[Sean Leary]

Glenn,

Is your point that there are not as many really good 30+ year olds these days? Or is it that there are too many really good 20 year olds? Or is it something else?

JES,

Just yesterday I played with a 24 year old former Walker Cupper (who recently turned pro) and with a 40 year old Mid-AM (who is one of the better players around, played in 3 US Mid-Ams etc) and the difference in ability was astounding to me.  Not even in the same stratesphere. It was a casual round, but it was an eye opening experience..

[Glenn Spencer]

JES,

Neither of those really, I am just saying that I don't think we will ever see a 40-year old win back-to-back Amateurs again. The game is definitely trending toward youth and the older guys just seem to have to much else to deal with. Even if they can leave the office duties for a while, they are not getting the time that these young guys are. Wolstenholme is certainly a cagey player and a great one, but after him, I really can't think of a name that could even win one, never mind two in a row. The courses that they are playing for the US Amateur also seem to be trending toward the longer and moe difficult as compared to the 80's. I just don't see it happening. There are probably just as many solid 40-year olds, but I think it is much, much harder for them to be great than it was.

[ForkaB]

Rich,

No, it is not a sacrilege, because Crump did not start the Crump Cup. A sacrilege is the manner in which the Ryder Cup is contested, when compared to its founding principles.

I've often seen this position of your and am curious, do all of these tournaments pay prize money? At what age does that start? Are there non-monetary tournaments also? Does the same organization run both type? Who pays for the purse? How does this improve anything about golf today?

Jim

At one of my clubs one of the best players died and his widow offerred yto donate a trophy in his memory.  The Committee decided to make it a handicap trophy, which was a sacrilege, IMHO.

As for my point of view on this issue, it is simple.  Anytime you articificially restrict competition you restrict progress--whether it be business, science or golf.  Offerring restricted competitions based on natural differences--juniors, women, seniors, etc. is fine, but relying on ultimately indistinguishable or irrelevant differences such as "amateurism" or "clubable-ness" or "race" or "financial ability" whatever diminish any competitions that use those criteria.

The Corinthian ideal was noble but intolerably exclusive.  We have moved on as a race since then, haven't we?

PS--no peeking, George!

[JESII]

Rich,

I think you view the result of your goal too one-dimensionally. You might increase the strength of field in todays amateur events with the addition of some pros, but you would also dilute the strength of the professional events due to the replacement of some pros with amateurs. Just ask Ben Curtis if he thinks this would be a good idea.

This is not to say all pros are better than all amateurs. I am saying that this modification would hurt the pro game as well as killing the amateur game. If you took a standard 150 player professional event and gave all of those players the option to play somewhere else for less money but also a much weaker field there would be a fair amount of movement. Who knows how much, but players would absolutely find a tournament they are more likely to cash in and go there (even if it is less money). This would dilute the big events (and Tours) without actually adding any real value to the lower level events because they are still lower level. Tiger Woods is not going to play in some other event in the hopes of cashing a check, the bottom 2/3 ranked guys are the likely movers.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Rich thinks his concept is more egalitarian---and in some ways it is.

However, I believe he fails to see what it would create or evolve into.

His modus wouldn't be much different in ultimate effect than the misguided US Government plan to withdraw the designation of "Independent Contractor" from all American caddies.

Perhaps the government thought this would help the plight of caddies by making various Federal and State benefits and protections available to them. What the government obviously didn't foresse apparently, is it would also virtually kill the profession of caddying.

[ForkaB]

Tom

If the caddies were honest and good enough citizens to pay their fair share of taxes, the US Government wouldn't have to got involved.  Of course, the players and Clubs that used those caddies could have also agreed to raise the rate they paid in order to give the caddies a decent standard of living without them having to resort to tax evasion.  Wonder why that solution wasn't thought of?

Sully

I'm not talking of a Ben Curtis playing in the Crump Cup instead of the Open because he thought he might get a bigger check.  Guys like Ben won't take that easy option.  I'm talking of guys like you used to be, a fine player and lover of the game who just happened to turn "pro" and was thus was prohibited from playing in the Crump, or similar events.  Wouldn't they have been enhanced by your presence?  And, I bet if you had qualified for the Open like Ben, you wouldn't have opted to play in some mickey mouse local event instead just because you thought you had a chance to win a few grand.  Or would you?

Cheers

Rich

[JESII]

Rich,

I am suggesting that it is possible that someone struggling to make any money on th ePGA Tour would quite possibly have found occassion to play in other events if it appeared to be an opportunity to make some money, build some confidence etc...

Remember, Ben only earned his exemption to the Open a week prior with a top 10 finish at the Western Open. The Western is a very strong field event, and one in which it might make sense to look for lower hanging fruit somewhere else. I have no idea if he would take that route, and I can tell you I would not have but in hindsight it might have been better for my golf career to play some confidence builders on occassion.

[ForkaB]

Jim

I am stretching because I don't know you nor your game except in what I have read on here, so please feel free to bitch slap me if I am being too precocious, but wouldn't a victory in something like the Crump Cup (assuing that it were open to aspiring young pros) have been just the thing to build one's confidence in winning at a higher level?

Rich

[JESII]

Rich,

Trust me, there are plenty of lower level professional events that a young player plays in an attempt to build confidence and earn a living. It is not a requirement that you be a professional to play in them however. Placing some young pro, in need of confidence, in that field will not elevate the status of the event at all, and if winning that tournament is easy for him then winning his state open would be just as easy, go play in that.

To me, the great thing about our amateur status rules is the personal understanding and accountability it might develop in those good young players and (more importantly) lovers of the game. There are rewards and consequences to every action, and while I think I had a grasp on them prior to turning I understand them much better today.

I think a distinction between the two worlds need be maintained, and even strengthened if possible, because of that accountability.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Jim

I do trust you!  I'm still not convinced that there needs to be a distinction between the pro and amateur "worlds" (Isn't it just one great big world, per TE Paul? ), but I very much respect your thoughts.

All the best

Rich

[George Pazin]

Sorry, Rich, I did peek. Can't say I agree with your position, but at least I think I finally understand it.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Rich,
I think the distinction betweem am and pro is one of the things that seperates us from other sports..for all intents and purposes there is a line drawn that distinguishes the two..the amateur game still lives in it's purity..just ask those gys who compete at The Crump or the Coleman for example.
The field is very proud of it's amtateur status, and cherishes that amteur ideal...I personally believe that should be maintained at all cost.
The amateur/pro distinction and our handicapping system is what truly makes the game so great.

[Glenn Spencer]

MWP,

I am sorry, I am not trying to be a jerk, but what distinction are you talking about exactly. Every single sport has one. I can't think of one sport that isn't clear as to whether you are pro or amateur. In fact, I would go as far as to say that everything in life has this same distinction. If you get paid for it, you are a professional, if you don't you are an amateur.

[George Pazin]

Rich, I guess I don't see prize money as being that much more arbitrary than age. There are young children who've played more than many 40 year olds. Tiger definitely played more by age 5 than I have in the 10 years I've been playing.

As Jim says, there are plenty of opportunities for the budding pro to hone his skills. The only real upside to making the Crump Cup an open event would be that maybe Tiger would show up and The Golf Channel would choose to televise it.

Tearing down the structure of amateur golf seems a little extreme.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Glen,
No jerk thoughts at all..
The distinction is that which is stated in the rukle book itself..plain and simple.
Soccers governing body does not have well defined guidlines distinguishing between pro and amatuer ...neither does tennis anymore..if you accept prize money you are not banished from any other events..in golf you are...it is actaully in the rule boof as an entity unto itself..there lies the distinction.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()