/ 3 March 1995

Prestige and problems on tour

GOLF: Jon Swift

WHILE this country basks in the glow of a memorable inaugural win in the Alfred Dunhill Challenge at Houghton, there are some areas which requrie some thought before next season’s professional tour kicks

for next year, there is no Dunhill Challenge to take the edge off some of the problems which lurk under the surface.

And by the same token, no Challenge to lure some of the local big names onto our local tour.

There can be no doubting the impact this prestige tournament — scheduled to be next played in Australia two years hence — had on the local golf scene. Where else could one really expect to see a dream match like world number one Nick Price against the world number two and previous holder of the mantle Greg Norman.

That Price ultimately prevailed for Gary Player’s Southern African side on the final hole of their singles match speaks volumes.

Neither can there be any doubt about the cash boost that the inclusion of the Lexington PGA — fast becoming the Ernie Els benefit show after his superb finishing burst to take the title — on the European tour has brought.

But, while no-one can speak for the sponsors but the man who finally signs the cheque, one would hesitate to speak too loudly about the prestige this inclusion brought either the backers or the tour.

There were bitterly few of the top names from the European circuit on show. Indeed, there were more than a couple of entrants who are on or below the cusp of losing their cards this season.

It is all very well to argue that the PGA will grow into the European thinking and become a destination for the players on their tour. There will have to be even more of the sparse foreign currency on offer for that to happen.

The question the sponsors and South African golf must really ask in retrospect is this: does the cost merit the return? One hesitates to offer an answer.

Most disturbing of all this season though has been the apparent lack of proper lines of comunication within the PGA.

Quite rightly, only executive director Brent Chalmers can speak for the PGA. But, as was the case this season, Chalmers was not present at all the tournaments — eight of them — on the tour schedule.

Should anything as unsavoury as the incident involving first two PGA members and then a professional player and a pressman have happened at the 25 percent of the circuit Chalmers was not present at, who would have been empowered to give voice to a delicate situation?

These questions were posed to a member of the PGA. Quite rightly again, the matter was referred to Chalmers as the only spokesman.

To date, no answers have been forthcoming to a list of written enquiries on a number of subjects.

There is then no doubt that a groundswell of feeling — no-one is speaking out directly — is growing among the players. At present there can be little sympathy with these unspoke grumbles. For, after all, the players themselves own the PGA and have the power in their hands alone to make any changes they deem essential.

More than one head of the PGA has found that out as history so adequately shows.