Menu
As the last round of the National Club Pro Championship (CPC) unfolds, the players are vying for more than the winner’s check. As recently as 1994 there were 40 available spots for Club Professionals such as myself to qualify for golf’s 4th Major, the PGA Championship. In 1995 a notice appeared on the pro shop door on the morning of that year’s CPC informing the participants that the number of spots had been reduced to 25. Last year the PGA Board of Directors decided to trim the number of spots to 20, with a stated eye on further reductions in the near future. The question that immediately comes to my mind is why would our own leaders, in full control of the spots and under no pressure from the PGA Tour to eliminate any of them, be so gung ho about reducing the number?
I have played in 5 PGA Championships, earned by a win, a 5th, 7th, 13th, and 20th place finishes in CPC’s since 1995. I made the cut in my first PGA (at Riviera), missed the next four, and had the time of my life in each one. There simply is nothing to compare with playing in a major championship, especially when I have earned my way there and I am accepted and congratulated by the best players in the world for having done so. I have played practice rounds with David Duval, Mark O’Meara, John Cook, Fred Funk, Craig Stadler, Jay Haas, Corey Pavin, Jeff Sluman, Tom Kite, and Curtis Strange. I can tell you without hesitation our spots in the PGA Championship are the most valuable assets owned by the PGA of America. There is no greater reward for a club professional, all of whom have to budget time in and around a busy work schedule in order to keep their games in shape to compete at a high level, than to be able to play along side today’s greatest players.
If it means so much to the players in the Club Professional ranks, why are our leaders so enamored with giving our spots away? They will give anyone who asks a list of reasons: 1) The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to all the members of the PGA to maximize the profitability of the PGA Championship. With the current amount of club professionals in the field the overall strength of field is reduced. With the possibility of the Tournament Players Championship becoming a fifth major, the PGA risks losing its title of the major with the strongest field. If that happens there is a possibility that sponsor and TV money could be lost. 2) Club pro performance is not good enough to merit the spots. The gap between the Tour Pro and the Club Pro is widening, and the number of club pros who make the cut is too small to merit the spots. 3) The CPC should be the championship for the club pro, and the players should be happy with the increased purse and TV coverage that event offers. 4) Reducing the number of club pros will allow the PGA of America to invite foreign players not otherwise eligible, and will raise the number of exempt US players up from 70.
There is currently a debate between members of the PGA of America (club professionals) who still play tournament golf at a relatively high level and those who do not but who comprise the governing body of the Association (the Board of Directors) as to how many club professionals should earn exemptions into the PGA Championship via their finish in the National Club Pro Championship (CPC). Currently the number resides at 25, but as recently as 1994 the number was 40. Last year the Board decided to cut the number again, this time to 20, and indications I have been given through direct conversations with the highest officers are for the number to continue to drop.
The players are vehemently opposed to further cuts. We feel that the spots are perhaps the greatest asset owned by the PGA. I have participated in 5 PGAs, and the experience in unequaled. There is no direct pressure from the PGA Tour or their players to reduce the spots: indeed, it is our own leaders who feel compelled to toss the spots aside in order to invite more players (mostly foreign) who otherwise fail to qualify.
The Board’s reasoning rests on wild conjecture and failed vision. Their argument begins with the nebulous term “strength of field”. If the Tournament Players Championship were ever to become the 5th Major, the PGA would no longer be considered (by the media) to be the major with the strongest field. This might cause (or so the argument continues) a problem with sponsors, thus endangering the bottom line ($) for the event. Since their “fiduciary responsibility” is to the membership of the PGA, most of whom, they are glad to point out, don’t even play competitive golf, then it is in the best interests of everyone (except the players who strive to play at the highest possible level) to reduce the number of club pros down to as low as 5 and ensure the viability and profitability of the tournament.
To base the decision to cut our spots on the TPC becoming a major and thus endangering the PGA Championship is simply ludicrous. Viewing the PGA of America as an association wherein the players are now a “minority”, and that “no one joins the PGA to play competitive golf anymore” (a quote from our current President) because of the proliferation of developmental tours is a failure of purpose and vision. The PGA was founded on its members’ love of the game, which used to be showcased by talents in the areas of teaching and playing. We are now on an inexorable slide toward becoming a management association, where selling shirts, flipping burgers, and typing on a computer are the skills that qualify a club pro for his or her next job. Call me out of touch: call me a dinosaur: but please, call me a club pro proud of the fact that I can still play golf and still cherish the possibility of earning a spot into the PGA Championship.