Champions tour vs PGA tour....

I read a thread about Hale Irwin. He was one of my favorite players because he knew his limitations. While he was one of the oldest players to win on the PGA tour, he went to the Champions tour and became one of the winningest players on that tour. My question is.....Is better to go dominate on the champions tour or bottom feed on the regular tour ? I know the money is double on the PGA tour but look at Steve Stricker, he's won more money this year on the champions tour while playing both.....Distance is not a problem seeing as how these Champions are hitting it farther now than they did in their prime.

Nobody dominating the Champions Tour was a PGA Tour "bottom feeder" - whatever that means.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> Nobody dominating the Champions Tour was a PGA Tour "bottom feeder" - whatever that means.

>

> Where do you come up with this stuff?

Yup exactly Hale irwin kept himself in great shape, motivated and luckily he had no real health issues that affected him playing a full schedule. Trevino won 29 on the regular tour and 29 on the senior circuit. theres nothing crazy about it. was he a bottom feeder?

I think what he’s trying to say is that guys get to a point where they can either be a top player on the Champions Tour or a borderline regular tour player. Ernie’s going to have to make this decision soon.

My guess is that the money is easier on the Champions Tour, but it is hard to completely give up on the dream of winning on the regular tour.

> @cdnglf said:

> I think what he’s trying to say is that guys get to a point where they can either be a top player on the Champions Tour or a borderline regular tour player. Ernie’s going to have to make this decision soon.

>

> My guess is that the money is easier on the Champions Tour, but it is hard to completely give up on the dream of winning on the regular tour.

Exactly, Stricker is there now.

Stricker's position as Ryder Cup captain pretty much obligates him to play the regular tour as sponsor's exemptions permit.

In the prior 3-4 years, I'm pretty sure Stricker made most cuts in PGA events he entered, as well as a couple of US Opens he qualified for through sectionals.

I do think the regulars on the Champions Tour are glad Stricker is limited in how much he can play. He's still in good shape, drives the ball long enough, and is one of the few 50+ guys who can still putt.

> @games said:

> Stricker's position as Ryder Cup captain pretty much obligates him to play the regular tour as sponsor's exemptions permit.

> In the prior 3-4 years, I'm pretty sure Stricker made most cuts in PGA events he entered, as well as a couple of US Opens he qualified for through sectionals.

>

> I do think the regulars on the Champions Tour are glad Stricker is limited in how much he can play. He's still in good shape, drives the ball long enough, and is one of the few 50+ guys who can still putt.

Stricker is fully exempt for the PGA Tour for this season. He used his one time top 25 career earnings exemption. He plays out exemption category 11b. Hope he finishes off The Tradition tomorrow.

https://www.pgatour.com/news/2018/priority-ranking-2018-19-season.html

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > Nobody dominating the Champions Tour was a PGA Tour "bottom feeder" - whatever that means.

> >

> > Where do you come up with this stuff?

>

> I never said that Hale Irwin was a bottom feeder. My thread was about players playing on the regular tour just because the can due to top 50 on the money list etc.... when they can go and be competitive on the other tour. Trying to make a cut should not be a goal.

> Learn to read or don't respond....

Stricker can play all he wants to or doesn’t want to on either tour - no choice or real dilemma for him at all. And he hardly would dominate the Senior circuit.

Maybe have a real understanding of his situation and Hale Irwin’s career before starting a thread on a flawed premise.

I think Vijay Singh could have dominated the Champions Tour had he embraced it at the age of fifty, but he could not let it go.

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > Nobody dominating the Champions Tour was a PGA Tour "bottom feeder" - whatever that means.

> > >

> > > Where do you come up with this stuff?

> >

> > I never said that Hale Irwin was a bottom feeder. My thread was about players playing on the regular tour just because the can due to top 50 on the money list etc.... when they can go and be competitive on the other tour. Trying to make a cut should not be a goal.

> > Learn to read or don't respond....

>

> It made perfect sense to me and anyone not overly eager to snipe at you.

>

> Good topic, I think. If a guy who just turned 50 still wants to tee it up enough, I’d say go Champions! Aren’t most events no cut? Not that it will happen, but can you imagine what Phil might do to those layouts in a couple years?

>

>

Yep, but I think Phil will play the regular tour until the age of 55. He love being around the young bucks. Tiger already stated that he'll play the champions tour....and just play the Pgatour majors. I don't know if he was serious though....

TW can get his man Stric into any PGA event, heck after the apoplectic frenzy this year even the Masters perhaps?

> @Titleist99 said:

> I read a thread about Hale Irwin. He was one of my favorite players because he knew his limitations. While he was one of the oldest players to win on the PGA tour, he went to the Champions tour and became one of the winningest players on that tour. My question is.....Is better to go dominate on the champions tour or bottom feed on the regular tour ? I know the money is double on the PGA tour but look at Steve Stricker, he's won more money this year on the champions tour while playing both.....Distance is not a problem seeing as how these Champions are hitting it farther now than they did in their prime.

If Strick gets hot with the putter, his game is still good enough to still win on the PGA Tour. He said he wants to play all of the Champions Tour majors this year, but he's going to try to play enough on the regular tour to get enough points to regain his Tour card for next year (he is using his one-time career earnings exemption to play this year). So for him, the regular PGA Tour still very much takes precedent over the Champions Tour.

> @Titleist99 said:

> I think Vijay Singh could have dominated the Champions Tour had he embraced it at the age of fifty, but he could not let it go.

Why would he? He's the perfect example that disproves your notion that you choose between "bottom feeder" and "dominating" - inappropriate dichotomy to start with.

How do you know he "could not let it go"? He's made over $70 million - where he makes his money playing golf likely means little or nothing to him. Maybe he enjoys the Tour, maybe it keeps him energized to practice, maybe he needed to keep making starts on the regular Tour to keep certain elements of potential damage/outcomes/even public perception afloat for purposes of his lawsuit, maybe it's just fun for him. His golf game wasn't that "on" at 50 or 51, etc. - no automatically dominating the Champions Tour for anyone. He's not out there concerned with purses. Play about when he wants, where he wants maybe just for the fun of it, as he defines fun.

The Champions Tour as it is set up pretty much guarantees for the most part that the guys playing already had pretty financially successful PGA Tour careers. Extremely hard to get starts, even break onto the Champions Tour so for guys that think when they turn 50 they have a source of income (thinking of those that "need" the money) - good luck, may not play much. They probably aren't doing much on the regular Tour, maybe playing Web.com and still probably had $8 million plus careers already.

Suggesting, as the original post does it is some sort of money decision overlooks the nature of the Tours and those that can make the choices to play on them.

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > Nobody dominating the Champions Tour was a PGA Tour "bottom feeder" - whatever that means.

> > >

> > > Where do you come up with this stuff?

> >

> > I never said that Hale Irwin was a bottom feeder. My thread was about players playing on the regular tour just because the can due to top 50 on the money list etc.... when they can go and be competitive on the other tour. Trying to make a cut should not be a goal.

> > Learn to read or don't respond....

>

> Stricker can play all he wants to or doesn’t want to on either tour - no choice or real dilemma for him at all. And he hardly would dominate the Senior circuit.

>

> Maybe have a real understanding of his situation and Hale Irwin’s career before starting a thread on a flawed premise.

Maybe, Just maybe you should learn to read before responding to threads beyond your comprehension. Instead of trying to be a thread wrecker you should stay in your own lane. I keep trying to block you, yet you still turn up like a bad penny.

> @JaNelson38 said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > I read a thread about Hale Irwin. He was one of my favorite players because he knew his limitations. While he was one of the oldest players to win on the PGA tour, he went to the Champions tour and became one of the winningest players on that tour. My question is.....Is better to go dominate on the champions tour or bottom feed on the regular tour ? I know the money is double on the PGA tour but look at Steve Stricker, he's won more money this year on the champions tour while playing both.....Distance is not a problem seeing as how these Champions are hitting it farther now than they did in their prime.

>

> If Strick gets hot with the putter, his game is still good enough to still win on the PGA Tour. He said he wants to play all of the Champions Tour majors this year, but he's going to try to play enough on the regular tour to get enough points to regain his Tour card for next year (he is using his one-time career earnings exemption to play this year). So for him, the regular PGA Tour still very much takes precedent over the Champions Tour.

I'm aware of the fact that he still has PGAtour status and he has stated on interviews that he wants to play on the main tour but my question is should a player play for making the cut or make a top 20. If winning is a priority then he should go where he has the best chance to win. By the way he has made more money on the Champions Tour than the main tour this year.

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > I think Vijay Singh could have dominated the Champions Tour had he embraced it at the age of fifty, but he could not let it go.

>

> Why would he? He's the perfect example that disproves your notion that you choose between "bottom feeder" and "dominating" - inappropriate dichotomy to start with.

>

> How do you know he "could not let it go"? He's made over $70 million - where he makes his money playing golf likely means little or nothing to him. Maybe he enjoys the Tour, maybe it keeps him energized to practice, maybe he needed to keep making starts on the regular Tour to keep certain elements of potential damage/outcomes/even public perception afloat for purposes of his lawsuit, maybe it's just fun for him. His golf game wasn't that "on" at 50 or 51, etc. - no automatically dominating the Champions Tour for anyone. He's not out there concerned with purses. Play about when he wants, where he wants maybe just for the fun of it, as he defines fun.

>

> The Champions Tour as it is set up pretty much guarantees for the most part that the guys playing already had pretty financially successful PGA Tour careers. Extremely hard to get starts, even break onto the Champions Tour so for guys that think when they turn 50 they have a source of income (thinking of those that "need" the money) - good luck, may not play much. They probably aren't doing much on the regular Tour, maybe playing Web.com and still probably had $8 million plus careers already.

>

> Suggesting, as the original post does it is some sort of money decision overlooks the nature of the Tours and those that can make the choices to play on them.

Finally a coherent thought.....And you said that you did not understand the thread. It's extremely hard to get on the Champions Tour.

> @JaNelson38 said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > I read a thread about Hale Irwin. He was one of my favorite players because he knew his limitations. While he was one of the oldest players to win on the PGA tour, he went to the Champions tour and became one of the winningest players on that tour. My question is.....Is better to go dominate on the champions tour or bottom feed on the regular tour ? I know the money is double on the PGA tour but look at Steve Stricker, he's won more money this year on the champions tour while playing both.....Distance is not a problem seeing as how these Champions are hitting it farther now than they did in their prime.

>

> If Strick gets hot with the putter, his game is still good enough to still win on the PGA Tour. He said he wants to play all of the Champions Tour majors this year, but he's going to try to play enough on the regular tour to get enough points to regain his Tour card for next year (he is using his one-time career earnings exemption to play this year). So for him, the regular PGA Tour still very much takes precedent over the Champions Tour.

He did say he wants to play all the Champions majors, but also made a comment about having to decide if he's going to play in the colonial or the Senior PGA, as well. It would seem odd, to me, to not play on the PGA if you went through the effort to get yourself an exemption with your one time top 25 and go for senior majors, but I'm not Strick.

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > I think Vijay Singh could have dominated the Champions Tour had he embraced it at the age of fifty, but he could not let it go.

> >

> > Why would he? He's the perfect example that disproves your notion that you choose between "bottom feeder" and "dominating" - inappropriate dichotomy to start with.

> >

> > How do you know he "could not let it go"? He's made over $70 million - where he makes his money playing golf likely means little or nothing to him. Maybe he enjoys the Tour, maybe it keeps him energized to practice, maybe he needed to keep making starts on the regular Tour to keep certain elements of potential damage/outcomes/even public perception afloat for purposes of his lawsuit, maybe it's just fun for him. His golf game wasn't that "on" at 50 or 51, etc. - no automatically dominating the Champions Tour for anyone. He's not out there concerned with purses. Play about when he wants, where he wants maybe just for the fun of it, as he defines fun.

> >

> > The Champions Tour as it is set up pretty much guarantees for the most part that the guys playing already had pretty financially successful PGA Tour careers. Extremely hard to get starts, even break onto the Champions Tour so for guys that think when they turn 50 they have a source of income (thinking of those that "need" the money) - good luck, may not play much. They probably aren't doing much on the regular Tour, maybe playing Web.com and still probably had $8 million plus careers already.

> >

> > Suggesting, as the original post does it is some sort of money decision overlooks the nature of the Tours and those that can make the choices to play on them.

> Finally a coherent thought.....And you said that you did not understand the thread. It's extremely hard to get on the Champions Tour.

>

Wow, and more snarky BS. Nice job. I'll work on my mentals . . . . . . if I remember.

> @cdnglf said:

> I think what he’s trying to say is that guys get to a point where they can either be a top player on the Champions Tour or a borderline regular tour player. Ernie’s going to have to make this decision soon.

>

> My guess is that the money is easier on the Champions Tour, but it is hard to completely give up on the dream of winning on the regular tour.

I think that is all he's trying to say and Stricker is actually a perfect example now.

> @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > @JaNelson38 said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > I read a thread about Hale Irwin. He was one of my favorite players because he knew his limitations. While he was one of the oldest players to win on the PGA tour, he went to the Champions tour and became one of the winningest players on that tour. My question is.....Is better to go dominate on the champions tour or bottom feed on the regular tour ? I know the money is double on the PGA tour but look at Steve Stricker, he's won more money this year on the champions tour while playing both.....Distance is not a problem seeing as how these Champions are hitting it farther now than they did in their prime.

> >

> > If Strick gets hot with the putter, his game is still good enough to still win on the PGA Tour. He said he wants to play all of the Champions Tour majors this year, but he's going to try to play enough on the regular tour to get enough points to regain his Tour card for next year (he is using his one-time career earnings exemption to play this year). So for him, the regular PGA Tour still very much takes precedent over the Champions Tour.

>

> He did say he wants to play all the Champions majors, but also made a comment about having to decide if he's going to play in the colonial or the Senior PGA, as well. It would seem odd, to me, to not play on the PGA if you went through the effort to get yourself an exemption with your one time top 25 and go for senior majors, but I'm not Strick.

I think it's a truly tough decision for him...he believes he's still good enough to win on Tour, as do others (Phil Mickelson told him earlier this year that he should still be on Tour full-time). But I think Stricker wanted to taste a few wins and get a major on the Champions Tour, which he has now. Wont surprise me now that he plays the regular tour the rest of the year, with the exception of maybe the US Senior Open, Senior PLAYERS and the tournament he hosts in Madison in June. Gotta remember that winning the US Senior Open and the Senior PLAYERS gets you into the regular tour major counterparts the following year, so that's a big factor too in him playing the Champions Tour majors.

He's won at Colonial before, and it's a course where he's not at a disadvantage with the driver compared to the young guys, so I suspect he'll play there instead of the Senior PGA.

> @JaNelson38 said:

> > @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > > @JaNelson38 said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > I read a thread about Hale Irwin. He was one of my favorite players because he knew his limitations. While he was one of the oldest players to win on the PGA tour, he went to the Champions tour and became one of the winningest players on that tour. My question is.....Is better to go dominate on the champions tour or bottom feed on the regular tour ? I know the money is double on the PGA tour but look at Steve Stricker, he's won more money this year on the champions tour while playing both.....Distance is not a problem seeing as how these Champions are hitting it farther now than they did in their prime.

> > >

> > > If Strick gets hot with the putter, his game is still good enough to still win on the PGA Tour. He said he wants to play all of the Champions Tour majors this year, but he's going to try to play enough on the regular tour to get enough points to regain his Tour card for next year (he is using his one-time career earnings exemption to play this year). So for him, the regular PGA Tour still very much takes precedent over the Champions Tour.

> >

> > He did say he wants to play all the Champions majors, but also made a comment about having to decide if he's going to play in the colonial or the Senior PGA, as well. It would seem odd, to me, to not play on the PGA if you went through the effort to get yourself an exemption with your one time top 25 and go for senior majors, but I'm not Strick.

>

> I think it's a truly tough decision for him...he believes he's still good enough to win on Tour, as do others (Phil Mickelson told him earlier this year that he should still be on Tour full-time). But I think Stricker wanted to taste a few wins and get a major on the Champions Tour, which he has now. Wont surprise me now that he plays the regular tour the rest of the year, with the exception of maybe the US Senior Open, Senior PLAYERS and the tournament he hosts in Madison in June. Gotta remember that winning the US Senior Open and the Senior PLAYERS gets you into the regular tour major counterparts the following year, so that's a big factor too in him playing the Champions Tour majors.

>

> He's won at Colonial before, and it's a course where he's not at a disadvantage with the driver compared to the young guys, so I suspect he'll play there instead of the Senior PGA.

Yeah, He stated that he could make more money on the Champions Tour but would rather play both.....What ever turns you on, I guess...

> @Titleist99 said:

> I think Vijay Singh could have dominated the Champions Tour had he embraced it at the age of fifty, but he could not let it go.

yeah, so? Why would he hang out with a bunch of "has beens" when he can still compete on the biggest stage in the world? He made tons of money, that's not the issue, he like competing. The Senior tour was big in the 1980's because it gave guys like Trevino, Chi Chi, Colbert, then Irwin, a chance to earn some real money as the tour didn't really make anyone rich back in the day. Only guys like Palmer, Nicklaus and Watson really made a lot, and that was mostly from outside business interests. Those guys needed the money to retire comfortably. If I were Phil I would NOT play...maybe the US Senior Open, or British, but thats it. Tiger, no freaking way....why destroy your back chasing senior tour wins when you are a billionaire? As for guys like Stricker....I guess it's whether or not they like hanging out and traveling with old friends, does the competitive fire still burn? Trevino called the Senior tour his annuity, he was dead broke, and became the best senior ever till Irwin came along. Jack just did it for fun, and usually won when he played.

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > I think Vijay Singh could have dominated the Champions Tour had he embraced it at the age of fifty, but he could not let it go.

>

> yeah, so? Why would he hang out with a bunch of "has beens" when he can still compete on the biggest stage in the world? He made tons of money, that's not the issue, he like competing. The Senior tour was big in the 1980's because it gave guys like Trevino, Chi Chi, Colbert, then Irwin, a chance to earn some real money as the tour didn't really make anyone rich back in the day. Only guys like Palmer, Nicklaus and Watson really made a lot, and that was mostly from outside business interests. Those guys needed the money to retire comfortably. If I were Phil I would NOT play...maybe the US Senior Open, or British, but thats it. Tiger, no freaking way....why destroy your back chasing senior tour wins when you are a billionaire? As for guys like Stricker....I guess it's whether or not they like hanging out and traveling with old friends, does the competitive fire still burn? Trevino called the Senior tour his annuity, he was dead broke, and became the best senior ever till Irwin came along. Jack just did it for fun, and usually won when he played.

While I agree with most of what you are saying.....I have to say that the object of being competitive is winning, picking up the trophy. I would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven (so to speak). The lower tier guys may play ffor money but the others play for the thrill of victory. The best years on the Champion tour is from 50-55....don't waste them trying to make the cut on the junior tour. Phil do not have many 50 year old friend out there....LOL!

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > I think Vijay Singh could have dominated the Champions Tour had he embraced it at the age of fifty, but he could not let it go.

> >

> > yeah, so? Why would he hang out with a bunch of "has beens" when he can still compete on the biggest stage in the world? He made tons of money, that's not the issue, he like competing. The Senior tour was big in the 1980's because it gave guys like Trevino, Chi Chi, Colbert, then Irwin, a chance to earn some real money as the tour didn't really make anyone rich back in the day. Only guys like Palmer, Nicklaus and Watson really made a lot, and that was mostly from outside business interests. Those guys needed the money to retire comfortably. If I were Phil I would NOT play...maybe the US Senior Open, or British, but thats it. Tiger, no freaking way....why destroy your back chasing senior tour wins when you are a billionaire? As for guys like Stricker....I guess it's whether or not they like hanging out and traveling with old friends, does the competitive fire still burn? Trevino called the Senior tour his annuity, he was dead broke, and became the best senior ever till Irwin came along. Jack just did it for fun, and usually won when he played.

> While I agree with most of what you are saying.....I have to say that the object of being competitive is winning, picking up the trophy. I would rather rule in **** than serve in heaven (so to speak). The lower tier guys may play ffor money but the others play for the thrill of victory. The best years on the Champion tour is from 50-55....don't waste them trying to make the cut on the junior tour. Phil do not have many 50 year old friend out there....LOL!

>

Not everyone would want to beat up on a lesser tour like you profess you would. What would be the point? What would you be proving? Do you sign up for the forward tee flight at your club when you can still compete for the club championship?

But to each his own.

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @JaNelson38 said:

> > > @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > > > @JaNelson38 said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > I read a thread about Hale Irwin. He was one of my favorite players because he knew his limitations. While he was one of the oldest players to win on the PGA tour, he went to the Champions tour and became one of the winningest players on that tour. My question is.....Is better to go dominate on the champions tour or bottom feed on the regular tour ? I know the money is double on the PGA tour but look at Steve Stricker, he's won more money this year on the champions tour while playing both.....Distance is not a problem seeing as how these Champions are hitting it farther now than they did in their prime.

> > > >

> > > > If Strick gets hot with the putter, his game is still good enough to still win on the PGA Tour. He said he wants to play all of the Champions Tour majors this year, but he's going to try to play enough on the regular tour to get enough points to regain his Tour card for next year (he is using his one-time career earnings exemption to play this year). So for him, the regular PGA Tour still very much takes precedent over the Champions Tour.

> > >

> > > He did say he wants to play all the Champions majors, but also made a comment about having to decide if he's going to play in the colonial or the Senior PGA, as well. It would seem odd, to me, to not play on the PGA if you went through the effort to get yourself an exemption with your one time top 25 and go for senior majors, but I'm not Strick.

> >

> > I think it's a truly tough decision for him...he believes he's still good enough to win on Tour, as do others (Phil Mickelson told him earlier this year that he should still be on Tour full-time). But I think Stricker wanted to taste a few wins and get a major on the Champions Tour, which he has now. Wont surprise me now that he plays the regular tour the rest of the year, with the exception of maybe the US Senior Open, Senior PLAYERS and the tournament he hosts in Madison in June. Gotta remember that winning the US Senior Open and the Senior PLAYERS gets you into the regular tour major counterparts the following year, so that's a big factor too in him playing the Champions Tour majors.

> >

> > He's won at Colonial before, and it's a course where he's not at a disadvantage with the driver compared to the young guys, so I suspect he'll play there instead of the Senior PGA.

> Yeah, He stated that he could make more money on the Champions Tour but would rather play both.....What ever turns you on, I guess...

>

Well, he is also at a point in his life that he doesn't exactly need the money, so has the ability to play wherever he wants less contractual obligations, like when he comes home to Madison for the AmFam.

He also enjoys spending time with the family more these days, so we see him around Madison a lot.

> @Shilgy said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > I think Vijay Singh could have dominated the Champions Tour had he embraced it at the age of fifty, but he could not let it go.

> > >

> > > yeah, so? Why would he hang out with a bunch of "has beens" when he can still compete on the biggest stage in the world? He made tons of money, that's not the issue, he like competing. The Senior tour was big in the 1980's because it gave guys like Trevino, Chi Chi, Colbert, then Irwin, a chance to earn some real money as the tour didn't really make anyone rich back in the day. Only guys like Palmer, Nicklaus and Watson really made a lot, and that was mostly from outside business interests. Those guys needed the money to retire comfortably. If I were Phil I would NOT play...maybe the US Senior Open, or British, but thats it. Tiger, no freaking way....why destroy your back chasing senior tour wins when you are a billionaire? As for guys like Stricker....I guess it's whether or not they like hanging out and traveling with old friends, does the competitive fire still burn? Trevino called the Senior tour his annuity, he was dead broke, and became the best senior ever till Irwin came along. Jack just did it for fun, and usually won when he played.

> > While I agree with most of what you are saying.....I have to say that the object of being competitive is winning, picking up the trophy. I would rather rule in **** than serve in heaven (so to speak). The lower tier guys may play ffor money but the others play for the thrill of victory. The best years on the Champion tour is from 50-55....don't waste them trying to make the cut on the junior tour. Phil do not have many 50 year old friend out there....LOL!

> >

>

> Not everyone would want to beat up on a lesser tour like you profess you would. What would be the point? What would you be proving? Do you sign up for the forward tee flight at your club when you can still compete for the club championship?

>

> But to each his own.

Yes, I'd rather play the front tees and beat women an children all day...

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > I think Vijay Singh could have dominated the Champions Tour had he embraced it at the age of fifty, but he could not let it go.

> > > >

> > > > yeah, so? Why would he hang out with a bunch of "has beens" when he can still compete on the biggest stage in the world? He made tons of money, that's not the issue, he like competing. The Senior tour was big in the 1980's because it gave guys like Trevino, Chi Chi, Colbert, then Irwin, a chance to earn some real money as the tour didn't really make anyone rich back in the day. Only guys like Palmer, Nicklaus and Watson really made a lot, and that was mostly from outside business interests. Those guys needed the money to retire comfortably. If I were Phil I would NOT play...maybe the US Senior Open, or British, but thats it. Tiger, no freaking way....why destroy your back chasing senior tour wins when you are a billionaire? As for guys like Stricker....I guess it's whether or not they like hanging out and traveling with old friends, does the competitive fire still burn? Trevino called the Senior tour his annuity, he was dead broke, and became the best senior ever till Irwin came along. Jack just did it for fun, and usually won when he played.

> > > While I agree with most of what you are saying.....I have to say that the object of being competitive is winning, picking up the trophy. I would rather rule in **** than serve in heaven (so to speak). The lower tier guys may play ffor money but the others play for the thrill of victory. The best years on the Champion tour is from 50-55....don't waste them trying to make the cut on the junior tour. Phil do not have many 50 year old friend out there....LOL!

> > >

> >

> > Not everyone would want to beat up on a lesser tour like you profess you would. What would be the point? What would you be proving? Do you sign up for the forward tee flight at your club when you can still compete for the club championship?

> >

> > But to each his own.

> Yes, I'd rather play the front tees and beat women an children all day...

>

I think this is a good thread. Assuming they don’t need the money I think it’s a personal decision. If it were me and I didn’t have debts to worry about I would play the regular tour for as long as I could. I would cut back my schedule. But also I wouldn’t want to play the Senior Tour anyway. And before the nags respond I am 56. I just don’t enjoy that tour one bit. Boring as ever to me. Another factor is the grind of keeping sharp for the reg tour. So I think all of that factors in.

54 hole versus 72

Do they have a Pro-Am on the Champions?

I would think most of the guys that fit the scenario have grown kids or kids in HS or college. Having a deeper "pool" of locations to pick from might mean you pick the events that are better for you from a logistics standpoint.

Just from observing the sponsors on the Champions versus the young gun tour my assumption is the sponsor deals are less lucrative on Champions? If you are sponsoring a guy would you rather have him on TV for four rounds nationally televised on network tv or three rounds buried on the Golf Channel? Where does your brand get more exposure?

I bet the atmosphere in general is more lax.

> @smashdn said:

> I bet the atmosphere in general is more lax.

Ever been to a funeral? Watched an episode of The Walking Dead? It’s prob not that bad but just watching on TV is depressing for me.