"I'm sure she has many Women's British Opens in front of her."
What am I missing about all of the columns and complaints regarding Alexis Thompson not getting a chance to qualify for the Women's Open Championship? She had a way in, as an amateur, and at 15 she decided to turn profressional. Now her agents--key distinction there--are making it sound as if she was unjustly blocked.
James Corrigan reports on the Ladies Golf Union admirably admitting it was no longer in the exemption business post-Wie.
Shona Malcolm, the chief executive of the Ladies Golf Union, insisted there was nothing the governing body could do to accommodate Thompson and revealed it was the preferential treatment of Wie which led to them adopting strict criteria. When Wie was 15 she received a "special exemption" into the Women's British Open, ironically held at Birkdale, where she was to finish third. "We have tightened up our regulations since then because of other players' criticisms over that exemption," said Malcolm.
Many will support with the LGU's hard-line, but Thompson's situation is different from her starlet predecessor. As a member of the US Curtis Cup team, Thompson received an exemption into final qualifying, but, under their rules, the LGU rescinded it when she turned pro six weeks ago. That meant her only possible route was through the first stages of qualifying.
"The problem was they clashed with the US Women's Open so there was no chance of Lexi making it," said the management spokesman. "After she finished 10th at the US Open we made repeated requests to the LGU to allow her into final qualifying. They refused. Lexi is obviously disappointed. There was basically no path into Birkdale. All she wanted was the chance to try to qualify."
She had that chance had she remained an amateur. You cash in and there are consequences that come with that. What am I missing here?
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 08:27 AM
Reader Comments (23)
The women's majors have never been above a fair bit of marketing. Wie finished third that year. She did not embarass anybody, least of all herself. There are many, many dubious things about the early amateur/promotional/spectacle phase of Michelle Wie's golf career, but that Women's British Open (along with her gutty performance in the Mens USAPL) were not among the "spectacles." If the PGATour back then had made a rule, "No more exemptions for Michelle Wie," it would have made a lot more sense.
I agree with Geoff; if Thompson's agents are cheesed about this, they have only themsleves to blame. But at the same time, I am just not quite sure about the LGU position. The one good thing about having any sort of special exemption criteria at all, is to allow in one of the handful of top players who, due to undesirable or overly technical circumstances, did not otherwise qualify.
When she went pro, she knew (or at least should have known) that she would lose any "am" exemptions. If playing in the British Open was that important to her, why not delay going pro until after? Too many people in society want "special treatment" rather than play by the rules. It's not like the rules changed after the fact. We all make decisions that have consequences, and need to live by them. Don't feel sorry for her at all.
"We have tightened up our regulations since then because of other players' criticisms over that exemption," said Malcolm.
It appears they are afraid of backlash from the players more than anything else.
Not sure if the new kid has earned anywhere near the bad will that the old kid had/has, so not sure if the fear is valid. If not, then having one of the hottest players on the planet, (who, granted, should be around for many more), could only be a good thing.
(Although, of course, having the management moaning about it in public is not going to garner much in the way of good will going forward, one would think.)
Their game, they make the rules - but the word "special" seems to apply to this kid as much as, if not more than the other...
Sounds like the Women's Open is lacking a spine...
Why should I have to qualify for the US Open if I won the Amateur the year before and THEN turned professional? Why does that single act nullify the accomplishment whereas if I don't turn pro I am considered a player who has earned his way in?
I think denying it to the player is dishonoring the game and the accomplishment and is, in effect, demeaning the US and British Amateur Championships themselves...
Phil, the logic dates back to the first few US Amateur Championships and is a holdover from those good ol' days. But them's the rules. For example, Colt Knost turned pro in late 2007 and missed out on the Masters, US Open, and Open Championship in 2008. Maybe he should have waited, if he could have? Anyone seen him lately?
But the point is quite simple. If the rewards for winning are X and are stated as such you must be given X.
As far as the reason behind it as you stated, it didn't give one, just gave history. There simply is no reason for it.
Here is another example. The PGA Championship gives automatic entrance to the winner of the British and US Open champions. What if they were an amateur? Would they REQUIRE the amateur to tuirn professional before allowing them to play? Yet isn't that EXACTLY what the Opens are requiring of those who've earned a spot into their fields?
And, by the way, it was only recently I believe, that the winner of the US Amateur as an automatic entry into the US Open as having to be an "amateur" had that stated on the entry forms.
She was rewarded with "X", as she was supposed to be, but she knew ahead of time that in order to reap that reward, she had to remain an amateur. The rules were not changed, so there is nothing wrong in this situation.
She was "X" playing against amateurs, it is an amateur exemption, she no longer fills the criteria.
Next topic
The qualifying schedule is a sytem error-fix it with a an exemption to qualifying, and re-do the dates next year to avoid this
and while we're at it, stop scheduling the Sr british the week before the Us Sr Open.