Originally Posted by minitour
You see a team format played in the early spring replacing an individual format played in the summer as an equal trade?
I'll try to remember that when I have to shovel my car out to get to 4-ball sectional qualifying.
I'm going to laugh my hairy round butt off when all of the southern golfers that have been playing all winter long make the trip up north to the qualifying locations to play us northerners that have been buried under 4' of snow for 5 months so they can qualify with a "smooth" 74 because nobody else breaks 80.
This whole thing just stinks of fail.
But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Clearly whichever side you're on (and there's plenty in the show that would agree with me - reference the tweets), you've probably dug your heels in and are not changing your mind. Nothing wrong with that, but at this point I guess we should just try to keep it civil.
I see it as a terrible move by the USGA and an afront on what I consider to be the part of the game the USGA should be protecting (public course play). They dropped the ball with all of the exceptions to the public facility rule and all they had to do was eliminate all of the exceptions. But they decided to go with this four-ball format.
Hey, in fairness, I enjoy four-ball! Back before I got married the first time (you know...when I was allowed to have friends) we used to play all the time in a four-ball format. I'm not saying that I don't like the idea. But to eliminate the APL, I think, is a terrible dis-service to the public course player. Additionally, the timing is terrible for those of us that barely get to look at a golf course before the Masters.
I also understand that you think it's a great decision. I can live with that.
What I would like to hear from you is why you think this tournament is necessary. I understand that you like it, and maybe your counter is that you don't think getting rid of it was necessary, and that's fair, but what purpose does it actually serve?
It has been said a couple of times above that the regular US Am was exclusive to members of private clubs for many years. Any sensible person would agree that while that was the case that it was necessary to have a tournament that the public could play, and even better that it was exclusive to public course players. Completely fair. But now that it has been 30 some odd years since that private club requirement has existed in the US Am, it doesn't seem particularly relevant. Also, consider the fact that the Mid-Am serves the purpose of weeding out all of the only-amateur-in-name college players who are on the fast track to the pros.
In looking at the entry requirements, anybody who has a USGA index of under 1.4 can try to qualify for the Open, 2.4 for the USAM, 3.4 for the Mid-Am and Senior Open, 4.4 for the Publinks, 6.4 for the Junior Am, and 7.4 for the Senior Am.
If you are just arguing on behalf of all competitive golfers who carry an index of between 3.5 and 4.4 who are between 25 and 49, and college kids who aren't quite good enough for the Am (1.5 to 4.4), then I guess I see your point. Of course, I'd hardly call those "blue collar guys."
Furthermore, IF YOU ARE referring to that group of people, who's to say that the USGA wouldn't appease them by raising the handicap requirements for the Mid-Am to 4.4 from 3.4, or some similar additional changes?