Another Reason USGA is Behind on Rules

[tartanjack]

This is just an "oh, by the way" kind of post. But writing about the grooves issue, I wondered if the USGA had kept up with the rules of amateur status... specifically the amount of merchandise you're allowed to accept as an amateur. Just a year or two ago they bumped it to $750. As I guessed, they haven't.

In 1947... that's 60 years ago... it was $100. Finding a handy dandy consumer price index calculator on the web (thanks, Google), it appears $100 in 1947 was worth $874.22 in 2005.

Thanks a whole bunch, USGA. Idiots.

[allin]

Since I am such a lousy golfer especially under pressure I am impressed that you are accomplished enough that this is acutally a concern.

[tartanjack]

Thirty years ago when my writing career was in, shall we say, a nadir, I supplemented my income playing outings in the Lehigh Valley area of Pennsylvania.

A buddy and I would sign up for every bar or charity outing we could find... and then basically sandbag our way to clubs, bags, whatever and then sell them. I'm certainly not proud of that, but it worked. And it would have worked a whole lot better if the limit had been higher!

Actually, my point is not about the money. My point is that the USGA is more concerned about the performance of elite professional golfers than the pittance it allows amateurs to collect. They're not paying attention to what matters.

[iacas]

In 1947... that's 60 years ago... it was $100. Finding a handy dandy consumer price index calculator on the web (thanks, Google), it appears $100 in 1947 was worth $874.22 in 2005.

Okay, so, c'mon, $750 isn't that far off. Perhaps in five years it'll be an even thousand.

Frankly, I think the limit should be about $5000/year with an add-on to the GHIN system or something to track people who seem to, shall we say, "win more frequently than should be probable..." Nobody's gonna make a living off $5k/year, and it lets people win something of moderate quality (a small vacation, a complete set of awesome clubs, etc.) without killing your amateur status.

[Fourputt]

Okay, so, c'mon, $750 isn't that far off. Perhaps in five years it'll be an even thousand.

The limit applies to total prizes won for EACH competition, it's not an annual cap. That means that you could win $750 a week in prizes if the opportunity was there. $5000 would be a lot of money for a supposed amateur. And you would likely get some players playing a circuit like that who actually qualified as pros, but maintained amateur status to make a living from schmucks like us. You can't make such prizes too tasty or someone will find a way to take advantage.

[underparnv]

You can't make such prizes too tasty or someone will find a way to take advantage.

That's just it, though. No matter how small the prize there is almost always someone out there who will try to take advantage of the/a situation to be more beneficial to themselves.

[iacas]

The limit applies to total prizes won for EACH competition, it's not an annual cap.

I never said I believed it to be otherwise. I know what the rules are.

That means that you could win $750 a week in prizes if the opportunity was there.

You could win it per day. You could even win two per day if you play in two separate events.

$5000 would be a lot of money for a supposed amateur.

For a year? It's certainly not enough to call someone a "pro" and it means tournaments could give out some better prizes. You can't even win a set of irons these days ($999 > $750) without threatening the loss of your amateur status. Heck, an r7 425 TP last year would have cost you your status ($799).

And you would likely get some players playing a circuit like that who actually qualified as pros, but maintained amateur status to make a living from schmucks like us.

Uhm, $5k/year isn't much of a living.

[Shindig]

The limit applies to total prizes won for EACH competition, it's not an annual cap. That means that you could win $750 a week in prizes if the opportunity was there. $5000 would be a lot of money for a supposed amateur. And you would likely get some players playing a circuit like that who actually qualified as pros, but maintained amateur status to make a living from schmucks like us. You can't make such prizes too tasty or someone will find a way to take advantage.

Sure, but what if $5K is the value of the prize and not the prize itself? Say, a non-transferable golf vacation? It'd be a great prize, but would cost us our amateur status at the moment for just about any vacation prize.

[Fourputt]

I never said I believed it to be otherwise. I know what the rules are.

How would you propose to track an annual limit? I don't see any practical method for that. A club could keep track of it's own players for tournaments it runs, but who tracks earnings outside of a player's home club? I don't think the USGA wants (or would be willing) to be put in the position of tracking winnings by ghin number. A club can ensure that no one player wins more than the limit per event by simply limiting the entry fees and prizes to a level that won't make it possible. But trying to track the annual winnings of someone who plays a lot of tournaments in a lot of different places would be virtually impossible. I see nothing wrong with the way it works right now, so why try to come up with a difficult fix for what ain't broke?