New Rules: How Someone Gets Exempted into the US Open

When I got the press release in my inbox yesterday from the USGA that said that Vijay Singh would be exempted into the US Open - in the same company at Tom Watson - I was a bit befuddled.  After all, the guy is 59th in the world, outside of the exempt top 50 status for the first time in nearly two decades.  He was all set to play in a Monday qualifier in Ohio for his Open spot.  But when Singh teased that he might skip the one-day tourney rather than try to play in the Open, the USGA caved and let him in without the required effort.

Why?  Yeah, Singh has three majors.  He has more wins after forty than anyone in golf history.  The guy has been bleeding golf on range balls for almost his entire life.  Does that make the case for an exemption into the national championship, arguably the biggest crap shoot of all four majors in terms of qualifying?  Hell no.

Even if you begrudgingly concede (and you should) that Singh will wind up a legend of this era in golf, Singh has not produced enough in the majors, much less in the US Open, to warrant the exemption.  Two PGA Championships and a Masters - two of which during Tiger Woods swing change years - does not mean that Singh earns a spot in the Open for free.  Having blew a playoff to Steve Lowery at the regular Tour stop there in '08 shouldn't translate into a shot at much larger redemption.

It was supposedly a bit of a nailbiter as to whether or not Tom Watson would be exempted into the Open.  He won it there in '82.  He almost won the Open Championship last year.  Hell, he led the Masters this year.  Arguably, Watson has been playing better golf in the last twelve months than Vijay has.  And now they each get an exemption?  Cheap.  Confusing.

If the USGA is trying to reward someone for a lifetime of consistency, then why not just create a blanket exemption category for players with more than two majors in their careers.  Or a category for players that have been in the top 50 in the OWGR for five years in a row or more.  So few guys would fit the criteria that the USGA could get away with it.  Really, losing a random amateur from Oklahoma that had no shot anyway is not going to break my heart.  And not giving the free pass to Tom Kite, '92 Open champion at Pebble, under some kind of honest rubric for these things would not be upsetting.

The USGA needs to be a little more judicious with these exemptions.  It's not like at the Masters where exemptions are clearly made with an agenda.  Three Asian players were added to the field to help buoy the amateur event they sponsor in Asia.  Older, incompetent champions are encouraged to decline their invitations.  The Open Championship rarely budges.  Even the PGA Championship is steadfast in its commitment to rewarding teaching professionals to effectively reduce their field to 100 players each year.

Watson was fine.  Even the R&A created a special category for him and Greg Norman, whose supergeriatric feats earned them a lifetime of added respect.  But Singh?  He's not fifty, yet.  He can sit this one out if he doesn't want to play.  Injury is not an excuse or a crutch (pun intended) for our national championship - particularly one that has never even eluded the Fijian.