RIP: US Amateur PubLinks

RIP: US Amateur PubLinks

  •  

    Any thoughts from the group on the demise of the PubLinks Championship?  I for one am sorry to see it go.  Rather than discontinuing the PubLinks because it has come to closely replicate the US Amateur, I think the USGA should have tightened the entry requirements to limit the college players' ability to enter.  Most of those are Tour players in training, not true PubLinks players, and many of them do not play regularly on public courses.  We are losing a valid and historic Championship.

  •  

    pulplvr
    Any thoughts from the group on the demise of the PubLinks Championship?  I for one am sorry to see it go.  Rather than discontinuing the PubLinks because it has come to closely replicate the US Amateur, I think the USGA should have tightened the entry requirements to limit the college players' ability to enter.  Most of those are Tour players in training, not true PubLinks players, and many of them do not play regularly on public courses.  We are losing a valid and historic Championship.

  •  

    Sad to hear that. What was the reasoning?

    • 5375 points
    • Posts: 1510
     

    The Golf Channel mouthpieces last evening interviewed the 1987 champion who was surprisingly acquiesent about the demise of the event he won. Something to the effect of the USGA must have its reasons...I too think it is sad to see an almost 100 tear tradition go away. I guess the event really changed in 1988 when the Public Links winner got an invite to the Masters. That "prize" changed the event from a venue for muni golfers into another collegiate wannabe pro scramble to win a Masters invite.

    I agree that the USGA could tighten eligibility requirements (how?) And continue this Championship!

  •  

    I agree, however it must have related to money (revenue for the USGA) in some fashion ....

  •  

    Chris92009
    I agree, however it must have related to money (revenue for the USGA) in some fashion ....

    Sad to say, but doesn't everything these days!

  •  

    i'm really upset to see it go.  the US Am has gotten to where the "average" golfer can't even dream about playing in it.  and i'm fine with that.  it should be the very best amateurs in the country/world.  but it would be nice to have a championship for the rest of us.  maybe that is over simplifying what i'm getting at.  but it would be nice to have a USGA championship for players who are never going to be tour players.

    • 1062 points
    • Posts: 92
     

    it's all about the benji's....Hate to see it go, but excited for the fourball..

    • 3106 points
    • Posts: 780
     

    The USGA has to change their slogan from " for the good of the game" - because most of the recent changes are not for the good of the game.

    • 3106 points
    • Posts: 780
     

    The USGA has to change their slogan from " for the good of the game" - because most of the recent changes are not for the good of the game.

  •  

    Dissapointing news, agreed with some of the mentions below.  There are ways to aviod shutting this down.

    RIP

  •  

    I kind of have mixed feelings about the Publinks.  On the one hand, as a mainly public course golfer my entire life, it seemed like a great championship.  But, recently, the fields are essentially the same between the US Am and the Publinks (same college players).  I guess it was easier for the USGA to just get rid of the Publinks, rather than making it truly for the public course golfers.  With the new four ball championship and the Mid-Am, I think the USGA is trying to create championships for everyone.

    • 5375 points
    • Posts: 1510
     

    I also believe I heard the GC folks say that applications for the Public Links championship were down  - only 3000 in the past year..Isn't that a lot, not a small number, of applicants??

  •  

    Too bad for this event.  Not sure the USGA is doing the right thing by eliminating this one.  I would agree with Tee3Green that this is not for the good of the game.  It might be good for the USGA, but not for the overall game. I cannot think of how this benefits amateur golf in the least.  If the USGA wanted to add an event, just add the 4 ball.  

    If they wanted to eliminate an event from their schedule, how about dumping the State Team event.  That one does not appear to have a lot of value to growing the game...

  •  

    ToddL
    Too bad for this event.  Not sure the USGA is doing the right thing by eliminating this one.  I would agree with Tee3Green that this is not for the good of the game.  It might be good for the USGA, but not for the overall game. I cannot think of how this benefits amateur golf in the least.  If the USGA wanted to add an event, just add the 4 ball.  

    If they wanted to eliminate an event from their schedule, how about dumping the State Team event.  That one does not appear to have a lot of value to growing the game...

    I concur on all of these points.

    Not bashing the USGA but, I am not seeing the big picture on some of the recent changes.

    -ICONs for All