Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: John Blain on November 06, 2008, 06:54:51 PM
-
To those who follow the national amateur scene:
http://www.golfweek.com/story/holtgrieve-feature-110608
-John
-
That's interesting...he turned pro at 50, just like Sigel. Did Jay turn down the job? I think Sigel would be a great Walker Cup captain.
-
Ronald:
I'm pretty sure Jay Sigel was a Walker Cup captain, and I believe even a playing captain. It's lookupable but unless my memory is going I think he was the captain, and playing captain, when the Walker Cup was at Pine Valley, a club he's belonged to for years.
-
Holtgrieve did turn pro, but he was reinstated as an amateur in 2005.
I hope the USGA will name Tim Jackson as the Walker Cup Captain in the future.
-
yup, 83 an d85...85 was Pine Valley...good memory. Good luck, Jim.
-
JPBlaine,
I'm shocked that the USGA would name someone who not only turned Professional, but who played on the PGA Tour (SR), not so long ago.
Many years ago the USGA had a perceived problem, albeit silent, with the number of former Pros who were making it to the quarter finals and beyond, of the USGA Mid-Amateur.
I'm puzzled by the choice, but, then again, my opinion wasn't solicited.
-
Pat:
With what you said there on post #5 there could be one helluva discussion on this website but it might get sort of contentious so I don't know that it'd be worth it.
-
I'm not shocked about the selection but maybe a little surprised.
I would have thought there were enough good candidates for selection without having to choose a gentleman who was so recently in the professional ranks.
Having said that, I had the good fortune to caddy for Jim at The Coleman last year at Seminole. Great guy and a heck of a golfer.
-
JPBlaine,
I'm shocked that the USGA would name someone who not only turned Professional, but who played on the PGA Tour (SR), not so long ago.
Many years ago the USGA had a perceived problem, albeit silent, with the number of former Pros who were making it to the quarter finals and beyond, of the USGA Mid-Amateur.
I'm puzzled by the choice, but, then again, my opinion wasn't solicited.
Pat,
I am as surprised as you.
As good an amateur as Jim was, the very idea that he played but recentlyas a professional should bar him from captaining a Walker Cup team. What on earth is the USGA thinking? There are a host of life-long amateur players that are equipped for the job.
This is a downright stupid decision.
Bob
-
As someone waiting for their reinstatement I can say that I totally embrace pros waiting a "fair" amount of time out of competition and then being allowed to regain their amateur status back with open arms from the amateur world. Maybe not a life long touring pro, but certainly guys that were club pros for a short time or tried minitours for a little while. I see nothing wrong with that.
Jeff F.
-
As a St. Louisian I must come to the defense of the selection of Jim Holtgrieve as Walker Cup captain.
When I began caddying in grade school, one of the members at our club was Jim Jackson. Mr. Jackson was on 2 Walker Cups in the 1950s, and although we was in his very early 50s when I began as a caddie, he was still winning state tournaments and a dominant force in St. Louis golf. Mr. Holtgrieve was the young gun, belonged to the golf club less than 1/2 mile from Mr. Jackson's club and was beating Mr. Jackson in some big events.
Holtgrieve quickly soared to success in national events, and even reached the finals of the British Am one summer. In addition to his success in multiple Walker Cups, Masters (making the cut twice I believe) and other national events, he was also influential behind the scenes. Holtgrieve was one of those involved in getting the USGA Mid-Am started, and then won the very first Mid-Am, at Bellerive C.C. in St. Louis.
Later he was also influential in creating the Metropolitan Amateur Golf Association, which is now the preeminent St. Louis area golf association. Because of the addition of this local golf association, the St. Louis golf scene is much richer in the variety of tournaments available and in holding all of the local USGA qualifiers.
Although Mr. Holtgrieve did turn professional as an attempt at sharing in the riches of the Senior Tour, I believe this was a decision based on financial needs. As an example of the high regard Mr. Holtgrieve holds in the golf community, at one of his early starts as a professional, as he walked onto the practice tee, Arnold Palmer called his friend to join him so that they could practice together. (Holtgrieve and Palmer had developed a friendship while playing together in past Masters.)
Now Mr. Holtgrieve has regained his amateur status, he is still very active with the USGA's Mid-Am committee, and still involved with St. Louis's Metropolitan Amateur Golf Association. I think anyone who really knows Mr. Holtgrieve and knows all of the wonderful things he has done for golf in addition to just his competitive record, realizes that the USGA did something very right in selecting Mr. Holtgrieve as captain of the Walker Cup team.
-
Bill Shamleffer,
Holtgrieve was one of those involved in getting the USGA Mid-Am started..
Exactly HOW was Holtgrieve involved in getting the USGA Mid-Am started ?
-
For reasons unknown to me, the USGA has clearly softened thier stance on players turning professional and then returning to the amateur ranks.
-
Bill Shamleffer,
Holtgrieve was one of those involved in getting the USGA Mid-Am started..
Exactly HOW was Holtgrieve involved in getting the USGA Mid-Am started ?
http://www.metga.org/Holtgrieveamateur.htm
(This article is from April 2007)
(I am not a friend of Mr. Holtgrieve or in any way involved in these organizations. The point of my posting is to inform those on this site who are not familiar with this man, other than his published competitive record. This is a man who has contributed to golf in a variety of ways. Whether a reinstated amateur should be considered for Walker Cup captaincy is not an issue I have an opinion upon, and I do not take issue with any ones opinion per that matter. However, I do want any one who reads this discussion to have some additional knowledge about Mr. Holtgrieve.
Bill Shamleffer 11/7/2008)
Back To The Future:
Jim Holtgrieve Set To Resume Amateur Career
By Bill Burton
It’s been almost 30 years since the legend of Jim Holtgrieve developed and began flourishing in St. Louis golf.
Amateur golfers might want to prepare themselves for part two of the Jim Holtgrieve saga. After nearly two decades as the area’s most prominent amateur, Holtgrieve has spent much of the past decade competing on golf’s senior professional tour.
In what could be a great shot in the arm for amateur golf, “The Griever” will officially return to the area’s amateur circuit starting in June when the United States Golf Association once again grants him his full amateur standing.
Exhibiting the charisma and daring of one of his idols, Arnold Palmer, Holtgrieve captured the fancy of St. Louis golf fans with his prodigious length and aggressive style in the 1970s. Those characteristics wowed fans and intimidated opponents in local and state championships. Holtgrieve popularized the use of a 1-iron as a driving weapon and used the club with length and deadly accuracy.
His ability to overpower courses and opponents started in the 1970s in St. Louis District Golf Association events and continued with the multiple victories in Missouri Amateur and Metropolitan Amateur Golf Association events through the 1980s and 1990s. During the early 1980s, Holtgrieve’s acclaim advanced well beyond the shadow of the Arch, however.
Holtgrieve enhanced his national stature when he won the inaugural USGA Mid-Amateur Championship in 1981 at Bellerive. Holtgrieve, then a 33-year-old businessman, was integral in the creation of the event for career amateurs aged 25 and older, and played a role in securing the event for Bellerive in September 1981. When he beat Ohioan Bob Lewis Jr., 2 up in the first-ever event, he was able to add a USGA national championship to a resume that remains rivaled by few in St. Louis golf history.
In his prime, during the 1980s, Holtgrieve played in four Masters, making the cut twice, and made the cut twice at Jack Nicklaus’ Memorial Invitational in Dublin, Ohio. In 1980, representing the United States at the World Amateur Team Championship at Pinehurst, Holtgrieve helped the U.S. to a dominating win over 38 nations. His 285 total finished third behind Hal Sutton and Taiwan’s T.C. Chen. That same year, Holtgrieve advanced to the semifinals of the U.S. Amateur before dropping a 3&2 decision to Sutton.
In 1983, Holtgrieve advanced to the championship of the British Amateur before losing to Wales’ Philip Parkin. The wins and high finishes afforded Holtgrieve the opportunity to represent the United States in three Walker Cup matches.
In 1998, at age 51, Holtgrieve elected to take a stab at professional golf on the Senior PGA Tour (now the Champions Tour). He debuted at the 1998 Boone Valley Classic, posting a T13 to earn $22,750. It was the first check in an eight-year tour career that totaled $1,395,002 in earnings.
While he had numerous top 20 finishes in his 122 pro starts, his fourth start, at the 1999 Home Depot Invitational in North Carolina, was his finest. Holtgrieve finished play with the lead only to watch as Bruce Fleisher birdied to pass him by a shot at the 54 th hole.
Now, as he approaches age 60, Holtgrieve is intent on resuming a full amateur slate of events, both locally and outside the area. He has no plans to tip-toe back into amateur golf.
“I’m not coming back to play senior golf,” said Holtgrieve. “I want to test myself against these young guys. I still think and hope I can be competitive.”
Holtgrieve’s interest in returning to the amateur ranks includes an opportunity to hold one of golf’s most prestigious honors, captain of the United States Walker Cup team. Holtgrieve’s amateur record and his connections with some of the prominent members of the United States Golf Association have put him on a short list of future candidates. Recent conversations with USGA President Walter Driver convinced Holtgrieve the honor could be his if he returned to the amateur ranks. “Walter said this year’s selection came down between Buddy Marucci and me.
“I think my chances are pretty good,” Holtgrieve said. “I would think that might not happen until 2011 though.”
Marucci, named captain of the 2007 U.S. team that will play at Royal County Down in Northern Ireland later this year, will likely retain the captaincy in 2009, or so Holtgrieve surmises.
“The matches come to Merion in 2009 and Buddy’s a member there,” Holtgrieve said. “That would only make sense that he’d serve as captain at Merion. So I would think my first real opportunity would not come until 2011 when the matches return to Great Britain and Ireland.”
In the meantime, St. Louis golfers will get a glimpse of Holtgrieve at the Metropolitan Amateur Championship, and Mid-Amateur and Senior Amateur qualifiers. One of his first appearances will be at the USGA Senior Open qualifier, June 18 at Bellerive.
“I’m planning to play the Metropolitan and state events and perhaps a few four-ball events,” said Holtgrieve who now works for TRG/Callaway, a golf accessories manufacturer in Maryland Heights.
“I’m looking forward to having some fun,” Holtgrieve added. “I remember Jimmy Jackson won amateur events over five decades, so it’s not unprecedented. I am expecting to be competitive. I want to see just how I stack up against these guys now. There are some great young players out here and I want to see for myself if I still have it.”
Bill Burton is the Director of Marketing/Handicap Services for the Metropolitan Amateur Golf Association
and a long-time contributor to golf publications in St. Louis. He can be reached at bill@metga.org.
-
While I'm sure I can understand the sentiments of those on this thread who say they are shocked that Jim Holtgrieve was selected as the Walker Cup captain or even shocked he would be considered by the USGA as a Walker Cup captain (even though I do not agree with those who say and feel that), I would ask them to reconsider their feelings and what they are really saying when they proclaim they are shocked.
The Rules of Amateur Status are pretty interesting and always have been (everyone interested in the subject should take the time to actually read them).
Basically the lose of amateur status happens in two ways:
1. Those who actually violate USGA amateur status Rules as amateurs without declaring themselves professionals.
2. Those who formally declare themselves professionals consciously giving up their amateur status.
Holtgrieve did the latter in declaring himself a professional and playing on the Champions Tour for six years.
Now look at the USGA Amateur Status reinstatement Rules and procedures.
Each individual puts in an amateur status reinstatement application which is fairly lengthy and detailed explaining everything he has done as a professional and for how long and when the last time was he played golf for remuneration. These applications are generally initially submitted to the player's local or regional or state Amateur golf association that operates under the auspices of the USGA. A committee of that local or regional or state amateur golf association analyzes the particulars of each application for reinstatement, contacts the applicants and then votes on the application and if it approves the application it sends it on to the USGA for their consideration and a decision and waiting period time before expected reinstatement.
As far as I know that's the way it's always been done. I know this because I was on one of those regional and state golf associations and committees and even ran one of those amateur status committees for maybe 5 years over which time we processed probably up to a hundred amateur status reinstatement applications.
Were any applications turned down over that time? Yes. Were the vast majority of them approved? Yes.
But what I would ask those who purport to be shocked at Jim Holtgrieve's selection as the Walker Cup captain in 1911 to reconsider is their view and opinion of how a reinstated amateur should be treated and viewed, short term and long term and for the rest of his career as a golfer after the USGA reinstates him as an amateur golfer.
Do these people actually believe that the reinstated amateur and his reputation in the future as an amateur golfer should in some way be considered to be CONDITIONAL or LIMITED? Do these people believe that a reinstated amateur should be considered by amateur golfers who have always been amateurs to be someone who should perceptively play amateur golf or be involved in amateur golf affairs with some little red "P" (for professional) attached to him somehow making it clear that he was once a professional and is therefore in some strange way impure and not a REAL amateur ever again? Somehow that to me smacks of holier-than-thou Salem Massachussetts witch hunts or Hester Prine being forced to wear a red "A" on her dress everwhere she went!
I think those who purport to be shocked at Holtgrieve's selection as the 2011 Walker Cup captain are feeling and actually suggesting that very thing in some way even if they may have something of a hard time actually admitting it in that particular vein.
How Victorian and essentially unfair is that? In my opinion, it is mightily Victorian and unfair! It sort of sounds like it intends to send the message--eg "You can come back but never think you can REALLY be one of US again!"
If THAT is the way the USGA and their Amateur Status Rules and Regulations intended reinstated amateurs to be or be treated then they probably should just not grant people who had played professionally or who had taken remuneration for golf AMATEUR reinstatement at all. But that is not the way it has ever been done and hopefully never will be.
Jim Holtgrieve had a very long and impressive amateur career, and I, for one, would not like to see that amateur career or even the perception of it minimized, limited, conditioned or qualified in any way at all because he was once a professional but now is an amateur golfer again. And that includes consideration and selection as the Walker Cup captain for his impressive amateur career including numerous times playing on the Walker Cup.
Again, welcome back to the amateur ranks, Jim Holtgrieve, and congratulations on your selection as the 2011 Walker Cup captain. I do know you and will never forget that match we had one time in the Crump Cup, it was one of my most memorable in competitive golf and one of the best learning experiences I ever had in golf. You're a good guy with a great amateur golf career and you very much deserve this selection, in my opinion.
Now, pick and captain a powerful team and win the USGA's amateur Walker Cup in 2011 for the old Red, White and Blue! ;)
-
Tom,
I must say your panegyrics in support of Holtgrieve, had me running to the books to see whether we were discussing Mandela or Ghandi.
My point is that a Venetian courtesan couldn't retire and run a convent and a former professional should not run a Walker Cup team. I have no personal animus toward Jim Holtgrieve, I just think the selection a mistake.
Bob
-
Quite a few years ago, a member of the US Mid-Amateur Committee was concerned about reinstated amateurs playing in the Championship. He wrote a letter to Joe Dey at the USGA about it and asked to have a meeting with him.
Joe's reply was, "I would be happy to have a meeting with you regarding this issue, but please be advised that I also oppose the death penalty."
The member of the committee told Joe he would pass on trying to convince him.
Jim had a great amateur career and the fact that he tried to play as a professional for a few years once he turned 50 should not bar him from consideration in my opinion.
-
Quite a few years ago, a member of the US Mid-Amateur Committee was concerned about reinstated amateurs playing in the Championship. He wrote a letter to Joe Dey at the USGA about it and asked to have a meeting with him.
Joe's reply was, "I would be happy to have a meeting with you regarding this issue, but please be advised that I also oppose the death penalty."
The member of the committee told Joe he would pass on trying to convince him.
That story is a complete fabrication.
Joe Dey left the USGA in 1968.
He was neither active nor tangentially involved with the USGA when the Mid-Amateur was being formulated and conducted.
Jim had a great amateur career and the fact that he tried to play as a professional for a few years once he turned 50 should not bar him from consideration in my opinion.
We disagree
-
Bill Shamleffer,
That's a nice article.
There's no doubt that Jim was a terrific golfer.
I believe he also helped get the Bellerive Golf Club to host the first Mid-Am.
But, how was he involved in getting the Mid-Am started ?
-
Tom Paul and I will never agree on this one. Golf should look to tennis and just become an open sport. When they were in college (summertime) and right before tennis became open, Arthur Ashe and Stan Smith were making more in endorsements, under the table appearance money and such. Golf is headed in the same direction. An example was Michelle Wie and even Tiger's dad was on Nike's payroll, was he not? It is becoming embarrassing and with agents out there, it will get worse. Let everyone compete in any event, pros and amateurs alike. If there is no prize money then fine, everyone competes for a trophy.
I remember in senior tennis events, players couldn't wait to have a chance at Pancho Gonzales who entered some local events.
Let the Walker Cup be a no prize money event, draw some entry restrictions, no tour wins or something and let everyone have at it. This captain pick is probably a nice guy who is being criticized because he took some money for playing golf? Who on this site hasn't played golf for some amount of money?
"There will always be inequities in life, there is nothing we can do about it."
President John Adams
-
he tried to play as a professional for a few years
He earned $1.4 million in his eight years as a pro....that seems like someone who gave professional golf a real shot.
-
“My point is that a Venetian courtesan couldn't retire and run a convent and a former professional should not run a Walker Cup team.”
Bob Huntley:
That’s quite an analogy to describe a reinstated amateur golfer.
“Tom Paul and I will never agree on this one. Golf should look to tennis and just become an open sport.”
Lynn:
You’re right, we will never agree on golf becoming an open sport. Golf should look to tennis becoming an “open” sport as exactly the thing never to do, in my opinion. Compared to the grass roots popularity tennis once enjoyed with its amateur base, today tennis is a mere vestige of what it once was. I don’t want to see that happen to golf at the grass roots amateur level and that’s what will happen to it if it follows the example of tennis in the last forty years.
-
Who would be your five (5) leading candidates to Captain the Walker Cup had this selection not been made ?
-
Pat,
I think you would have a tough time coming up with three let alone five. You have to figure at some point these guys will get a look:
1) Tim Jackson. 2-time Mid Am Champ.
2) Trip Kuehne (he's a lock but too young)
3) John "Spider" Miller??? He won two Mid Ams but I'm not sure he has the pedigree although he is a member at Seminole.
4) George Zahringer - No one seems to like him but he would love to do it. The 2013 match is going to be at NGLA where he is a member which can't hurt his chances unless the USGA gives that to Holtgrieve. It seems the most recent captains have the job for two matches.
John Harris would have been a lock had he not decided to play the Champions tour, likely David Eger as well.
Someone with a less than zero chance: Danny Green.
-John
-
TEPaul -
I disagree with your assertion that open tennis is in some way responsible for bursting the tennis boom. In fact, one could argue that, without tennis opening up in the late 1960's, there never would have been a tennis boom in the 1970's.
DT
-
David Tepper:
I guess one could argue anything he wanted to about tennis but I doubt its amateur grass roots popularity and coverage, and certainly within general clubs and country clubs is anything remotely like it once was before those professional organizations such as Donald Dell's began to take hold back in the 1960s.
Back then it was basically part of the world of the old USLTA (which was something quite akin to golf's USGA).
I guess one could track the amount of tennis players (or non professional tennis players) in America today in relation to back then and if that was done something tells me it would be down dramatically.
Tennis lost most of its amateur grass roots base when it went "open" in my opinion. Obviously the professional side of tennis is much stronger than it was back then but I think at the expense of the amateur side.
This is not something I ever want to see in the future of golf!
I do feel somewhat fortunate in an historical sense to have known really well most of the people who ran the USLTA back then (or my parents did). What they let happen to the USLTA and amateur tennis was most definitely not something they intended to let happen. In my opinion, it was pretty much a classic example of mismanagement of amateur tennis going into the future. In effect those burgeoning professional organizations just rolled right over them and pretty much took them out.
One thing in defensive of the old USLTA, though, is I do not believe they had anything like the seminal toe-hold in their game with playing Rules (which in tennis never were and never will be even remotely as complex as golf's playing Rules) and I&B that the R&A and the USGA have always had and still very much have in golf.
Then there's the issue of "amateur status" Rules that the old USLTA had quite akin to the USGA's "amateur status" rules. There's no question the old USLTA wasn't dealing with that very well. But when it comes to the USGA holding the old traditional line on its "amateur status" rules and regs it really is in pretty much a position of the Dutch kid with his finger in the dyke.
By that I mean they can continue to hold strong to the old traditional rules and regs of amateurism but the world is changing that way (because professionalism has gotten and is getting so much more pervasive and strong and there's not a helluva lot they can do to stop the world of sports or golf from doing that). They could get into taking away the amateur status of a ton of up-and-coming young teenager amateurs like a Michele Wie at 14 years old or of a young Tiger Woods for what his Dad probably did but if they did that en masse with young kids into the future all they would be doing is presiding over their own eventual marginalization and irrelevence and ultimate demise.
But I do understand that I do not want to be in a position into the future, even philosophically, like the Dutch kid with his finger in the dyke against the onslaught of the sea beyond. I do recognize that myself and people who think as I do may not be able to do a thing under the sun to stop it and how it will change "amateurism" over time. Commercialism and professionalism is a total reality and in every way it is just not akin to or compatible with the old spirit and reality of what old-line amateurism was and was all about.
-
I am obviously biased on this topic as I am currently in the process of waiting out my "time" for reinstatement of amateur status. So I expect my remarks to be taken with a grain of salt.
As a child my dream was to play in major championships and make golf my life, so once I was done with collegiate golf I turned pro. I got a job at a resort in the Palm Springs area to pay the bills and got sucked in to the club professional world. I was a club pro for 7-8 years and played in professional tournaments sparingly. I did have some success at the club pro level but nothing noteworthy.
My last job as a club professional was at Riviera Country Club and a gentleman wanted to take some lessons from me which I of course obliged. In the course of teaching this gentleman for about a year we grew close and played together a few times and he took a liking to me and eventually asked the question... "why didn't you ever try to play on Tour?" I gave hum my life story and how it didn't give me the opportunity to give that avenue a real shot. Out of complete complete charity he gave me the opportunity of a lifetime and sponsored me for two years to try to play. He wanted to give me a chance at my dreams and it is something I will never forget or be able to appropriately thank him for.
I played for two years and never got passed 2nd Stage of Q-School and missed the U.S. Open by a shot twice. I was so close but it wasn't meant to be. I retired from professional golf on February 15, 2007. After months of a jaded outlook on playing golf I was drawn back into the spirit of competition that only golf provides me and decided to submit an application for reinstatement as an amateur. I filled out a lengthy questionaire from the USGA and paid $150 to apply for my reinstatement. After a few lengthy dialogues with the staff that looks over these applications at the USGA they made a decision to force me to not compete for 3 years from my last professional event. I receive my reinstatement of amateur status on February 15, 2010.
I am not a household name in the golf world, never played in a PGA Tour event and never played in a major. I made a total of @ $200,000 in prize money in 9-10 years of technically being a "professional". Now, I understand the deep traditions of golf and I understand the "purity" of amateur golf vs. professional golf. However, I don't see how anyone in my situation or even less success could be considered a threat to the integrity of amateur purity.
Obviously, I have high aspirations as an amateur. I would love to win an amateur "major" and make a Walker Cup. What are my chances of doing either?... probably pretty slim. I think the line should be drawn on how much success and status one has had playing at the highest level of professional golf in making this decision and I think the USGA has done a great job of protecting this so far. For those like me that took a shot at a dream of playing on Tour and failed with little to no "real" success I don't see how that changes the landscape of amateur golf. If Brad Faxon were to try I would totally be against it. But come on, a guy like me who taught Mrs. Havacamp for 7-8 years and played minitours for 2 years with two failed attempts at Q-School? Where is the danger?
I agree with Tom Paul on his take and I also agree with Lynn Shackelford a little bit re: tennis's open system. I am no better than the best amateurs in the country and hope to someday be considered one of those guys.
Jeff F.
-
Not that it really matters to me, but I would prefer to see true amateurs involved in the Walker Cup. That means none of these semi pro guys playing major college golf who play in more tournies than some pros and no reinstated pros.
I think the problem many have with the so called amateur in the US is that some of these guys are in effect paid with equipment, scholarships etc. or their families are fed money. The line is too blurrrrry. If the USGA isn't going to enforce a more stringent definition of amateurism than it may as well be opened up. However, even if the game were opened up, I would like to see the Walker Cup for proper ams only. That is how it started and that is how it should be now. Its a pity its infested with guys who are basically semi pro - which is to say they are pros. I spose this is part of the reason I don't really follow it or any big amateur stuff. If I am gonna watch pros, I want to watch the best playing the best courses in the best majors.
Ciao
-
TEPaul -
I appreciate your perspective and your comments. I simply think your observations and conclusions are mistaken.
As an competitive amateur tennis player in the 1960's and a tennis shop owner in the 1970's (and a lifetime subscriber to World Tennis magazine at the age of 14!), I had a pretty good front row seat to the opening of tennis in the late 1960's (I think 1968 was the first actual year of open tennis) and the boom that followed in the 1970's. I even wrote a term paper on the pro's and con's of open tennis for a high school English class. ;)
There is no doubt in my mind that the tennis boom would never have happened without open tennis. There is no doubt in my mind that more tennis is now played across a broader spectrum of the population than their was 40-50 years ago. The breadth and depth of collegiate tennis is exponentially greater than it was 40 years ago. There is more tennis now televised in one week than there used to be in one year back in the days of "shamateur" tennis.
There is certainly less pomposity, hypocrisy and prejudice in the game than their used to be. I think that is a pretty good thing.
DT
-
This is a tough one. I probably have more of a problem with reinstated amateurs PLAYING a Walker Cup than captaining one, but I have NO demonstrable facts for that, just a feeling.
I do not know MR. Holtgrieve, but have heard nothing but positive regarding him. It seems that the bigger problem may be. Mr Holtgrieve turned pro to take advantage of a financial opportunity, turning away from lifelong amateur status, and was given that status back pretty quickly.
As far as whether he should be the captain or not, I wonder if the captaincy was given to an Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus, if that would be a concern.
Holtgrieve is neither of these giants of the game, but if being a pro disqualifies someone... ;)
-
David Tepper:
I've never been a tennis player but if you say there is more tennis played non-professionally today than there was 40-50 years ago I would very much like to see those comparative stats, and I believe I would be very surprised. Obviously, there is much more professional tennis played today than back then but I did not believe there was anything like the amount of amateur tennis played today, particularly top-flight amateur competitive tennis compared to back then. For instance, the US Amateur Championship used to be a pretty big deal back then, right? Does it even exist anymore?
This is not what I want to see for the future of local, state and national amateur competitive golf and all those amateur championships. If golf becomes "open" like tennis did I don't see the vertically integrated amateur association structure in America surviving.
-
Not that it really matters to me, but I would prefer to see true amateurs involved in the Walker Cup. That means none of these semi pro guys playing major college golf who play in more tournies than some pros and no reinstated pros.
I think the problem many have with the so called amateur in the US is that some of these guys are in effect paid with equipment, scholarships etc. or their families are fed money. The line is too blurrrrry. If the USGA isn't going to enforce a more stringent definition of amateurism than it may as well be opened up. However, even if the game were opened up, I would like to see the Walker Cup for proper ams only. That is how it started and that is how it should be now. Its a pity its infested with guys who are basically semi pro - which is to say they are pros. I spose this is part of the reason I don't really follow it or any big amateur stuff. If I am gonna watch pros, I want to watch the best playing the best courses in the best majors.
Ciao
Sean,
Are you aware of the European amateur program with respect to equipment, travel expenses, scholarships etc...?
-
Pat Burke:
A professional golfer is never going to be the captain of the Walker Cup. That's an amateur event put on by an amateur golf association and the captain will always be an amateur.
My point is, if the USGA is going to reinstate someone as an amateur golfer they are not going to do that with strings attached or some qualification that he really isn't a complete amateur golfer again because he was once a professional. That has never happened before and it never will. If the USGA is going to act like that or expect others to act like that towards reinstated amateurs then the best policy would probably be for the USGA to just not reinstate a single person as an amateur again who has ever turned professional or violated the "amateur status Rules and Regulations.
If that's the way some people view former professional golfers who've been reinstated and the USGA wants to take that kind of position in the future they can just do away with amateur reinstatement (which has been going on for close to a century) altogether and if anyone ever turns professional or violates amateur status Rules they would just be gone for good from the ranks of amateurism in the eyes of the USGA and with everyone who conforms to the USGA's amateur rules for competitions and so forth.
-
For sake of conversation Tom, do you think there would be any value to the USGA terminating its Amateur Status reinstatement policy?
-
Sully:
No I do not. To do that would potentially leave a lot of people who could not or chose not to play professional golf out in left field and I don't like that. If someone turns professional and after not too much time realizes that was not the right decision for them I think amateur reinstatement should be available to them and that's essentially the way the Rules have always worked.
I'm sure you've read the USGA Rules and Regs on amateur reinstatement. It is slightly subjective but for instance professional icons like a Palmer or Nicklaus or Woods or someone who's basically been a career long professional golfer is never going to get his amateur status back again. You do realize that don't you?
You played professional for a while. How would you like it if they refused to ever reinstate you as an amateur. How would you like it if you turned pro and after a month you realized that was a mistake and they refused to ever reinstate you?
Do you think something like that is a good idea---even for the sake of conversation? ;)
There have been some who have tried to play ridiculous games with professionalism and amateurism and one guy who tried to do that I personally recommended turning down his reinstatement application at the local level, so it never even got to the USGA.
-
Tom,
I think...for the sake of argument or discussion...that the integrity of the Amateur Game would be much stronger if they would not reinstate amateur status...
I am sure there are negatives, but strengthening the integrity of the Amateur Game just might be a good thing for golf.
-
TEPaul -
I have not been an active tennis player for a couple of decades, since the time I decided to become thoroughly mediocre golfer! ;)
As I mentioned in my prior post, the growth in tennis at the collegiate level is light years ahead of where it was 40-50 years ago. In the 1960's, there were no credible college tennis teams in the Northeast outside of the Ivy League and Army/Navy. Now there are as many quality tennis teams outside the Ivy League in the Northeast as there in it. Few colleges had indoor tennis facilities back then, now they are ubiquitous.
I can offer your this observed information as to the strength/growth of tennis in the 21st century. In the 1970's, the Olympic Club in San Francisco had 4 tennis courts (none lit for night play) and employed 1 teaching professional to service the tennis program. There was no organized inter-club team competition among tennis clubs in Northern California.
The OC now has 8 courts (4 lit for night play) and employs 3 teaching pro's to give lessons and organize/supervise all the events and competitions in which the members participate. The men compete on teams in Northern California Tennis Association sponsored inter-club leagues in at least 4 different levels of play. There are women's teams competing in 2 inter-club leagues as well. NONE of that existed 40-50 years ago! I am quite sure that kind of growth is neither unique to the Olympic Club or Northern California.
Professionals will invariably dominate open competition in any sport. Personally, I think a sport played at the highest level by its most accomplished participants is the best way to promote the interest and growth that sport at ALL levels of participation.
DT
-
Sully,
You asked, "For sake of conversation Tom, do you think there would be any value to the USGA terminating its Amateur Status reinstatement policy?"
The history of amateur status reinstatement by the USGA goes back almost to the USGA's beginning. For example, in 1916 when it issued its controversial ruling declaring Golf Architects and writers to be deemed professional golfers it also included with it an ability for those affected to apply for their reinstatement as amateurs.
Tilly acknowledged this in his writings as one so affected. He also refused to apply for it, and when it was turned over just a few years later, he still kept his standing as a professional golfer and never played in either amateur or open competitions again.
I am uncertain as to whether there was an earlier reinstatement policy, but felt it important for this discussion that an understanding of how long the USGA itself has recognized a need for a fair and honorable amateur standing reinstatement to some players who wanted to no longer be regarded as professionals be given...
-
Not that it really matters to me, but I would prefer to see true amateurs involved in the Walker Cup. That means none of these semi pro guys playing major college golf who play in more tournies than some pros and no reinstated pros.
I think the problem many have with the so called amateur in the US is that some of these guys are in effect paid with equipment, scholarships etc. or their families are fed money. The line is too blurrrrry. If the USGA isn't going to enforce a more stringent definition of amateurism than it may as well be opened up. However, even if the game were opened up, I would like to see the Walker Cup for proper ams only. That is how it started and that is how it should be now. Its a pity its infested with guys who are basically semi pro - which is to say they are pros. I spose this is part of the reason I don't really follow it or any big amateur stuff. If I am gonna watch pros, I want to watch the best playing the best courses in the best majors.
Ciao
Sean,
Are you aware of the European amateur program with respect to equipment, travel expenses, scholarships etc...?
Sully
I don't have a clue what the UK offers in terms of support for blossoming top flight golfers. I know some (a significant percentage of the very best players) go to the States for college and I assume they can receive some additional "support" from manufacturers. There are a few programs with teaching (Nick Faldo runs one) and some universities offer golf programs. I spose some companies may offer "support" for amateurs, but I don't know of any cases and college golf is not a big deal at all as is the case with college sport in general over here. Only the Oxford-Cambridge rivalry garnishes any sort of national press.
I have the impression that a significant percentage of young ams turn pro because they don't want to attend university or even sit A Levels. This would suggest that there isn't another outlet which offers enough "support" to live off, but I could be wrong. I think this has always been the case in the UK. Teenagers turn pro not long after leaving school or get out of golf. Many work toward PGA qualification as an unofficial ass. pro. How else can they make a living? The vast majority of these guys who stick around end up as club pros which I think is the intention if these kids are realistic with themselves. I don't know how many 20 year old ass. pros I see behind counters bored out of their minds. Every single one of these kids I come across I strongly encourage to attend university first and even go to the States if they have the game, but deep down most know they don't. However, the link between further education and golf has never been strong in the UK like how it developed in the US hence the reason some of the very best ams go to uni in the States. For a guy wanting to eventually play on a tour, what better place to learn your craft while not being under the pressure of having to earn a living?
Unfortunately or not, that sort of opportunity just doesn't exist over here. College golf programs are run much more like university clubs rather than a "proper" (proper meaning at the big unis some of these kids are essentially semi pro - hoping to turn pro and get rich) program like we see in the States.
Ciao
-
"Tom,
I think...for the sake of argument or discussion...that the integrity of the Amateur Game would be much stronger if they would not reinstate amateur status...
I am sure there are negatives, but strengthening the integrity of the Amateur Game just might be a good thing for golf."
Sully:
I'm sort of amazed that YOU would say that but since you did I sure will give a considered answer and the pros and cons some real thought. Looked at only in the light of maintaining something like the old fashioned traditional philosophy on amateurism it might be a good thing for golf or for amateurism's survival as it once was but of course there would be some negatives, and the primary one would be the marginalizing of literally thousands of golfers who turned pro young and then decided professional golf was not for them. Does our national amateur golf association really want to marginalize them for the rest of their lives? Then there would probably be an issue with young teenage potentially good golfers and with burgeoning organizations like the AJGA. Would they totally conform to strict amateur status Rules and Regs with that group since these teenage organizations like the AJGA seem to me like mini-farm organizations for future professional golfers or at least to be totally positioned at this point to be that. Even the PGA has a junior golf association or tour. I know since Mike Shaney our last competitions director went to work for it.
I've got to go mow a field which is a good time and opportunity to think about this. If I hit a really big rock while mowing I'm going to blame it on you, OK? ;)
-
Tom,
Do you think it is a good thing for golf in Philadelphia that every kid that can break an egg turns pro in their early - to - mid twenties and 95% of them turn amateur again a few years later?
Do you think the prospect of never regaining amateur status would effect the decision on the front end? I do.
-
Other than some archaic form of "purity" what is the problem with a person trying to attempt playing for a living, realizing they can't make it and then waiting out a period of time and being recycled back into amateur golf? What's the reason for the anti-reinstatement stance? I'm honestly not trying to sound nasty and I don't want it taken that way, I'm simply curious as to why there seems to be many that feel once you make the decision to become a pro you should forever be banned from amateur golf. Is it that possibly good lifelong amateurs don't want good players having the chance to come back into their pond?
Jeff F.
-
Good point on fearing the return of good players to the pond. Lifelongs rarely develop the hardened competitive nature of the failed pro. Terrence Miskell is a good example down in Texas. Now that Kuehne is done, Miskell seems to a be a likely replacement as Texas' top am. Problem is, he played pro. Lots of them did...look at the top Mid-Ams from the 90s and 00s and most of them gave one tour or another a shot.
I think that the competitive nature of the Walker Cup has changed the face of the captain. The USGA wants wins, not fraternally-charged losses. Unlike the non-competitive Curtis Cup, which will continue to be non-competitive until Europe is included (imagine a European team with Azahara Munyoz and the other collegiate Spaniards!) the Walker Cup is a battleground like the Ryder Cup that will continue to bear the fruit of intense competition. You will no longer see ceremonial US captains of the men's side.
These would be my five votes for USGA Walker Cup captain, in no particular order:
Trip Kuehne
Tim Jackson
Jerry Courville, Jr. (did he turn pro? if so, bounce him.)
George Zahringer
Kemp Richardson
Spider Miller
Danny Green would be fun to watch, but I agree that he is a long shot.
-
Other than some archaic form of "purity" what is the problem with a person trying to attempt playing for a living, realizing they can't make it and then waiting out a period of time and being recycled back into amateur golf? What's the reason for the anti-reinstatement stance? I'm honestly not trying to sound nasty and I don't want it taken that way, I'm simply curious as to why there seems to be many that feel once you make the decision to become a pro you should forever be banned from amateur golf. Is it that possibly good lifelong amateurs don't want good players having the chance to come back into their pond?
Jeff F.
Jeff,
I think that many of us do not have any objection to the reinstatement process. My objection is to the player who has won a bunch of money and competed at a high level, coming back and winning USGA amateur titles. A bigger gripe on my part, is for the USGA to choose a reinstated professional golfer to be the captain of a team that is supposed to represent all that is good about "upholding golf's traditions."
Bob
-
Jeff Fortson,
I completely agree with what you are saying. If someone wants to try playing professionally and it doesn't work out why make him an outcast? I have no problem with Jim Holtgrieve being a former professional. He thought he had the game to play the Champions tour and found out he didn't. Where is the crime? Besides, were John Harris and Jay Sigel ever really amateurs in the true sense of the word? I think not.
Ron,
Courville turned professional (teaching and playing some State Opens) so it is likely he will never captain a Walker Cup.
Kemp Richardson is a fine player but never having played on a Walker Cup would hurt his chances - as it probably should.
-John
-
Now, Bob, hold on one second. As long as collegians/future pros are eligible for the Walker Cup USA side, there is nothing at all about "upholding what is right and good." If you want THAT sort of team, have a USA v. GBI team match of mid-ams, but do not make the mistake of applying such lofty principles to the Walker Cup.
-
Ron,
Courville turned professional (teaching and playing some State Opens) so it is likely he will never captain a Walker Cup.
Kemp Richardson is a fine player but never having played on a Walker Cup would hurt his chances - as it probably should.
-John
I guess we're drawing a line then...if you have Walker Cup experience, then you have a right to be a captain. If you don't, then you shan't (excepting exceptional circumstances.)
Please elaborate how John Harris and Jay Sigel were not "amateurs." They were successful businessmen, but where did they commit some felony that placed their status at risk? Elaboration, please.
-
Harris and Sigel were indeed amateurs but "professional" amateurs. Not that there is anything wrong with that but these guys basically played a schedule not unlike a tour player.
To your other point, I think a Walker Cup captain should be an amateur - reinstated or not. If Jerry Courville remains a professional he should not be considered for captaincy - in my opinion.
-John
-
"Tom,
Do you think it is a good thing for golf in Philadelphia that every kid that can break an egg turns pro in their early - to - mid twenties and 95% of them turn amateur again a few years later?
Do you think the prospect of never regaining amateur status would effect the decision on the front end? I do."
Sully:
I could not possibly imagine that the propect of never regaining one's amateur status would NOT effect the decision of a vast majority of those who now consider turning pro. I'm also not sure that influencing those kids not to turn pro in that manner has ever been the intention of the USGA but perhaps it should be. The ones I'm concerned about are those who would do it anyway and then realize it was a mistake for them. They would not be playing professional golf and amateur golf would never be open to them again. I see that as effectively marginalizing people the USGA may not want to marginalize.
Do you think some kind of perceived stigma should be attached to those reinstated amateurs who took money to play golf, even if briefly?
-
RonaldM:
Danny Green is an interesting character and at this point he has developed quite a career as an amateur. However, I most certainly do remember hearing (directly) the buzz amongst both spectators and it seems some USGA people when he was competing in the US Amateur at Merion quite a few years ago. I believe he got to the finals and lost to that really heavy fellow from South Carolina. It seemed some of the bigwigs were extremely concerned that he might win the amateur because they simply did not at all like what they believed he did for a living.
-
Ditto, what Bob Huntley wrote.
The USGA has made a terrible choice, one that sends the wrong message.
Having someone who recently spent about 8 years on a PGA Tour serve as the Captain of the Walker Cup is ludicrous.
The USGA has losts its amateur compass on this one.
I'd like to know who made the decision, and why ?
-
I have to say I have a sneaking suspicion and gut feeling that this particular thread will be read by far more people in golf and plenty very closely connected with golf who just read this website and don't contribute to it (probably because they aren't registered here and may not want to be) than most any other thread this website has ever produced, even if the hits vs posts may seem to belay that fact, AT THIS POINT!
Or to put it another way, some of the responses on here may indicate the underlying ethos of GOLFCLUBATLASERS towards golf better than any other thread I've seen in my years on here.
-
"Tom,
Do you think it is a good thing for golf in Philadelphia that every kid that can break an egg turns pro in their early - to - mid twenties and 95% of them turn amateur again a few years later?
Do you think the prospect of never regaining amateur status would effect the decision on the front end? I do."
Sully:
I could not possibly imagine that the propect of never regaining one's amateur status would NOT effect the decision of a vast majority of those who now consider turning pro. I'm also not sure that influencing those kids not to turn pro in that manner has ever been the intention of the USGA but perhaps it should be. The ones I'm concerned about are those who would do it anyway and then realize it was a mistake for them. They would not be playing professional golf and amateur golf would never be open to them again. I see that as effectively marginalizing people the USGA may not want to marginalize.
Do you think some kind of perceived stigma should be attached to those reinstated amateurs who took money to play golf, even if briefly?
Tom
I am confused as to why there is any difference between turning pro and being successful and turning pro and not being successful - so far as regaining amateur status is concerned. A pro, is a pro, is a pro. Should the USGA really be in the business of deciding who was a "proper" pro and who wasn't? Its a slippery slope so far as I am concerned and I believe it would be far easier to have absolute rules in place - especially where the Walker Cup is concerned.
Ciao
-
Interesting parallel with Gary Wolstenhome this side of the pond.
He has turned pro so that he can go on the Seniors Tour in 2010.
He also appears to have done so in the full knowledge that he will never be able to captain a Walker Cup team. I guess that his 5 Walker Cup appearances and being GBIs record points scorer would have guaranteed him to get the job at some point.
Here's a link to the story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/7597830.stm
Is there a difference in the amateur reinstatement rules between the R&A and the USGA?
-
The interesting thing about this debate is that this is purely a debate of opinion. There are almost no facts in dispute.
I would like to add one more thing to consider in this matter. This is not about Mr. Holtgrieve per se, but rather about how one perceives a reinstated amateur.
Using Mr. Holtgrieve as an example, does it change your view of this matter if he would have qualified to be a Walker Cup captain based on the whole of his career before he turned pro.
Consider his USGA championship, Walker Cup appearances, Masters appearances and cuts, other tournament victories and finishes, his involvement with the organizing of USGA championships, his time given to USGA committees, and his involvement in his local golf associations. All of this occurred before he turned age 50 and before he was ever a professional. Based on this first 50 years of his life, which was all as an amateur, if you would then look at this career and look at the man’s other qualities suitable for being a Walker Cup captain, and would conclude that this person would be a fine Walker Cup captain; does this change that when he is then selected he is at that time a reinstated amateur?
I appreciate that for some reading these posts this will not matter. Some will believe that being a life long amateur is integral to being captain of this great amateur event. However, perhaps others will view this example differently now. If the election as captain could be based on a long and successful amateur career that all occurred before a stint as a professional, and has now resulted in a return to amateur life, some may now accept this selection.
On the other hand, I can perceive another problem feared by those who will still oppose this selection based on a stint as a professional. I do not know if a Walker Cup player has ever been a reinstated professional. But I must admit, that would cause me some concern. This of course then leads to my own concerns of perhaps my own hypocrisy.
So I am left with additional things to consider. I may have now muddied the waters even further. Although, this does lead me to one conclusion; this is a very difficult issue and I would personally be hesitant to call anyone at the USGA wrong no matter which way they fell on this particular captaincy. Success at amateur golf is very commendable, involvement in improvements to golf administration are even more commendable, being a very good person are most commendable. I can appreciate those that would want to reward this type of person’s involvement in the game of golf.
-
"Based on this first 50 years of his life, which was all as an amateur, if you would then look at this career and look at the man’s other qualities suitable for being a Walker Cup captain, and would conclude that this person would be a fine Walker Cup captain; does this change that when he is then selected he is at that time a reinstated amateur?"
BillS:
Obviously the USGA based their selection of Holltgrieve on his career as a top-flight amateur (which he'd always been until turning 50). I don't see anyone on here questioning his selection on his amateur record, only the fact that he turned professional and played on the Senior Tour.
"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.
Another thing I'd like to know is if there have ever been any golfers who first turned pro as a senior who've been granted amateur status reinstatement. One thing I am quite sure about and that is if someone spent a career as a professional golfer I doubt the USGA would consider granting them amateur status reinstatement (I believe there is some wording in the USGA's "Amateur Status" section that speaks to that point). However, there is no hard a fast criterian on that. Do you remember the tour player who was reinstated in the last 2-3 years who I believe actually won on tour? That particular reinstatement did get the attention of a number of people including some on this website. Was it Brandel Chamblis?
-
Sean Arble:
I didn't say anything or make any point about a pro being successful or not so I wouldn't bring that into this discussion as something I said.
-
BillS:
Obviously the USGA based their selection of Holltgrieve on his career as a top-flight amateur (which he'd always been until turning 50). I don't see anyone on here questioning his selection on his amateur record, only the fact that he turned professional and played on the Senior Tour.
TEPaul,
I agree that no one was questioning the qualifications of Mr. Holtgrieve, other than being a "reinstated amateur". The point I was trying to toss into the discussion is if one looks differently at one who first completed his long and successful career as an amateur before turning pro, as opposed to one who turned pro early in life and then returned to being an amateur while still very competitive. Perhaps, there should be no differentiation. I am not sure. That is why I tossed this thought out for consideration.
-
Sean Arble:
I didn't say anything or make any point about a pro being successful or not so I wouldn't bring that into this discussion as something I said.
Tom
I didn't say you did and it wasn't my intention to imply this. Just the same, this sort of the thing, the success of a person as a pro, seems to have a bearing on whether or not a person should be reinstated as an am. Is this not the case?
Ciao
-
TEPaul,
The reinstated amateur who had won on tour was Dillard Pruitt.....
-John
-
Someone with a less than zero chance: Danny Green.
-John
The odds are that Danny Green will never be the WC captain.
In fact, I would bet a lot of money that DG will never be the WC Captain.
-
Tom and Sean,
The wording of the Reinstatement Rules does allow for a subjective decision on the part of the Committee to not reinstate someone who..."has gained national notoriety or recognition from their golf"...this was paraphrased, and definitely does allow for subjectivity, but based on the Dillard Pruitt ruling, I'd say "National Recognition" must mean a pretty high level of success on the PGA Tour.
I do not think time served as a professional has much to do with it, although I could be wrong. If someone turned pro and went and won the US Open in their first event, I doubt they would be eligible for reinstatement...but I could be wrong.
I think Jim Holtgrieve is a great choice for captain.
The Walker Cup captaincy should be viewed as an important decision and the characteristics needed are very present in this selection. The fact that he spent his 50's chasing the Senior Tour will not matter a bit.
That the captain should be an honorary lifetime achievement selection is wrong. It should be someone able to lead the increasingly young team in a manner every one of us can appreciate. I know most of the guys already suggested that have been "lifetime" amateurs and they're good guys, but Jim is a great selection for this role.
-
Do you think some kind of perceived stigma should be attached to those reinstated amateurs who took money to play golf, even if briefly?
I think turning professional should be an extremely important decision.
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.
-
Perhaps we shoud find someone akin to this chap, if at all possible.
http://www.wgv.com/hof/member.php?member=1030
Bob
-
"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?
-
Bob Huntley:
Bill Campbell is a helluva guy and was one helluva career amateur. But to show how the world has changed in the last some decades with top flight amateurs and professionals, do you realize we have to go all the way back to 1975 to find a US Amateur champion who NEVER turned pro?
That would be Fred Ridley in 1975 and of course he went on to play in not only Walker Cups as did Campbell and Holtgrieve but also to become the president of the USGA, as did Bill Campbell.
-
Chris Patton was the winner at Merion. Now I'm going to dig to find out exactly what Danny Green does for a living!
-
" Now I'm going to dig to find out exactly what Danny Green does for a living!"
Ronald:
Don't bother. I'm not 100% certain what Green said he did for a living but I am 100% that the people of the USGA and others during that Merion Amateur believed he was a professional gambler and that that is what he did for a living.
-
I don't think reinstated ams should be stigmatized but I think the Walker Cup captain should be a selection where "purity" is a large consideration.Seems like this is a place for orthodoxy to trump most everything else.
All other things equal,I'd think the USGA would give the captaincy to someone who has remained a lifetime amateur.
-
I absolutely object to the term "professional amateur." If something shady is going on, that's one thing. Don't tell me that Bill Campbell didn't play a professional amateur circuit. Since the events exist, why not play them? Next thing you know, we'll be limiting the time spent practicing to be a "true amateur." Here's my definition of a true amateur: someone who sucks at golf! I don't qualify, so there's nothing in it for me.
Sigel and Harris were wealthy men who played golf as amateurs. I would imagine that a top-notch amateur from a humble background could receive an entry fee waiver or reduction if he/she solicited one from the Porter Cup, the Sunnehanna, the Monroe or any of the other invitationals. You're on your own with the USGA events, although they're fairly inexpensive. If such a kid received over $2500 in fee waivers, wouldn't that kid be a professional amateur? What about clubs and shoes and apparel in college?
-
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.
-
"I don't think reinstated ams should be stigmatized but I think the Walker Cup captain should be a selection where "purity" is a large consideration."
JM:
As far as what I know about USGA "Amateur Status" (and I should know something about it since I once ran a golf association committee that had to do with amateur status) I do not believe there is anything at all in their "Amateur Status" Rules and Regulations or procedures or criterion that has anything to do with "purity." In their eyes at any particular time you are either an "amateur" golfer (including a reinstated amateur) or you're a professional golfer. Other than that there are no other distinctions involved even if it is pretty clear there are a number of people on this thread who think there should be some criterion for something like amateur status "purity."
-
"I don't think reinstated ams should be stigmatized but I think the Walker Cup captain should be a selection where "purity" is a large consideration."
JM:
As far as what I know about USGA "Amateur Status" (and I should know something about it since I once ran a golf association committee that had to do with amateur status) I do not believe there is anything at all in their "Amateur Status" Rules and Regulations or procedures or criterion that has anything to do with "purity." In their eyes at any particular time you are either an "amateur" golfer (including a reinstated amateur) or you're a professional golfer. Other than that there are no other distinctions involved even if it is pretty clear there are a number of people on this thread who think there should be some criterion for something like amateur status "purity."
"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.
-
"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."
Jamie:
Believe it or not the USGA's "Amateur Status" Rules do not exactly take into consideration a golfer's golfing ability in the amateur reinstatement Rules and process. It pretty much all revolves around taking financial remuneration in various ways for golf or not.
-
This debate, while interesting, will never end as both sides are right and both sides are wrong. There really isn't any "true" amateurs on the Walker Cup teams. They are young kids who receive golf equipment and apparel and are working towards playing on the PGA Tour. And of course there is Kuehne who walks around like a NASCAR driver with manufacturer logos everywhere.
There is an open free market, and there is a controlled market place. The USGA is a controlled market place and their rules keep changing with the times. Those times keep moving them closer and closer to having the top amateurs becoming very close to professional golfers. Brian Harmon and Ricky Fowler and not aspiring attorneys. Their captain is merely reflective of the current culture of golf.
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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". ;D)
-
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 :o ) 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."
-
"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.
-
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.
-
"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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
Delcher remained an amateur after the Walker Cup and plays in amateur events on a regular basis...
-John
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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. ;D
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
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,
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
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
Pat,
I cannot think of a better anwer to the question of who should be eligible to captain the Walker Cup team.
Bob
-
"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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
"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?
-
Bobby Jones captained the inaugural Eisenhower Cup U.S. team at St. Andrews in 1958.
-
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
-
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...
-
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?
-
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. "
-
John,
That's certainly a better answer to Tom's question than what I had planned...
"I think so Tom"
-
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,
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
-
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.'
-
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.'
-
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. ;)
-
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. ;D
-
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.
-
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.