[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

[TEPaul]

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.

[Sean_A]

"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

[Jon Earl]

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?

[Bill Shamleffer]

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.

[TEPaul]

"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?

 

[TEPaul]

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.

[Bill Shamleffer]

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_A]

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

[John Blain]

TEPaul,

The reinstated amateur who had won on tour was Dillard Pruitt.....

-John

[john_stiles]

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.

[JESII]

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.



 

[JESII]

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.

[Bob_Huntley]

Perhaps we shoud find someone akin to this chap, if at all possible.


http://www.wgv.com/hof/member.php?member=1030


Bob

[TEPaul]

"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?

[TEPaul]

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.

[Ronald Montesano]

Chris Patton was the winner at Merion.  Now I'm going to dig to find out exactly what Danny Green does for a living!

[TEPaul]

" 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.

[JMEvensky]

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.

[Ronald Montesano]

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?

[JSlonis]

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.

[TEPaul]

"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."

[JMEvensky]

"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.

[TEPaul]

"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.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()