Is "amateur-status" or amateurism becoming an anachronism?

[TEPaul]

Professionalism in a sport like golf has become about five hundred times more popular and dominant compared to what it was when the amateur organizations of the R&A and USGA were formed.

Is there a place for the USGA/R&A in the future of golf anything like what it has been? Some say not enough people use handicaps. People say golfers don't really follow the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf. People say the USGA/R&A has failed in protecting the integrity of the game vis-a-vis Implements and Balls.

Is the USGA and R&A on the way to irrelevency? Should they be? Should they just shrink back to running their respective men's and women's Open Championships---if that?

If that does happen who will monitor the playing rules of the game? What will become of amateurism in golf as we've known it? Who will monitor the handicapping system? Who will test balls and equipment and write rules and regulations on the equipment of the game?

[Craig Sweet]

Tom it would appear that you have changed the topic of this thread from amateur status to questioning the need for the USGA/R&A...

Both organizations have, in my opinion, grown well past their original intent.

First of all, I feel golf is overdue for a blurring of the term "amateur" just as other sports have blurred the distinction between pro and am...

Second, I feel both the USGA and the R&A due considerable good work in regulating the game, and reacting to the future of the game.  They HAVE responded to changing technology. Perhaps not in the way you would like, but they have in a manner that protects the majority of golfer and the golf industry. As I stated in another thread, the issue of technology and classic golf courses is NOT MY PROBLEM...the solution belongs to individual clubs and their memberships. It is up to them to respond, or not,to those concerns brought on by technology in a manner that is appropriate for their course and their membership.  It should not be the job of the USGA and the R&A to protect classic golf courses from long hititng professional golfers.

[TEPaul]

" It should not be the job of the USGA and the R&A to protect classic golf courses from long hititng professional golfers."

Craig:

As I said to you on the other thread it's nice to see such a different opinion on this issue on here. However, I doubt I could possibly disagree with you more regarding your remark I quoted above.

I most certainly do think it's the USGA and the R&A's responsiblilty to protect not just classic architecture but all architecture from long hitting professionals or long hitting anyone elses.

The fact is at this time and since the beginning of organized golf the USGA in this country and the R&A in the rest of the world are the only ones who have had that responsibility!

Perhaps you think they wouldn't mind seeing 8,000 yard golf courses in our future but it would most certainly appear they wouldn't want to see it.

If you'd like to see why just click on the USGA website, click on the "equipment" tab, click on the link to their "Joint Statement of Principles" and you will see exactly why they don't want to see it. And you will also see what they SAY they will do to prevent it since they do think it is their responsibility to do something about it.  

[Craig Sweet]

Tom, I love classic courses, even though I have had a limited opportunity to play them. Now that I live in the classic course deprived west, I have even less opportunity.

However, the USGA has to balance their approach to this issue because there are more entities involved than members and lovers of classic courses.  

A large majority of golfers, whether they play classic courses or cow pasture muni's enjoy the benefits of new technology. For them the game is more fun and it's easier.

My thinking on this issue is the USGA can gather data,, and continue to regulate equipment in a way that keeps golf fun and easy for the majority of golfers.

You, as a member of a classic course can determine how these changes in equipment impact your course and your membership and act accordingly.

New courses do not need to be 7600 yards for the tips. That is pure ego, either the developers or the architects'.  Yardage alone does not make a course a challenge. Besides, who is going to play from those back tees and how often? I'll bet the black tees at the Old Works in Anaconda are used for less than 10 rounds aweek. The land that is saved by NOT building multiple tees, or adding yardage could be better served by adding features...interesting green complexes, fairway options, etc.

Whether the course is 6000 yards or 7600 yards is of no concern to the USGA. Nor should it be. Perhaps, when long hitting professionals or long hititng "anyone elses" are the everyday golfer on our courses, they should act, but until then, I favor their current approach to regulating equipment.

[John_Cullum]

Tom P

I would venture that fewer than 1/2 of 1% can get around the old classics any better than they could 25 years ago. Clearly the touring professionals can make the most of the new equipment, but I don't think you should worry too much about how 600 guys are going to effect the whole universe of golfers.

The sort of unknowable thing is how would a guy like me or you play differently today if we were in our 20's or early 30's. I hit the ball about the same distance now as I did 20 years ago, maybe a little (very little) further with the woods. I would guess that if I were 20 years younger,I would be hitting the ball 300 yards off the tee, but I doubt that would make much difference in my scoring. I would still make numerous other mistakes, just like I do now.

I believe the equipment advances do help the 40plus golfer enjoy the game more, and the courses are still plenty challenging to me even at 6600 yards. And I would guess I am in the top 1 or 2% of golfers.

[Craig Sweet]

The bigger question is how will the membership at these classic courses respond to technology changes that makes hitting a golf ball easier and more fun?

The second question is how will they respond to changes in maintinence equipment, and advances made in products and resources available to their superintendents?

Both questions are related and can not be separated from one another.

Thus, I think the answers to BOTH questions have to come from the membership and not the USGA or the R&A.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

If that does happen who will monitor the playing rules of the game? What will become of amateurism in golf as we've known it? Who will monitor the handicapping system? Who will test balls and equipment and write rules and regulations on the equipment of the game?

Tom,

I don't think golf is much different that track and field or swimming in the Olympics. Clearly to be at the top of your game an any of those sports, you need to be sponsored, which seems to be underwritten by Nike. However, in all  three sports the national organizations still are relevant. Golf has just held onto its idealism of amateurism a little longer. I think Michelle Wie ended that, and I am not blaming her.

[A.G._Crockett]

First of all, if any of you had seen me putt in the senior club tournament at my club today, you would know that "amateur" golf is alive and well!

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom P

I would venture that fewer than 1/2 of 1% can get around the old classics any better than they could 25 years ago. Clearly the touring professionals can make the most of the new equipment, but I don't think you should worry too much about how 600 guys are going to effect the whole universe of golfers.

The sort of unknowable thing is how would a guy like me or you play differently today if we were in our 20's or early 30's. I hit the ball about the same distance now as I did 20 years ago, maybe a little (very little) further with the woods. I would guess that if I were 20 years younger,I would be hitting the ball 300 yards off the tee, but I doubt that would make much difference in my scoring. I would still make numerous other mistakes, just like I do now.

I believe the equipment advances do help the 40plus golfer enjoy the game more, and the courses are still plenty challenging to me even at 6600 yards. And I would guess I am in the top 1 or 2% of golfers.

John,
I would disagree with you a bit on the distance/age issue.  There is no physical reason a golfer should lose much, if any, clubhead speed until well along in the aging process, and then it would be a flexibility matter rather than strength.

In other sports, footspeed declines, reaction times decline, quickness declines, and aerobic capacity declines, and with them performance in the sport.  None of these impact golf at all.  The best analogy that I can think of would be free throw shooting; there is no physical reason that a 55 yr. old shouldn't shoot free throws as well as a 20 yr. old, given equal ability and practice time.  

I hate to draw conclusions from one instance, but the 1963 Shell match between Littler and Nelson at Pine Valley is a great example.  By then, Nelson was into his 50's and long, long removed from the tour, but he easily kept up with Littler in terms of distance off the tee.  I think that this would be the case more often than not, as long as the older player retained flexibility, which is relatively easy to do.  

Sorry for the thread hijack...

[Jim Nugent]

" It should not be the job of the USGA and the R&A to protect classic golf courses from long hititng professional golfers."

Craig:

As I said to you on the other thread it's nice to see such a different opinion on this issue on here. However, I doubt I could possibly disagree with you more regarding your remark I quoted above.

I most certainly do think it's the USGA and the R&A's responsiblilty to protect not just classic architecture but all architecture from long hitting professionals or long hitting anyone elses.

The fact is at this time and since the beginning of organized golf the USGA in this country and the R&A in the rest of the world are the only ones who have had that responsibility!

Perhaps you think they wouldn't mind seeing 8,000 yard golf courses in our future but it would most certainly appear they wouldn't want to see it.

If you'd like to see why just click on the USGA website, click on the "equipment" tab, click on the link to their "Joint Statement of Principles" and you will see exactly why they don't want to see it. And you will also see what they SAY they will do to prevent it since they do think it is their responsibility to do something about it.  

I wonder if the USGA, R&A or PGA has the power to hold back technology.  All they can do is make rules that apply to their members, their tournaments.  That still leaves tens of millions of golfers who, IMO, will eagerly grab up the new turbo-charged balls and drivers.  Are the munis and private clubs around the country going to forbid these golfers from playing -- or test their equipment before they let them play?  I somehow think not.  

This could lead to a somewhat bizarre disconnect: everyday golfers hitting shots longer than proīs.  What happens to professional golf when average golfers outhit their heroes?  

I hate to see great old courses become obsolete, but also feel like many things in life itīs almost inevitable.  

[Craig Sweet]

Jim, the USGA can make rules, but they have to look at a much larger picture than saving classic courses from becoming absolete.

The game of golf is bigger than the top 100 classic courses.

Currently, there are no "turbo charged balls and drivers"

And there probably never will be. The USGA figures a 15-21 handicap is "average" and they figure the "average" golfer drives the ball 220 yards.  That says to me that when you get past the "emotional ranting" and look at data, the problem is wildly exaggerated. I persoanlly do not see the average membership being a threat to their "classic course".

The pro's on the other hand, and the young, long hitting amatuers can make a classic course nearly absolete for tournament play. If that is the case, I think the response and the decision to deal with that has to come form the membership. If the membership feels its important to be in the Open rotation, or host a PGA/NCAA/USGA event, then lets allow them to decide how best to defend their course.

To go after the USGA and ask them to do more than they are currently doing (and I think they are doing plenty) to address the issue of technology, solely for the sake of protecting some classic courses is not in my mind the answer.

[Dave_Miller]

Tom it would appear that you have changed the topic of this thread from amateur status to questioning the need for the USGA/R&A...

 
Second, I feel both the USGA and the R&A due considerable good work in regulating the game, and reacting to the future of the game.  They HAVE responded to changing technology. Perhaps not in the way you would like, but they have in a manner that protects the majority of golfer and the golf industry. As I stated in another thread, the issue of technology and classic golf courses is NOT MY PROBLEM...the solution belongs to individual clubs and their memberships. It is up to them to respond, or not,to those concerns brought on by technology in a manner that is appropriate for their course and their membership.  It should not be the job of the USGA and the R&A to protect classic golf courses from long hititng professional golfers.

Craig:
Well put.  The rush to add length to Classic courses is in many instances misguided at best.  There is no need to protect these courses from the Professional Tour Player of today.  
They will not play these courses.  Very few amateurs play at this level and it makes very little, if any, sense to lengthen courses for the sake of lengthening.
These courses are for the members and changes should be made with the large majority of members in mind.
Fairways and Greens,
Dave

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Nobody had really responded to the question yet, and that is with regards to amateur status.

As long as there are players out there like the majority of those on this site, amatuer golf will indeed survive.
From a purely competitve stand point, I think that players like myself, Chet, Jamie and soon to be Jim S III keep the true ideal of amateur golf alive..we all work,  but compete in "amateur "events as often as possible.
For the most part, we are competing against the younger generation of college kids, who may or may not be stretching the limits of amateur rules to the limit...but we continue anyway.

The new generation of mid am invitationals has certainly made things better, in effect honouring the "true" amateurs out there..and for that those clubs who stage these events are to be commended.

However, when you have wealthy businessmen recruiting amateurs and "taking care" of them in the manner that is going on with the old grey goose guy, you are making a mockery out of the amatuer rules.
These kids are having all accomodation paid for, travel expenses paid for, food paid for and extra living expenses in the form of cash...how can this not be in breach of amateur status?
This I fail to understandIt is sad that the victorious Walker Cup team yesterday was made up totally of college kids...no mid am members on the US team for the first time ever..that really is a great shame.
Throughout the commentary, we lept hearing about this kid turning pro and that kid turning pro within the next few weeks, yet this is supposed to be the  pinnacle of amateur golfing honour...such a shame that a "true" amatuer was not competing on the US team...only two on the Brit side as well....

How nice it would have been to hear, this guy is a vet or this guy owns a coffee shop..or this guy busts his butt working at Cooper Tyre.

[John Keenan]

First it is sad that this has even to be a topic, but it is warranted.

I watched the end of the Walker cup and as noted most comments were about turning pro. To be fair the players noted that the Walker cup was a huge item in their lives. Still the comments on turning pro seemed to leave a bad taste in my mouth. Could just be me

The fact that there were no Mid-Am's on the team is another issue. Is it time to have another amateur event aimed at people who are amateur and plan to stay that way? That have real jobs as Michael-Wharton noted? It would seem so. Many of the young AM players today have a job and it is to play golf supported by an outside agency or their families.

I must note that with the growth of the Seniors Tour (old name) we are seeing many long term am's go pro. Witness Doyle a long term AM. Still these folks had real jobs and played golf "on the side" A classic example is Beer Man on the Senior Tour. I cannot rememeb his name but he was a beer  man playing AM tournaments in California prior to going pro.

My 2 cents

[Bob_Huntley]

And there probably never will be. The USGA figures a 15-21 handicap is "average" and they figure the "average" golfer drives the ball 220 yards.  

The subject of "carry" came up in an earlier thread, where it was pointed out that the pros do carry the ball enormous distances.

Every time I play the 16th at Cypress I am reminded of the fact that the average player does NOT hit the ball 225yards. To carry the wall dead center in front of the green is probably no more that a couple of hundred yards, to the front edge but 217yds. The average player is not up to it.