USGA Changes Qualifying Rules - Is the USGA Drunk?

[golfortennis]

10 hours ago, mbb86 said:

I see the rationale behind this format for the US Open, but it's unfortunate to see them transition the US Am to this format as well.

 

In my mid 30s I feel like I'm pretty consistently the oldest player at my US Am qualifying site by 10 years. That's probably not quite true but it certainly feels that way. 

 

I can hold my own against the "average" college kids and generally am in the top 1/4th at my qualifying site. I like to think that if the golf gods were smiling I still would have a shot of sneaking through. But I feel like this type of change is designed exactly to make it harder for someone in my shoes. 

Somehow the US Am would be much more satisfying than the Mid Am. 

 

Cue up the "well you should just play better" crowd.  The vast majority of whom I suspect would not be Roosevelt's man in the arena...

 

 

[italianstallion]

10 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

Cue up the "well you should just play better" crowd.  The vast majority of whom I suspect would not be Roosevelt's man in the arena...

 

 

I had to look up what that meant, and I’m glad I did. Great words. 

[KNOWMOREDOUBLES]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:25 PM, Chunkitgood said:

Actually…it would be interesting if they kicked the college players out.  After all they already have their own NCAA championship.  

 

Have the college kids invaded the state amateur championships?  The last time I knew who the champion of my state was he was a guy in real estate I used to play with sometimes.  It was a while ago but there were probably college kids even then who could have taken him.

I don't know where you draw the line on these things.  The club I'm a member at is 6450 from the tips and we have quite a few guys who played D1 golf that kick everyone's butt. I guess if you can't compete at the national level you play state, if that's not possible play at the local level, and then there is always handicapped tournaments that are flighted.  The bottom line is if you are not winning everyone feels like they are getting the shaft.  I play at my handicap level and just know that some shmuck with 9 cap is going to shoot 74, 75 and say, "I've never shot that well before!  Lucky couple of days I guess." Not going to bother spending 100's of $$$ to play in tournaments anymore.  The USGA is going to do what they want and we just have to go along with it.  

[munichop]

The usga will continue to make moves that appeal to the folks with money.  This approach is no different than getting rid of the pub links. The working man who golfs will never get an equal opportunity. Those guys belong with the peasants on munis, not rubbing elbows with the trust fund kids…

[bladehunter]

7 hours ago, munichop said:

The usga will continue to make moves that appeal to the folks with money.  This approach is no different than getting rid of the pub links. The working man who golfs will never get an equal opportunity. Those guys belong with the peasants on munis, not rubbing elbows with the trust fund kids…

Yep.  I have always felt this way about them. And why I won’t pay to join and support them.    It looks to me like they’re  trying to go back to the old days of amateur elites having a higher status by default.  

Edited March 25, 2023 by bladehunter

[bladehunter]

On 3/23/2023 at 3:37 PM, klebs01 said:

How many people in here are actually impacted? This is the opposite of a money grab. They could have made money by expanding the qualifiers to include more 1 caps with no chance at qualifying. They are doing the opposite and focusing on players that belong (skill not class). 

Disagree. It’s more class or $.  Making it two day alone cuts out hundreds of not thousands of applicants.  Travel and time off work in todays economy , is not easy.  Period.  
 

and besides.  There’s no world where a 36 hole one day doesn’t identify the Better , tougher player versus 18 holes a day for two days.    There’s no place to hide in the one day 36.    In my opinion.  

[klebs01]

7 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Disagree. It’s more class or $.  Making it two day alone cuts out hundreds of not thousands of applicants.  Travel and time off work in todays economy , is not easy.  Period.  
 

and besides.  There’s no world where a 36 hole one day doesn’t identify the Better , tougher player versus 18 holes a day for two days.    There’s no place to hide in the one day 36.    In my opinion.  

the issue is that the demand to try far out stripped the available spots. USGA tourist folks we’re getting in and locations were filling up in 7 minutes. 
 

the change makes sense from that perspective. The top x people go to round two. The rest start at round 1, the top 10 or 20 people can go to round two. All the tourist people can say they tried or played a nice course and then get out of the way. 
 

they could also do this by changing the requirement from 1.2 to +1.2. It would be interesting to see the handicaps of the folks making match play. Doubt any scratch folks are even making it out of their local. 

[golfortennis]

7 hours ago, munichop said:

The usga will continue to make moves that appeal to the folks with money.  This approach is no different than getting rid of the pub links. The working man who golfs will never get an equal opportunity. Those guys belong with the peasants on munis, not rubbing elbows with the trust fund kids…

 

I'm far from a USGA defender, but do you know why they got rid of the publinks?  It's because Mason Willoughby III, whose parents belong to Upper Stratosphere Country CLub where he practices and plays 98% of his non-competitive golf and who is on the golf team at Power-5 University, gets himself listed as playing out of Beautiful-Golf-Course-On-The-Lake Resort, thus qualifying him for the Publinks as a "public player."

 

Now, could the USGA have done a better job policing it?  Sure.  I think I would be giving them too much credit to say they did the bare minimum required to appear as though there was an effort to police it.  But it became a joke, because all these "public players" were the same guys playing in the US Amateur.

 

Same as the mid-am is becoming the reinstatement invitational.  A lot of ex-pros who couldn't make it as professionals see it as a backdoor to the Masters(winner gets an invite.)  

 

I don't doubt for a second the USGA is frowning their nose on the hoi polloi and proles(except to take their money), but there is some reasoning behind the publinks decision.

[golfortennis]

7 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

the issue is that the demand to try far out stripped the available spots. USGA tourist folks we’re getting in and locations were filling up in 7 minutes. 
 

the change makes sense from that perspective. The top x people go to round two. The rest start at round 1, the top 10 or 20 people can go to round two. All the tourist people can say they tried or played a nice course and then get out of the way. 
 

they could also do this by changing the requirement from 1.2 to +1.2. It would be interesting to see the handicaps of the folks making match play. Doubt any scratch folks are even making it out of their local. 

 

Two issues here, as has been documented.  The "top people" are based on a ranking that is heavily skewed towards college golfers.  The annointed get through to round 2 would be a better description.

 

And as was the case with the US Open, when they dropped the handicap from 2.4 to 1.4 in the mid-90s, entries *increased* by 1,000+.  

 

BUt an organization that is supposed to be making golf open for all, sure seems to like to close up shop with these types of moves.

[klebs01]

4 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

Two issues here, as has been documented.  The "top people" are based on a ranking that is heavily skewed towards college golfers.  The annointed get through to round 2 would be a better description.

 

And as was the case with the US Open, when they dropped the handicap from 2.4 to 1.4 in the mid-90s, entries *increased* by 1,000+.  

 

BUt an organization that is supposed to be making golf open for all, sure seems to like to close up shop with these types of moves.

 

I’m not saying the WAGR. Or anything along those lines. Suggest a better method. I’m listening. But the suggestion has to address the existing issues.  
 

Entry today is based on who is able to log on and register in the first couple minutes.

 

most people that try to play have no shot at moving on. 

 

Many high quality players are excluded because they didn’t sign up the minute entries opened, or have to travel a long way to find an open spot. 
 

there are a limited number of spots available for qualifying. There won’t be some magic 5x increase in courses that are hosting a people to run the events. It seems, while maybe imperfect, a reasonable step toward improving the qualifying process for those that should be qualifying for the event. 
 

 

[golfortennis]

1 hour ago, klebs01 said:

 

I’m not saying the WAGR. Or anything along those lines. Suggest a better method. I’m listening. But the suggestion has to address the existing issues.  
 

Entry today is based on who is able to log on and register in the first couple minutes.

 

most people that try to play have no shot at moving on. 

 

Many high quality players are excluded because they didn’t sign up the minute entries opened, or have to travel a long way to find an open spot. 
 

there are a limited number of spots available for qualifying. There won’t be some magic 5x increase in courses that are hosting a people to run the events. It seems, while maybe imperfect, a reasonable step toward improving the qualifying process for those that should be qualifying for the event. 
 

 

 

If you wanted to ensure the top 600 entry I could maybe live with that.  But without restrictions, what are you supposed to do?  I guess you could do like the Boston Marathon had to start doing.  They had qualifying time people in age groups had to meet. Well it got so bad( in part because running a marathon time got to be an *in thing*) that they reached the same critical mass of entries.  (Part of their problem was they allowed more and more people to make a charitable donation to enter--which really pissed off the person when I asked if they qualified by time or by cheque, but I digress).  Anyway, they staggered it so that the better you beat the time the more certain your entry.  Not sure how you could do that with this, but maybe there is a way.

 

I think the bigger concern would be the fact they are somewhat celebrating the fact they will be 94 fewer qualifiers over the events affected.   Is this a case of courses too full?  Courses not getting enough for hosting these events(a big problem here in Ontario)?  There is a disconnect somewhere.  

[munichop]

3 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

I'm far from a USGA defender, but do you know why they got rid of the publinks?  It's because Mason Willoughby III, whose parents belong to Upper Stratosphere Country CLub where he practices and plays 98% of his non-competitive golf and who is on the golf team at Power-5 University, gets himself listed as playing out of Beautiful-Golf-Course-On-The-Lake Resort, thus qualifying him for the Publinks as a "public player."

 

Now, could the USGA have done a better job policing it?  Sure.  I think I would be giving them too much credit to say they did the bare minimum required to appear as though there was an effort to police it.  But it became a joke, because all these "public players" were the same guys playing in the US Amateur.

 

Same as the mid-am is becoming the reinstatement invitational.  A lot of ex-pros who couldn't make it as professionals see it as a backdoor to the Masters(winner gets an invite.)  

 

I don't doubt for a second the USGA is frowning their nose on the hoi polloi and proles(except to take their money), but there is some reasoning behind the publinks decision.

To me it is funny that a ruling body will go to the lengths they do to delve into the minutia about groove shape but can’t be bothered to verify a tournament entry. I guess it’s beneath their administrative pedestal to do such menial work. So they solved the problem by eliminating the competition. 
These are the same idiots who allowed JN’s son Gary to get his am status back twice. 

[klebs01]

10 minutes ago, munichop said:

To me it is funny that a ruling body will go to the lengths they do to delve into the minutia about groove shape but can’t be bothered to verify a tournament entry. I guess it’s beneath their administrative pedestal to do such menial work. So they solved the problem by eliminating the competition. 
These are the same idiots who allowed JN’s son Gary to get his am status back twice. 

how do you suggest they verify entries that they aren’t doing now?

[munichop]

Based on the story posted where an entry misrepresented his primary affiliation I expect the first place you look is where the guy posted rounds. But I get where the usga is coming from. They are like any other organization that presents platitudes to sell themselves when the  reality is about making and keeping as much money as they can. How else can they stay relevant?

organizations outsource the administrative work all the time. The wagr is an easy out. If it screws those who are not in that world well tough on them.

[klebs01]

1 hour ago, munichop said:

Based on the story posted where an entry misrepresented his primary affiliation I expect the first place you look is where the guy posted rounds. But I get where the usga is coming from. They are like any other organization that presents platitudes to sell themselves when the  reality is about making and keeping as much money as they can. How else can they stay relevant?

organizations outsource the administrative work all the time. The wagr is an easy out. If it screws those who are not in that world well tough on them.

how does that work? Who will validate the rounds? If there are consequences for a pro signing off on a player then you are effectively eliminating pub links players. 

[bladehunter]

10 hours ago, klebs01 said:

the issue is that the demand to try far out stripped the available spots. USGA tourist folks we’re getting in and locations were filling up in 7 minutes. 
 

the change makes sense from that perspective. The top x people go to round two. The rest start at round 1, the top 10 or 20 people can go to round two. All the tourist people can say they tried or played a nice course and then get out of the way. 
 

they could also do this by changing the requirement from 1.2 to +1.2. It would be interesting to see the handicaps of the folks making match play. Doubt any scratch folks are even making it out of their local. 

I think they should pay themselves less or buy less property and use funds to work to accommodate as many entrants as they get.  
 

lowering the handicap to +1 or 0 is fine by me.  I’m fine with entry qualifications. And I’m fine with them swinging letters to those who shoot 80 and above to either bar them from playing next year , or require a prop or twos signature to validate that the 82 was a fluke and that they indeed should be allowed in.  But I just don’t think qualifiers filling up is an issue outside of metro areas.  I could have played in 4 for the mid am with no more than a 2 hour drive for either. 3 more for drives of 4 hours.  One is 23 minutes away. I don’t know about the us am , but I assume the qualify sites are similar in number.  

[NaBUru38]

Maybe each state should have a mid-am championship?

 

Or maybe ban former NCAA D1 and former PGA Tour players from mid-ams.

[golfortennis]

12 hours ago, NaBUru38 said:

Maybe each state should have a mid-am championship?

 

Or maybe ban former NCAA D1 and former PGA Tour players from mid-ams.

 

Each state has mid-ams as far as I know.  The problem you run into, which is what we have in Canada, is that if the state(provincials) are your primary qualifying process, you push things very early.  Ie., we have mid-am qualifiers in early May, for a mid-am that happens in June in Ontario.  Well, early May is a crapshoot in terms of weather here.  Unless you have wintered somewhere warm, or shoveled snow, you've only hit balls inside up until a few weeks before the qualifier. 

 

I'm not a fan of the way the hierarchy works here.  Golf Canada should run their own qualifiers, but at the same time, with a limited season, I can see why courses don't want to give up another day.

 

But the orgs also need to get off their high horse that they can cheap out on the course fees they pay as well.    

[PedronNiall]

Sounds like the weather situation certainly hampers additional qualifying rounds in some areas on top of getting courses to host, but something needs to happen if there's any serious desire to give the best players a shot regardless of who they are.

 

If it's all as it seems and about protecting the old guard instead then this change makes sense. Certainly does nothing to help "normal" players compete nor to solve the issues of the limited sign up slots being eaten up by vanity or entirely faked competitive handicaps. 

[klebs01]

16 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

Sounds like the weather situation certainly hampers additional qualifying rounds in some areas on top of getting courses to host, but something needs to happen if there's any serious desire to give the best players a shot regardless of who they are.

 

If it's all as it seems and about protecting the old guard instead then this change makes sense. Certainly does nothing to help "normal" players compete nor to solve the issues of the limited sign up slots being eaten up by vanity or entirely faked competitive handicaps. 

how does it not help the situation? They are reducing the handicap requirement, that weeds out people just doing it for fun, they don’t have a real shot. The players with a high level of demonstrated competitive ability with be exempt, the next chunk with demonstrated ability will start at stage 2, this will make it easier for the remaining folks to find a site to qualify. 18 holes is less of a commitment to see if they have a shot. It may also increase slots not having to get 36 holes completed in one day. 

[mbb86]

On 3/25/2023 at 9:36 AM, klebs01 said:

 

I’m not saying the WAGR. Or anything along those lines. Suggest a better method. I’m listening. But the suggestion has to address the existing issues.  
 

Entry today is based on who is able to log on and register in the first couple minutes.

 

most people that try to play have no shot at moving on. 

 

Many high quality players are excluded because they didn’t sign up the minute entries opened, or have to travel a long way to find an open spot. 
 

there are a limited number of spots available for qualifying. There won’t be some magic 5x increase in courses that are hosting a people to run the events. It seems, while maybe imperfect, a reasonable step toward improving the qualifying process for those that should be qualifying for the event. 
 

 

 

I'm curious about this, are sites filling up in 5 minutes after opening a widespread issue?

 

I haven't really had this experience in my area in the mid-atlantic. 

[AmateurAmateur]

5 hours ago, mbb86 said:

 

I'm curious about this, are sites filling up in 5 minutes after opening a widespread issue?

 

I haven't really had this experience in my area in the mid-atlantic. 

Depends on the site. I have heard Canadian qualifying sites and upstate New York (likely because of the Canadians) fill up within minutes. Last year I was able to switch my Mid-am qualifier location from Whippoorwill to another location a few weeks after registration, but the Whippoorwill one was full by the end of the day when I first signed up there.

[tiderider]

not a tournament golfer, so i have no right to express an opinion, but did want to at least post in a thread bashing the usga ... really do like a good usga-bashing thread, even if i don't know which side i'm for ... 

 

[Shwagin1066]

On 3/22/2023 at 7:08 PM, Stevens24 said:

I think they want a player to be able to play 2 solid rounds on different dates as opposed to someone having a great day or being at their home course. If it doesn't work after a few years they can tweak it. But someone having a -5 first 10 holes and then shooting +1 for 26 holes can happen. A player shooting well at 2 courses on 2 days is less likely for a marginal player.

everything about this is wildly inaccurate lol. Putting together a solid 36-hole single day performance is MILES more difficult than 2 separate 18 hole rounds on separate days. 

[jmcm87]

On 3/23/2023 at 6:56 AM, dmecca2 said:

I feel like the USGA is staring me straight in the face, extending out their hand, and raising their middle finger.

Ditto. 

I look at it from Mid Am perspective. It's at Sleepy Hollow this year. The amount of cash I am going to spend to get there, stay there, play there etc. on top of the 18 hole pot luck fee, is kind of crazy for an amateur tournament. Now say it goes the same road with local and regional qualifiers. I know at least half the field will tell the USGA, no thanks. 

[jmcm87]

On 3/25/2023 at 7:32 PM, NaBUru38 said:

Maybe each state should have a mid-am championship?

 

Or maybe ban former NCAA D1 and former PGA Tour players from mid-ams.

I played D1, 15 years ago. I am not the same player. But to the latter half of your comment;

What I did see in Colorado at the Mid-Am level was a few former pros who are now college coaches or have some hand me down finance job that allows them to play everyday, absolutely DOMINATE state am tournaments. 

[So_Cal]

13 minutes ago, jmcm87 said:

Ditto. 

I look at it from Mid Am perspective. It's at Sleepy Hollow this year. The amount of cash I am going to spend to get there, stay there, play there etc. on top of the 18 hole pot luck fee, is kind of crazy for an amateur tournament. Now say it goes the same road with local and regional qualifiers. I know at least half the field will tell the USGA, no thanks. 

Maybe that is what they want.  Not sure why they’re showing so much deference to WAGR, which is extremely flawed.  If players aren’t good enough to qualify they shouldn’t play.  USGA is making this more exclusive.  👎

[jmcm87]

2 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

Maybe that is what they want.  Not sure why they’re showing so much deference to WAGR, which is extremely flawed.  If players aren’t good enough to qualify they shouldn’t play.  USGA is making this more exclusive.  👎

Could be. I'm not in a tough financial spot so I can pack up for a week or two and go to play Sleepy Hollow or Erin Hills (Which is awesome, but I'm frugal and will still complain). But I do feel for the guys that have the game to be there and can't due to financial strain and then making it 36 holes over two sites.
Total overkill. If they're concerned about someone careering it and getting through, it's already 36 holes, just make the tracks harder. 

I've played in enough where a guy shoots 68 in the morning and 75+ in the afternoon to know that they are already getting the best players with a few exception sites where the talent level is crazy for only 4 spots. 

[jmcm87]

On 3/22/2023 at 5:13 PM, So_Cal said:

I really dislike this move.  Shortening it to 18 holes would be better.  So dumb 

1 hole playoff. 84 players. Last 4 standing qualify. 😎

[dmecca2]

56 minutes ago, jmcm87 said:

Could be. I'm not in a tough financial spot so I can pack up for a week or two and go to play Sleepy Hollow or Erin Hills (Which is awesome, but I'm frugal and will still complain). But I do feel for the guys that have the game to be there and can't due to financial strain and then making it 36 holes over two sites.
Total overkill. If they're concerned about someone careering it and getting through, it's already 36 holes, just make the tracks harder. 

I've played in enough where a guy shoots 68 in the morning and 75+ in the afternoon to know that they are already getting the best players with a few exception sites where the talent level is crazy for only 4 spots. 

I agree. I can't say I've ever heard someone complain about a top amateur not being at this event. If they're truly a top player, they are going to be there. Expanding this exemption using this flawed ranking system won't make the field better, it just reduces the chance of a mid-am or ex-college player getting through.