While doing research on my recent two-part article on new Langtry Farms PGA golf professional Johnny Pott, I came to a startling remembrance of how professional golf was way back in the 1960s. Every now and then I noted that Pott would play in a tournament, make the 36-hole cut, play all 72 holes, and because he finished outside of the top 40, win no prize money.
This was a common practice in the PGA back then, and it was more prevalent during golf”s ragtag era of the 1930s and 1940s when sometimes only the top 15 or 20 professionals in the field cashed a check.
This past January, the PGA Tour cut rule took on a new wrinkle. Historically the top 70 golfers and ties survive the 36-hole cut and play throughout the weekend. And of course everyone does earn money, not just the top 40. The problem of late has been that sometimes you”ll have a 15-way tie for 68th place, meaning that 82 golfers survive into the weekend. Making the cut means you can start playing aggressively and try to move up the leaderboard.
Among the professionals on tour, Saturday has historically been called moving day. It is that one time when you can fire way at pins and take some gambles. After all, if you falter, then you”re still at the bottom of the pack. However, should you catch lightning in a bottle, a quality 66 or a superb 63 can move you up some 20 or 30 places.
The PGA Tour has had some issues over the past few years with the top 70-and-ties issue. As many as 88 golfers make the cut on occasion. This was the situation at last year”s tourney at Disney World. Slow play, tee times off the front and back nines, and the demands of television have led to problems with the tour”s ability to finish the event in a timely manner on Sunday.
With this dilemma in mind, the PGA Tour initiated a new policy this past January. The tour”s rank and file called it Rule 78. The way the new rule worked was that if 78 or more golfers made the cut, those right on the cut line would be given the rest of the weekend off. They would get credit for making the cut but they would end up tied for last place and receive last-place money, typically a figure around $12,000.
While some deadbeats might consider this a good deal, namely getting paid for not working, the new rule raised the competitive ire of the members of the PGA Tour. There are too many stories out there about pros who have made the cut line right on the button, come back on moving day Saturday with a 66, and then felt so good about their games that they repeated the feat on Sunday and finished in the top 10. The poster boy for this scenario is 1987 Colonial Invitational champion Keith Clearwater, who barely made the cut in a rain-delayed tournament and then shot 64-64 over the final two rounds to beat out Davis Love III. You really can”t be a top-notch tour player and not have the belief in yourself that given the opportunity, you can run down those ahead of you on the leaderboard.
The grumbling got too loud for the head honchos on the PGA Tour and they have revised the eight-week-old 36-hole cut rule effective this week. The new rule change is as follows. As always, at the completion of 36 holes, the low 70 golfers and ties will advance into the weekend. However, when 78 or more linksters do make the cut, there will be a second cut following the completion of 54 holes. That cut will include 70 golfers. Following 54 holes, the field should shake down enough so that Sunday”s pairings should be within a manageable number. At leas that way, the movers on moving day will have a chance to make a bigger paycheck. And if you”re still at the bottom of the pack after 54 holes, then maybe it makes sense to take the last-place money and get a head start to the next tour stop in Memphis, Milwaukee or Davenport.
In the world of amateur golf, an even more unique rule has found its way onto the books for 2008. The USGA now has a new definition, namely Peer Review. In a nutshell, it deals with the member at your local golf club who posts 15 scores during an El Nino March even though the course is closed or the member who seems to “forget” to post his tournament score of 78 always remembers to record the 90 he shot while playing with his wife. That scofflaw will incur the wrath of Peer Review.
There are some regulations required to make Peer Review kick in. First of all, you”ve got to be able to find fellow members who regularly play with the sandbagger. Second of all, you need to have a general scoring record, such as a computerized handicap to judge the validity of the claim.
If you can find people who know the guy”s game and the computer points to illogical scoring trends, then you can challenge the legitimacy of a golfer”s USGA handicap and have it adjusted. At least I think that”s what it means when the USGA calls it the “ability of golfers to gain an understanding of a player”s potential ability and to form a reasonable basis for supporting or disputing a score that has been posted.”
Then again, I do believe that I”ve always belonged to golfing clubs wherein the board had the right to lower someone”s handicap based upon playing reputation.
It reminds me of the story of the excellent golfer who played throughout the winter and watched his handicap rise from 5 to 12 in three months. The board wrote the sandbagger a letter right before Spyglass qualifying, reducing the handicap from 12 to 6. The offending linkster read it, put it into his pocket, and thanked the handicap chairman.
The handicap chairman was shaking his head some five hours later. The golfer went out, played like a 2-handicapper and qualified for Spyglass. I doubt if Peer Review would have made all that much of a difference.
