Why not Openings?

I think there is a common misconception in the chess community that opening study is to be avoided. I'm not sure who first put out the idea ( Heisman perhaps? Silman? Pandolfini?) but I think opening study is being misinterprted as opening memorization. The opening occurs in every game while endgames occur in 40-60%.  So why not study openings? While studying openings you can going through master games, work on your analyzation and calculation skills by setting up various tabiyas and working out the plans for both sides and also improve your memory. The study of general opening principles and specific opening ideas can also help you form your plans in the middlegame.

The general recommendation is to study either tactics or endgames first, then strategy/middlegame and finally openings. While I understand the importance of tactics, what is the logic benhind endgames first? Why study endgames and get crushed over and over until finally you move on to other topics and start to produce some decent games? 

I'm sure that there is some logic in the endgames first idea, after all, it was Capablanca who first recommended it, but can someone please explain it to me?

And yes memorizing tons of theory won't help but opening study extends far beyond that and I think many people are missing out on the rewards.

Opening game is by far where you should excel. You'll get to the end game but first...the opening.

Read and play!!!!!!!!!!!