Why not offer exemptions at amateur golf tournaments?
What amateur tournament had the strongest field in 2008? If you guessed the U.S. Amateur, you were wrong. It was the British Amateur, what the Brits simply call "The Amateur." The U.S. Am ranked a mere second.
Of course, this is a subjective honor and based on a rating system devised by amateur-golf maven Fred Solomon. He created world amateur golf rankings (scratchplayers.org) — a seemingly impossible task. The Royal & Ancient has also devised world amateur rankings (wagr.randa.org), but Solomon’s are more comprehensive, better-weighted and better-presented. At this point, it’s no contest.
Despite the fact that the R&A rankings are not as good as Solomon's, the British Am still ranks No. 1 because it has eliminated the multiple qualifying tournaments in favor of exempting players based on their world ranking. Using the R&A’s amateur rankings, even though they are far from perfect, is a better way to get the best players into the tournament.
The USGA should wake up and consider something similar now that the U.S. Amateur has slipped.
Yes, you have to play your way into a U.S. Amateur, and there is no arguing the fairness of that. The problem comes when 80 players compete in a one-day, 36-hole qualifier for two spots. A tournament may have four top-150 players in the field, but the best players don’t always come out on top. And even if they do, in this example at least, two worthy players still can’t make the field.
There is also one added wild-card factor: Sometimes the quality of the qualifying-tournament courses is lacking and doesn’t help identify the best players. Giving exemptions to players who have proven they are the best over time would improve the quality of the field, and the quality of the tournament. (Full disclosure: My son, Mike Van Sickle, has a 1-for-3 record in U.S. Amateur qualifying.)
A major scheduling headache could also be solved by greatly reducing or eliminating qualifying tournaments for the U.S. Am, Mid-Am, Public Links and Junior Am.
The British Am has greatly upgraded its field since it made the change to rankings-based exemptions, but a scheduling change has also helped -- it no longer conflicts with the NCAA golf championship.
Consider one more oddity revealed by Solomon’s tournament-strength rankings. The winners of the U.S. Public Links Championship and the U.S. Mid-Am Championship get exemptions into the Masters. Based on strength of field, you have to wonder why. The PubLinks ranks 39th, the Mid-Am 61st. The only PubLinks champ to make the cut at Augusta was Ryan Moore, and he also won the U.S. and Western Amateurs that year. No Mid-Am qualifier has ever made a Masters cut. Based on Solomon’s rankings, there are several dozen events with stronger fields that produce better amateur champions than these two.
Posted by: agrimeimporge | Feb 18, 2009 8:32:01 PM
[url=http://effexor-cheap.webs.com/]Effexor[/url] (Venlafaxine) is an oral antidepressant drug.
Posted by: JT | Jan 11, 2009 12:35:53 AM
No question, with such a large field, give the top 100 the exemption, plus winners of top tournaments. Simply common sense given the world wide talent pool and logistics. Well said Gary and your son is a great player.
Posted by: Ringo Demaret | Jan 8, 2009 2:54:28 AM
Hit it, find it, add it up.
Posted by: Mike | Dec 31, 2008 2:37:11 AM
I believe most would prefer the ultimate ranking system...keeping score. Qualifying for The Amateur is the apogee for the club player. They should not be excluded so some college kid can pad his stats. Our golfing forefathers did not intend the Am to be another Ping Preview. Geez, what is it with Van Sickle and these lame-brained theories lately ??
Posted by: T. Puciaty | Dec 30, 2008 6:20:01 PM
The best thing about the USGA events is anyone that meets the criteria can try to qualify. Lose that and it diminshes the event - period. A couple of points:
-- As previously posted, if these events had more exemptions, they would just turn into college events...and may not decrease the numbers trying to qualify, so you would have 144 people competing for 1 spot
-- Which leads to the second point, there should be more stages, like the US Open Qualifying, for the Amateur events. This does two things - Allows more exemptions and could allow more people to advance to an intermediate qualifier...
More revenue, more fun, more inclusive, better field...
Posted by: d stewart | Dec 30, 2008 5:02:23 PM
having rankings based entry to amateur tournaments pretty much assures that only college-aged and younger players will be represented. there is no way most working-age (>22yrold) players would be able to take enough vacation from work to play in enough tournaments to establish a ranking. more than half of the ranking tournaments are specifically junior or college tournaments, not even open to older competitors.
i think the point of the masters invitation is to enourage amateur golf and the invites certainly do. ask any 35yr old on the first tee of a mid-am qualifier why they're nervous (and why they're there for that matter) and the slim shot at a masters invite will be the answer.
Posted by: M. McNeill | Dec 30, 2008 1:12:42 PM
Here's a crazy idea...how about we let the competition sort things out? Why do people get so caught up in letting rankings decide who is good enough to play (Gary Van BCS).
Keep the US Am a pure tournament. Letting some person pass judgment on the best amateurs who are worthy of not having to play-in seems a little in violation of the spirit of the US Am.