[ForkaB]

Jim

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

IMHO, the Pro-Am divide is not some sort of clean break, but a continuum.  Who really thinks that Jay Siegel and/or David Eger (for example) were "amateurs" before they turned pro off and on over their careers?  Not me.

As for your personal statement, as far as I am concerned, YES you should be able to both try to be a "pro" and also play in inter- (or intra) club competitions, as long as you are a member in good standing of your club.  The world has moved on, Jim, since Walter Hagen had to barge his way into Inverness CC in the 1930's......

I am no way at all as good a golfer as you, but I would MUCH rather play against a pro off scratch than some chump like my off handicap in any tournament I play.  I've beaten a few active and re-instated pros in my day and I'll take those few wins against any of the more numerous wins I've had against fellow chumps, any day.  Wouldn't you?

Cheers

Rich

[JESII]

Rich,

I assume you are referring to Sigel and Eger in the sense that they played significantly more golf than the average class "A" amateur in those days. You may also be referring to a presumed access to equipment and other opportunities typically only available to professionals. I have no idea how they handled the perk opportunities that undoubtedly came their way, but any violation would have been just that so they were taking a risk if they did anything.

As far as their playing opportunities while amateurs, should there be a quota of time spent playing or practicing? Does the guy that decides he wants to devote 80 hours per week to build his business have a complaint about the guy that is able to spend 30 hourse per week on the golf course if they wind up head to head in the city amateur?

I am in your camp of wanting to always play against the best competition I can, but as an amateur that will mean playing in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and US Opens (or at least try to qualify for them). But I also understand the desire to play against those that (in theory) are not spending 100% of their time working on their golf games.

[ForkaB]

While I would love to tee it up with any of those folks, Rich, there is stratification in all sports.

Should Barry Bonds be allowed to go back and dominate the Little League World Series?

Should Michael be allowed to go back and get that varsity spot he missed out on in 9th grade?

Should I be allowed to blow out my other knee dominating a girls youth basketball league?

There are already open events that anyone can attempt to enter - tons of them. There are also amateur events for people who wish to compete at their own appropriate level.

George

VERY bad examples.

Age and gender are legitimate differentiators as long as they are applied "backwards"--i.e. Annika can play for your club championship, but she can't go for the USGA Junior now that she's a woman of a certain age.........

Work on your short game, buckaroo!

[ForkaB]

Jim

I am assuming that most of the top amateurs have "jobs" that allow them to play (and practice) a helluva lot more golf than most "amateurs."  So be it.  But why should they be able to play in (say) the Crump Cup while the struggling young shirt-folders cannot?

[George Pazin]

I am no way at all as good a golfer as you, but I would MUCH rather play against a pro off scratch than some chump like my off handicap in any tournament I play.  I've beaten a few active and re-instated pros in my day and I'll take those few wins against any of the more numerous wins I've had against fellow chumps, any day.  Wouldn't you?

Cheers

Rich

The key to this is that it is your choice to play such people. It is also your choice to play in events with competition above your head, if you so choose.

This is totally different from seeking out a competition with people of similar skill levels and backgrounds.

Let the organizers of events choose whom they wish to invite. There is no reason to make it come one come all for everything.

I'd love to play Tiger straight up, too, but not for the competition. I play my normal golfing buddy straight up all the time and he's a good 10 shots better than me. It just seems like more fun. But I know in advance that there's little chance I will win, or even that the competition will be interesting.

That's all people are trying to do - make competition more interesting.

[George Pazin]

Jim

I am assuming that most of the top amateurs have "jobs" that allow them to play (and practice) a helluva lot more golf than most "amateurs."  So be it.  But why should they be able to play in (say) the Crump Cup while the struggling young shirt-folders cannot?

They can play - if The Crump Cup chooses to change its rules and allow them. There is no rule from the USGA or R&A stpping them, that I can see.

[JESII]

Jim

I am assuming that most of the top amateurs have "jobs" that allow them to play (and practice) a helluva lot more golf than most "amateurs."  So be it.  But why should they be able to play in (say) the Crump Cup while the struggling young shirt-folders cannot?

Interesting you bring that group up Rich. Earlier in the thread I soft-peddled around saying that I don't believe your standard assistant club pro should be considered in the same converstaion as touring pros or even head professionals. I believe the distinction you want to abolish should be based on tournaments played and the type of tournament it was. There are many "shirt-folders" playing 25-30 events per year and practicing many, many hours per week all year round and they're very good. Most though play very little and I would have no problem classing them differently.

I think there need be a 'Pro/Am divide', and am very open to discussion as to where it should be. Tournament experience, participation and aspirations are my guides in that conversation.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Jim

I personally do not think there should be any divide.  I also very much respect your direct experience.

OK, let me posit something closer to home that might illuminate this discussion and/or get me into trouble....  My "Crump Cup" is the Carnegie Shield in Dornoch.  Limited to "amateurs."  I haven't a hope in hell of ever winning the tournament, but I relish those 1 in 3 times that I qualify for match play in the scratch division.  Would it bother me if pros were allowed to play and I might only qualify 1 out of 5 times?  Not in your life!

I'm old and increasingly decrepit, but I want to do the very best I can when I compete at anything, golf, business, art or whatever.  Is this wrong?

[Bob_Huntley]

Shivas and TEP et al.,

My rant was not against the Asst. Pro in the shop or the young man who felt that he had to give it a go but failed, but rather the man who spent two or more years on tour and made money and a bunch of cuts. The man has an edge and  in my opinion it diminishes the amateur championships.

[JESII]

Bob,

I played for three years professionally. In all three I played mini-tours for the most part with several attempted monday qualifiers for Nationwide or PGA Tour events. I qualified into four PGA and three Nationwide events, and made the cut in two of the Nationwides. I also played eight or nine events as a conditional member of the Canadian Tour.

I have stated that I felt I would have had an edge in the first year or two after stopping my full time play and applying for reinstatement but do not necessarily feel that way now after my prescribed three year wait is over.

How would you view my situation?

[Mike Hendren]

Shivas,

Let's throw out the bar exam while we're at it.

Mike

[Michael Moore]

Super Shivas -

Your history is backwards.  Societies have moved towards people having specialized jobs where they earn money, and away from having hours in the day where they go around and find stuff to eat.

As the purses on tour become more and more gaudy, the professional/amateur distinction becomes more germane.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

My feeling on amateur status and on the USGA/R&A rules on amateur status reinstatement is that it's an issue that any of us who are concerned about it should take up with the two regulatory bodies and their rules on amateur status and reinstatement.

It's an issue that should never come up with a reinstated amateur. Either they're reinstated or they aren't, and if they are they should be looked at no different than any other amateur, including life-long amateurs.

As far as playing against reinstated amateurs in something like the US Mid-Am, it's just a fact of life and no lifelong amateur should use it as an excuse. If they feel they can't or don't compete well against reinstated amateurs then the only logical solution is to practice and and play harder because essentially that's all they ever did before reinstatement.

The purpose of creating the United States Mid-Amateur Championship in the first place was to have a tournament for players over a certain age because the liklihood of them turning professional was so reduced. It could be assumed then that if they had not turned professional by 25 or 30 they planned to remain amateur. However, there was no provision within the US Mid-Am for golfers who were applying for amateur reinstatement. I, for one, feel there never should be such a provision or even a feeling of it in the US Mid-Amateur.

The other thing that concerns me with too strict an interpretation of what an amateur is or what a professional is would be what happens to some in this junior age group or even golfers who tried professional golf for a short time? If the amateur ranks do not embrace both in some way then entire segments of golfers are sort of cast into limbo where they can't or don't play professional golf and they are no longer allowed to play amateur golf.

Generally, I'm almost always for accomodation of as many golfers as possible and not the exclusion of them.

[George Pazin]

OK, let me posit something closer to home that might illuminate this discussion and/or get me into trouble....  My "Crump Cup" is the Carnegie Shield in Dornoch.  Limited to "amateurs."  I haven't a hope in hell of ever winning the tournament, but I relish those 1 in 3 times that I qualify for match play in the scratch division.  Would it bother me if pros were allowed to play and I might only qualify 1 out of 5 times?  Not in your life!

I'm old and increasingly decrepit, but I want to do the very best I can when I compete at anything, golf, business, art or whatever.  Is this wrong?

Call me a cynic, but I'd bet that deep down if you were one of the fellows who contends for the championship every year, you'd better appreciate keeping Tiger out.

Shiv -

I think a better analogy would be a Supreme Court justice stepping into Constitutional Law class and blowing away the curve (not that I think all the current Justices could do this... ).

There's no way you could ban someone based on scores unless there was an omnipotent/omniscient person who knew what everyone really shot every time out. Talk about an incentive to not post scores.

[ForkaB]

OK, let me posit something closer to home that might illuminate this discussion and/or get me into trouble....  My "Crump Cup" is the Carnegie Shield in Dornoch.  Limited to "amateurs."  I haven't a hope in hell of ever winning the tournament, but I relish those 1 in 3 times that I qualify for match play in the scratch division.  Would it bother me if pros were allowed to play and I might only qualify 1 out of 5 times?  Not in your life!

I'm old and increasingly decrepit, but I want to do the very best I can when I compete at anything, golf, business, art or whatever.  Is this wrong?

Call me a cynic, but I'd bet that deep down if you were one of the fellows who contends for the championship every year, you'd better appreciate keeping Tiger out.

Absolutely not, George.  Would you prefer that you compete in the t-shirt business only against "amateurs?"  If so, Ayn Rand would be rotating in her grave.......

[George Pazin]

Business is not a game.

Christmas is over and business is business.

- Gordon Gekko

[A_Clay_Man]

On a different note--
Adam Clayman is in NEBRASKA 9/15-9/17.
Anyone in the area? He'll likely be staying at Super 8 in Gothenburg. Give him a hollar and bring your sticks.
...or email and I'll give you his cell #.
Have a good time.
Sheryl

[George Pazin]

Tiger's not banned because he's too good, he's banned because Nike/Amex/Buick/whomever pay him $100 million a year to spend every waking hour that he's not with Elin practicing golf.

The distinction between pro and am has nothing to do with results - it has to do with the fact that a pro can theoretically spend as much time as possible practicing and playing golf. In theory (I know there are exceptions like Wie) an amateur has a life outside of golf.

Call me crazy, but I think the categories were stratified to allow people to find competitions that better suited their level.

It is up to every ruling committee for every competition to set their rules for entry. Period. Not me, not Shivas, and sure as hell not Rich. Some choose to delineate via skill, some choose motivation. The only reason the USGA even has to have these rules is because it holds competitions. If it were simply a ruling body, I doubt this stuff would even show up in the rule book.

It's not the NFL that keeps Michael Vick out of NCAA competition, it's the NCAA.

[Michael Moore]

Shiv -

How is the division between am and pro anachronistic?

It didn't previously exist.

Now the pros play for five million each week.

[TEPaul]

"I think there need be a 'Pro/Am divide', and am very open to discussion as to where it should be."

Sully:

The USGA has that "pro/am divide". It's called their definition of amateur status. It seems to me to be working pretty well. I wouldn't let a thread like this lead you to think otherwise. Sometimes the participants on this website just need some issue or problem to discuss so they just make one.  

[George Pazin]

Look at it this way -

Does the winner of the US Am think he's the best golf in the world?

How about the winner of the Crump Cup?

How about the winner of the Shield?

How about if Jim or Jamie win the Philly Open?

No, each one simply thinks he won a competition. When Roy Vucinich won the Western PA Open a few weeks ago, he didn't go around gloating the he's the best golfer in the world. He was happy that he won a competition that he entered.

If you're handicap is low enough, you are able to enter open competitions, should you wish to test your game against "the best".

The notion of abandoning all types of stratification is a complete joke. I can't even believe we're discussing this. The only conceivable objection someone could have is against the independently wealthy individual who could in theory spend as much time and effort as Tiger, but doesn't need the money. Does this mythical figure exist? The closest thing there is is the college player, but even he has to meet academic standards to remain eligible.

So should we junk the entire system because Bill Gates might have a kid someday that shows some talent for the game and wishes to continue to sponge off dad so that he can pile up US Am titles? Come on, this is flat out ridiculous!

Does anyone think Stranahan would have stayed an amateur if he were raised in today's world? Or even Bobby Jones? No, they would turn pro so they could collect an occasional prize while testing themself against the best.

[Michael Moore]

This is most interesting.

It seems that in 1894 there were 2 "National Amateur Championships", causing Charles MacDonald to call for the formation of the Amateur Golf Association.

The US Open and the US Am were rolled out in the same year, 1895. What conclusions can we draw from this?

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul could probably add some insight here,"

Shiv:

Some insight on what exactly?

[Michael Moore]

According to the USGA website, the 1895 US Open was held the day after the US Am, at the same course, as an "afterthought".

To be a fly on the wall that evening !

[JESII]

"I think there need be a 'Pro/Am divide', and am very open to discussion as to where it should be."

Sully:

The USGA has that "pro/am divide". It's called their definition of amateur status. It seems to me to be working pretty well. I wouldn't let a thread like this lead you to think otherwise. Sometimes the participants on this website just need some issue or problem to discuss so they just make one.  

Tom,

When I applied for reinstatement in October of 2002 the USGA reviewed my application and determined that a three year waiting period would be fair to reduce or eliminate any competitive advantage I would have had over other amateurs. This competitive advantage existed because I spent three years playing golf full time as an occupation. I thought it was a right and fair ruling. I can say now that it very likely accomplished its mission, the waiting period that is.

In its recent change to the rules of amateur status the USGA changed their criteria for determining waiting periods for reinstatement. I have not read the entire rule and criteria in depth, but I know they reduced the standard wait, in effect making it much easier to regain amateur status after a stint as a pro.

I think the fact that they have just released rule and guideline changes make it a fair topic for discussion. I am very sympathetic to the USGA on this because, like I said earlier, no two cases are the same and only the extremes would be easy decisions. That being said I find it surprising that they would ease the definition of amateur status as well as the waiting period for reinstatement.


Shivas,

The distinction cannot be drawn based on performance and handicap because you would then force the top amateurs into professionalism and the lower pros could no longer play for money. The argument is not about people being too good, its about people devoting all of their time to something and the differences that go along with that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()