Comments on: Pros and Cons of Amateurism, Part II

By: catfell

catfell — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:09:13 +0000

What about a promotional contest, where the contestants have to putt a ball on an ice rink into a hole?

Winner received an prize/item worth over the $750 limit.

Does the winner loose there amateur status too?

By: jonnygolf

jonnygolf — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:00:03 +0000

The problem I have is when professional golfer regain amateur status. They spend years trying to make it professionally, but gain amateur status in a year.

If they've given years to make it as a pro, they should take years to "make" it as an amateur.

By: JP Bouffard

JP Bouffard — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:02:50 +0000

MJFerrence: That was so well written, I wish I had said it myself. I agree completely. Thanks for you insight and for reading.

By: MJ Ferrence

MJ Ferrence — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:07:50 +0000

Further blurring the line: any amateur golfer may receive equipment (up to a certain limit), and its common practice for top amateurs to essentially have a club deal with major manufacturers. No extra cash, but free clubs, balls, golf wear. And, as mentioned, college golf teams usually have exclusive deals with club companies to provide equipment. In these cases, the reward is directly for skill, which means the reward is seemingly in direct violation of the "purity" of amateur status.
But, as mentioned relative to the elitism of golf, purity is often merely a matter of who makes the definition. And the draconian enforcement of hole in one prizes (a rule which, admittedly, has been rightfully loosened in the next iteration of the Rules of Golf) makes a big enough splash to provide the veneer of absolute fidelity to amateurism, while the reality is far less clear or equitable.

By: Allin

Allin — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:24:48 +0000

I had never considered the impact of social values on rule making. An excellent insight. The comments by male pros about women in PGA tournaments is another example of different value systems. A better way to define the amateur rule would be to define a higher limit and to exclude specific things. The choices of what is excluded would allow college golfers and lucky winners (hole in one contest) etc but still cover people who win big in competiton or multiple times.

By: JP Bouffard

JP Bouffard — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:53:22 +0000

Do you mean the many "possible definitions of an amateur golfer," or a professionalgolfer?

If I understand you correctly, Danny, you seem to be saying what the USGA says, which is make a bright line, very easy to understand, and set rather low, to make interpretation simple and assure that nobody slips through the cracks.

Hey, maybe you're right, but I still think there's something screwy when a 12 handicapper is called a professional. A set of nice clubs may easily cost over $1000, and it seems silly to have a rule that prevents giving a prize like this.

I asked the USGA point blank whether they preferred that "silly" transgressions like mine not ever be reported, and they clearly responded that no, they should be reported.

Thanks for reading.

By: Danny Ottmann

Danny Ottmann — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:51:01 +0000

Good article, but I have to diagree with the overall theme. For the USGA to take into consideration the many possible definitions of a "amateur" golfer would breed ambiguity. You said it yourself, the USGA has a clear rule about what is cause for losing ones amateur status. For them to reevalute and change the rules to encompass all number of different scenarios would blur lines, create grey areas, and leave the rulebook open to many interpretations and litigation.

Its fine as it is, if you take a certain amount (over $750) of monetary gain from the action of hitting a golf ball then you have broken the rules of amateur status, regardless of your ability or handicap. This rule is black and white as all good rules should be.