point.

[jeffwarne]

Wouldn't giving advice all day long when caddying make him a professional?
Although I think there was some kind of deal where he got out of caddying at a certain age and went to work at the sporting goods shop to avoid being a pro.
Certainly those ads are "making a living from the game"
particularly in that era of elitism.

I crack up when professional full time caddies who spend their entire day advising others on their golf (for money)are considered eligible for amateur events, yet someone selling golf shirts isn't

I think caddying was considered okay up to the age of 16, and I think he quit at that point.

I believe that is correct

[Tom Yost]

Ouimet's victory stands, in my mind as one of the greatest single achievements in the history of sport, right up there with Secretariat's 30 length victory to win the triple crown and the 80 Olympic hockey gold.  Any chronicle of that achievement is worth having to put up with a few hollywood liberties.

I cannot imagine portraying Secretariat's 30 length victory as if he had just won by a nose.  Likewise, I cannot imagine why anyone would take similar historical liberties with a story as great as Ouimet's. 

Don't watch much TV?

[DMoriarty]

I guess not.

[John_Cullum]

I believe the ruling was in the latter part of the 1915.  The letter is dated March 1914.  The reason usually given for the ruling was because he owned a sporting goods store, but i wonder if this ad (or others like it, if there are any) had something to do with it.  I think had he not gone into the sporting goods business or had got out of the business he would have retained his amateur status.    For example John G. Anderson (one of the more prominent golf writers of the time) was employed by Wanamaker's as a wholesale buyer and seller of golf equipment, and he gave up his position after the ruling in order to retain his amateur status.  (Ironically, his byline almost always noted he was runner up in the 1915 Amateur, which seems a pretty direct effort to capitalize on his status as a golfer to me, but writers were not excluded under the 1915 ruling.)  

As for how long he was a "professional," I don't think the he ever considered himself such. It was written that he felt that, while the USGA could bar him from the Amateur Championship, the USGA could not make him a "professional", and that his position was that if he ever won any prize money he would not accept the money..  (Not sure if this ever happened or not.)     I think he was reinstated in 1919.

My guess is that he was never directly paid for the ad, but wrote it as part of his employment for Wright and Ditson.  But then that more questions.  

You never cease to amaze me. How do you know all this stuff?