She wasn't. Shin also birdied the last hole to win, but Thompson shared second. Not bad for a 15-year-old. And not all that surprising from Thompson, whose talent is huge - and for whom expectations are huge.
We've been down this road before, haven't we? What was her name? Tall girl, from Hawaii. Oh, right: Michelle Wie.
Five years ago, when Wie was 15, she received a special exemption into the field for the 2005 Women's British Open. This year, Thompson was denied a special exemption - not into the Women's British Open field itself, but into the tournament's final qualifier, which was played on Monday, a day after Thompson's runner-up at the Evian.
Since she was part of the 2010 Curtis Cup team, Thompson earned an exemption into that final qualifier. But by turning pro, she gave up that exemption. (Nothing unusual about that - Colt Knost gave up exemptions into The Masters and the U.S. Open by turning pro a couple years ago. If you turn pro before "cashing in" exemptions earned as an amateur, those exemptions are usually taken away from you.)
However, following her terrific showing in the Evian Masters, Thompson asked the Ladies Golf Union to let her play in the final qualifier. The LGU said no.
Thompson and her family haven't complained about losing the exemption she earned via the Curtis Cup; they understand those are typically lost by an amateur who decides to turn pro. But they disagree with the LGU's decision not to grant Thompson a second exemption into the qualifier. She wasn't asking to be let into the Women's British Open, they said, only for a chance to play her way into the tournament. Point taken.
Today, the head of the LGU said, basically, it's all Wie's fault. The Independent reported today:
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.
But, c'mon, leave Wie out of it. This is a decision made today, five years later. The LGU had its discussions about Thompson in the present, and based on those internal debates decided against giving Thompson a spot in the qualifier. Thompson had an exemption, she gave it up, and the LGU declined to give her another.
The LGU shouldn't be passing the buck. They need to either defend or discard this stricter policy about granting exemptions. If the organization believes its decision is correct, then don't apologize for it - defend it.
And that's what Malcolm did a day earlier in an email to the Golf Channel. Malcolm strongly and without any hint of apology defended the LGU's decision.
But, really, the LGU can't win in this situation. Five years ago, they gave 15-year-old Wie an exemption because she was a huge draw and they wanted the buzz that having in her field would generate. They took a lot of criticism for that decision from other players in the field, who resented Wie. So they became gun-shy with exemptions, and now 15-year-old Thompson is denied a chance to qualify. And the LGU are being criticized for not giving this player her shot because, after all, the tournament could use the buzz generated by having her in the field.
Comments
After reading your article I did a crazy thing. I went to the Ladies Golf Union (LGU) website and checked the entry criteria to the Ricoh Women’s British Open (WBO) (http://www.lgu.org/championships/rwbo…). This is something I would expect a journalist for a major golf publication to do.
the LGU had a qualifying opportunity to the WBO for LPGA players who had not already qualified at the LPGA event the week before the U.S. Women’s Open. The top five players from the Jamie Farr Owens Corning Classic after 36 holes, who had not already qualified for the WBO would qualify for the WBO. This event had a million dollar purse. Ji Yai Shin, Paula Creamer and Na Yeon Choi all manage to play the Jamie Farr (even though they had already qualified) and do very well in the U.S. Women’s Open the next week. Lexi Thompson would have had no problem securing a sponsor’s exemption for the Jamie Farr Classic.
Because Lexi Thompson did not take full advantage of qualifying opportunities available she should not receive special consideration for the Ricoh Women’s British Open. I don’t think this will cause her many sleepless nights or cause irreversible damage.
Next we can have the debate over weather Lexi should be a captain’s selection for the Solheim Cup.
I think the Jamie Farr event had already used their sponsor’s exemptions before Lexi turned pro. Of course, to be sure, you would have to ask the Jamie Farr folks not only if a sponsor’s exemption was available but if it had it been offered to Lexi.
You can’t just say she would have had no problem getting it without knowing the facts.
Probably moot, Golfweek says the Jamie Farr qualifying method applied only to LPGA Tour members. Even if Lexi had gotten into the Farr, she couldn’t have gotten into the WBO that way.
Dave,
Beth Ann Baldry said that only LPGA members are eligible for the WBO qualifier during the Jamie Farr event, how do you know she is correct?
The LGU rules say top 5 finishers after 36 holes, it doesn’t say top 5 LPGA members after 36 holes.
http://www.lgu.org/data/files/2010_Ricoh_Womens_Open_Exempt.pdf
Well, I DON’T know with certainty that she’s right, but I’m assuming she is because she’s a pretty good reporter (in my opinion, of course), and she’s there at Birkdale and (again, assuming) has talked to LGU officials.
Also I’d point out that the pdf file you (and the first commenter) linked to doesn’t actually explain the rules, it just has a section labeled “top 5 finishers after 36 holes.” I’ll (again) assume that the LGU spells out the rules much more specifically than that somewhere else, and that Baldry either has access to that or to an LGU official.
Well Dave,
Did you also notice in that PDF file, that some of the qualifications did say LPGA or LET, etc., but didn’t for the Jamie Farr?
OK Tom, you assume that the Farr exemptions were available to all, and I’ll assume they weren’t, and that way one of us is guaranteed to be right.
As to the first commenter’s lament about Lexi and the Solheim Cup – don’t worry, sir, only LPGA Tour members are eligible for the US Solheim team. So unless Lexi applies for an age waiver and gets it, she won’t be playing the next Solheim.
Tom, I’m waving the white flag — I went back and read what Baldry wrote, and I think she was referring to the Monday qualifier to get into the Farr. As in, Lexi couldn’t have tried to Monday qualify for the Farr because she isn’t an LPGA Tour member. So … um … nevermind.
I would assume the actual decision to turn pro was made before the public anouncement. And a sponsors exemption can go to a professional or amateur. Like the CEO who gave himself a sponsors exemption into a PGA event this year. With many of the top American golfers (Wie, Kerr..)not playing the Jamie Farr, I would bet that one could have been secured for Thompson had they inquired at a reasonable time. As the saying goes, “A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.” Also, were there any golfers who played both the USWO and the WBO qualifier the next day?
I’m not worried about her making the Solheim Cup. It’s primarily a television event and she’s talented enough to be at least a Captain’s pick provided she is eligible. Don’t believe there are 12 better American golfers on the LPGA.
Hey Dave,
Stop waving that white flag and hand it to me.
I asked a person who really keeps up with women’s golf and she says that the WBO qualifier that is part of the Jamie Farr is for LPGA tour members only.
She cited an example of Michelle Wie and Stacy Lewis, who both received sponsor’s exemptions to the 2008 Jamie Farr event but were not eligible for the WBO qualifier because they were not, at that time, members of the LPGA tour.
I give up, I guess Lexi is going to have to win a damn event somewhere in the world of women’s golf, this year or early next year, to get in the 2011 WBO at Car-nasty.
See ya
Well I’m more inclined to believe your anonomous friend who could cite a recent example than Beth Ann Baldry who is a good cheerleader for American golf and an even greater cheerleader for all things Wie. She’s more an anadotal than an investigative type. the response I received to my most on her article was basically “Beth Ann Baldry said so.” I appreciate you both reasonably discussing the topic and following it up with your sources.
I’m afraid a win may not be enough to get Lexi Thompson to Carnoustie next year. Looking at the criteria, there is no exemption for wins outside of certain amateur events. Money leaders and Rolex Rankings are tied to various tours unless you are able to be on the LPGA money list without being a member of the LPGA. Does the LET or JLPGA have a minimum age? If not, she may want to consider those tours until she gets her LPGA membership. Hopefully there will be a better date for the qualifier next year. But she will have a larger body of work and more time to make a case for a special exemption. She may get burned for being a pro without a tour.
Sport,
What I am thinking is that if Lexi wins, let’s say, an LPGA tour event and her father petitions the LPGA tour on her behalf to become a member of the LPGA tour, the LPGA tour will have a very difficult time denying her a membership.
But you are correct, winning doesn’t mean much in itself to the LGU, the golfer who wins needs to be a member of one of the major women’s tours in order to tee it up at Car-nasty in 2011.