Merion Mysteries, by Arthur Crabb

[Patrick_Mucci]

[quote author=Jeff Fortson link=topic=61259.msg1455788#msg1455788

Question 1 - It depends on the circumstances of what kind of professional we are talking about. 
 
Do you really think a club pro that plays once a month and maybe two section events a year over a ten year span has a distinct competitive advantage over a top level amateur?
 
Jeff,
 
I read the papers every day and see the results of the local club pro events.
Those under par numbers aren't the product of a club pro deprived of play and practice.
I can assure you that they're not confined to playing once a month.
 
Would you list the Club Pros in the Metropolitan area who are limited to playing once a month.
 
I say no way.
 
Because they don't exist. 
 
On the other hand, for someone that played for a living that competed in dozens of events a year and practiced daily over ten years, probably yes.

Probably ?  You must be kidding.

Question 2 - Once again it depends.  I can name numerous players that didn't make it at playing at the professional level that hung it up totally.
 
Then they're not competing in amateur events, so why bring them up. 
 
Some I might see in a regional fourball event but not the individual competitions.
 
If they've hung it up, as you've indicated, you won't see them anywhere near a golf course, let alone in competitions.
 
And then there are others that play a solid lineup of many events.  So, yes, there is a "subset" of those players that do play a heavy schedule of amateur events, but it is far from a majority.

 
No one ever claimed it was the majority, that's your claim.

Question 3 (not really a question you posed, but the statement about the US Mid-Am) - I haven't researched that claim enough to give a certain answer or agreement.  I'd suspect that there are at least a significant number of former pros that have made it to the quarterfinals of the US Mid Am. I'd only interject that most of those guys were never PGA Tour players, if any at all, and most were not playing pros for more than a couple years at most.
 
Again, no one ever limited the discussion or focused on PGA Tour players, again, that's your claim.
 
Although David Eger comes to mind along with Jim Holtgrieve and a number of others.
 
As to your last remark, let me play golf and practice to the exclusion of other pursuits and even my game will improve.
 
To deny the considerable advantage is to deny the statistical facts.





Pat, my point is that there seems to be a puritanical belief that if a player regains their amateur status, that they are somehow tainted and any accomplishment they achieve after reinstatement is somehow lessened by their having been a pro.  I disagree with this position, and admittedly I am biased as I am reinstated. So my ultimate answer to all of your questions and points is that those questions and points are somewhat irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Don't get me wrong, your points and questions have merit in regard to the criteria of granting one's amateur status back, but they don't relate to the question of whether regaining one's amateur status should be a Scarlet Letter. If there was a precedent set at the inception of this question of regaining amateur status over a century ago to not allow pros to regain it, it would have been set.  I think the evidence shows through the history of this topic that the USGA and R&A never shared this puritanical stance.  I think it's obvious they always intended the opposite.  They set rules and policies to make room for those that chose to abandon the professional life.  I think the game is healthier for it both economically and competitively.

[DMoriarty]

I am generally sympathetic to the egalitarian, anti-elitist sentiment, but I think some are missing one of the main thrusts of the Amateur movement.  The concern wasn't only with the players, it was also with those who wanted to advance the business of golf at the expense of the game of golf.  Looking at where we are today, I wish the USGA had done a better job of keeping the business interests out of the equation.

On the other hand some of those who were behind these rules were probably just pompous, privileged, pampered and pathetic pricks who never had to work a day in their life. Unfortunately that embarrassing element has always been a part of golf in the US, and they still exist today.  I've received four emails today proving this. 

[Jeff Fortson]

[quote author=Jeff Fortson link=topic=61259.msg1455788#msg1455788

Question 1 - It depends on the circumstances of what kind of professional we are talking about. 
 
Do you really think a club pro that plays once a month and maybe two section events a year over a ten year span has a distinct competitive advantage over a top level amateur?
 
Jeff,
 
I read the papers every day and see the results of the local club pro events.
Those under par numbers aren't the product of a club pro deprived of play and practice.
I can assure you that they're not confined to playing once a month.
 
Would you list the Club Pros in the Metropolitan area who are limited to playing once a month.
 
I say no way.
 
Because they don't exist. 
 
On the other hand, for someone that played for a living that competed in dozens of events a year and practiced daily over ten years, probably yes.

Probably ?  You must be kidding.

Question 2 - Once again it depends.  I can name numerous players that didn't make it at playing at the professional level that hung it up totally.
 
Then they're not competing in amateur events, so why bring them up. 
 
Some I might see in a regional fourball event but not the individual competitions.
 
If they've hung it up, as you've indicated, you won't see them anywhere near a golf course, let alone in competitions.
 
And then there are others that play a solid lineup of many events.  So, yes, there is a "subset" of those players that do play a heavy schedule of amateur events, but it is far from a majority.

 
No one ever claimed it was the majority, that's your claim.

Question 3 (not really a question you posed, but the statement about the US Mid-Am) - I haven't researched that claim enough to give a certain answer or agreement.  I'd suspect that there are at least a significant number of former pros that have made it to the quarterfinals of the US Mid Am. I'd only interject that most of those guys were never PGA Tour players, if any at all, and most were not playing pros for more than a couple years at most.
 
Again, no one ever limited the discussion or focused on PGA Tour players, again, that's your claim.
 
Although David Eger comes to mind along with Jim Holtgrieve and a number of others.
 
As to your last remark, let me play golf and practice to the exclusion of other pursuits and even my game will improve.
 
To deny the considerable advantage is to deny the statistical facts.





Pat, my point is that there seems to be a puritanical belief that if a player regains their amateur status, that they are somehow tainted and any accomplishment they achieve after reinstatement is somehow lessened by their having been a pro.  I disagree with this position, and admittedly I am biased as I am reinstated. So my ultimate answer to all of your questions and points is that those questions and points are somewhat irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Don't get me wrong, your points and questions have merit in regard to the criteria of granting one's amateur status back, but they don't relate to the question of whether regaining one's amateur status should be a Scarlet Letter. If there was a precedent set at the inception of this question of regaining amateur status over a century ago to not allow pros to regain it, it would have been set.  I think the evidence shows through the history of this topic that the USGA and R&A never shared this puritanical stance.  I think it's obvious they always intended the opposite.  They set rules and policies to make room for those that chose to abandon the professional life.  I think the game is healthier for it both economically and competitively.

You know your participation on GCA has picked up when you get green inked.


Pat,

All your points and counterpoints are more relevant to the question of determining where the line should be set, as opposed to whether there should even be a line. Unless you are suggesting there shouldn't be a line in the first place and that due to all the concerns you have there shouldn't be a reinstatement process at all and it should be a life sentence. If that's the case I would simply submit that precedent is long standing to counter any argument against reinstatement of any kind.

As for your green ink points, the Met Section is one of few of the PGA Sections that value playing as a skill. I can name plenty of PGA members in the SCPGA that do not play more than 6 times a year. Playing ability isn't as valued out west at your garden variety daily fee and lower end private clubs like it is back east. So, yes the example I used DOES exist in contrast to your assertion re club pros playing very little.  As for your comment about how your game would improve if you had enough time to practice and play more, I fully agree. I know of numerous guys that play the mid-am cocktail scene that are trust funded and do exactly that. Somehow, their purity is intact?  Those types have a greater ability to play and practice than most minitour level players.

Once again, I'm not really trying to argue the minutiae of the details of amateur status in regards as to what should disqualify someone from receiving their status back. My point was to suggest that the puritanical view that regaining amateur status is somehow against the spirit of a code that has been lost over the years is obviously not supported by facts. Obviously, everyone is entitled to think or feel as they like on the topic of reinstatement and whether it should exist. I felt the bit in the story David shared spoke to how institutional the idea of reinstating amateur status has been in history.

[MCirba]

Mike,  I started this thread to discuss Richard Francis's fiction, not Mike Cirba's fiction.

David,

As compelling as that sounds, perhaps you should mark this thread as OT?  That way folks here will recognize it's not a thread to discuss golf course architecture or Francis's involvement in that field of endeavor.   

It's a cool find and story but I suspect aside from the venue of that particular piece most of his writings probably wouldn't engage many here.   Personally, I'm more interested in learning more about the man and what made him tick as relates to his brief foray into architecture as a member of that committee and how his views of the game, rules, etc., might have influenced what was built on the ground at Merion, as well as how he communicated what was done.

For instance, why was he using an alter ego in the first place?   Not exactly a common practice for explaining golf rules and writing high society fiction.   Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  If the stories don't interest you, feel free to tune out of the thread altogether. But there may be architecture to be discussed from his stories.  For example, the amateur rule as clarified in 1915 most certainly had its impact on golf architecture, as it stripped architects of their status.  For another example, see Francis's description of how Merion's holes played in the article above.  I am just not interested in allowing the thread to turn into another one of your tired digressions on the Francis land swap.  You've already been doing that on the other active thread, and as I said, I'll be happy to address your points about the swap (for the umpteenth time) on the other thread, but first I hope you get a chance to consider and answer my pending questions.  Thanks.

As for your question as to why he used a pseudonym, if you ever actually bother to read his many stories and the mini about-the-author pieces that sometimes accompanies the stories, the answer becomes easier to comprehend. 

As for your speculation earlier in the thread that the real life Richard Francis was probably a bit of a stiff who lacked creativity, here is his entry to his Harvard class update from 1917:
  TO the best of my recollection, I have already explained to an anxious and interested public all momentous events of my life since leaving college up to three or four years ago. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the facts as then outlined have not been changed by the several years which have flown since their transcription.
  Life for me is nothing more or less than a constant struggle to keep my income to such a point that I have a little time and a little money left over to play golf. Having struggled with golf for some twenty years, I have reached the point where I am almost a good golfer. Over and over again I have come very close to being a great golfer, but somehow or other somebody turns up at the psychological moment with the idea in his head of demonstrating that I am entirely mistaken as to my skill. Most unfortunately the demonstration is accurate, forceful and to the point.
  Of next importance to golf in my life is the Woman question. Mrs. Francis, entirely without my knowledge, approval, or consent, entered and honorably graduated from Bryn Mawr College, an institution generally supposed to educate women, but which, as a matter of fact, exists primarily to humiliate men. It was by the merest chance that I came to live in the town which boasts of Bryn Mawr College as its proudest institution. It seems to me that the yearly calendar is hardly extensive enough to contain all of the meetings held in this quiet village for the promotion of Women's Suffrage; the enriching of the poor;the impoverishing of the rich; the advancement of learning among the ignorant; the purifying of food, politics and males; and thirty or forty other uplift movements of the same sort.
  It seems unjust for me to condemn any of these worthy crusades, as there seems to be plenty of time left over for the proper management of the house, home, children and myself, which is done with great skill, effectiveness, economy and kindness.
  I have attended the usual number of Harvard dinners, which have been delightful as always. One point about them which has worried me a good deal is — it is explained at these dinners, as it has been explained many times before, that to be a Harvard man is in itself pretty nearly sufficient for any ordinary human; but
that to be a leading Harvard man among Harvard men is the sublimest height of achievement. Of course, I thoroughly agree with this, but I somehow or other have a terribly hard time convincing the general public that such is the case. Of course, if you will read again the last line or two the answer becomes perfectly evident.
  Otherwise, life seems to be simply delightful.
  Except for a good many useless newspaper articles, more or less technical, I have never written anything. I am glad that I cannot write, for if I could, it might have been I and not Owen Wister who wrote the verses about Mr. Wilson and had them published at a most critical period of our national existence. Incidentally, I am a Republican.

Perhaps Joe Bausch can track down his technical articles.