Interesting development - $3000 pay to caddy from a $1.3 million winners check? (MOD EDIT - NO POLIT

[wobgon]

Ugh.... 40 pages. Can someone provide a summary? Did he get $3K, $5K.... or did Kuch actually do the right thing. You would think after winning Hawaii too, that he would retroactively fix the situation. I got to page 8 and gave up.

 

Here's a brief summary of what we know so far, beyond the initial reports of the 3K payment:

 

-Kuch and the Caddy were actually mortal enemies, Kuch had been trying to not pay him for several years

-It led to a showdown at an airplane hangar, and they fought and in the process the caddy was knocked into a coma

-Kuch recommended he and the caddy "switch faces" in order for Kuch to find out more about the caddy's lifestyle and learn about him

-The caddy awoke unexpectedly and then used Kuchar's

-Both guys than ran with each other's gangs for a few weeks, posing as the other one

 

that's what we know so far

Don't forget that the caddy recovered in time to play golf with a funny looking guy with plaid shorts...….Or was that really Kuchar with he caddy's face?

[wobgon]

Can someone tell me what a pro looper does vs a cc/resort looper? And I'm not talking about a full time relationship, but one that a pro might pick up the night before a tournament..say Bones had twisted his ankle at the Pro Am dance, and Phil needed a pro caddie (not Tim!) on his bag...he's paying full freight, no? Also, I've had former pro caddies (journeyman caddies, you might say) caddie for me at clubs...they're no better or worse than the excellent locals.

 

Here is a quote from Ben Crenshaw regarding a certain local caddie:

 

"I don't know if I can last that long," Crenshaw says. "Especially with as much course as they've got out there now. If and when I give it up, I'll do everything in my power to make sure Carl has somebody's bag during the Masters for as long as he wants to continue. I do know this: Everything I've achieved over the years in the Masters, I owe to Carl Jackson."

 

My guess is Ben paid Carl pretty well. Heck, from what I've read, Phil tips the various locker room attendants more during Masters week than Kuchar paid for his win!

And?

 

Morning fam. Have the Montague's given up yet??

Out a little late last night?

[MtlJeff]

Ugh.... 40 pages. Can someone provide a summary? Did he get $3K, $5K.... or did Kuch actually do the right thing. You would think after winning Hawaii too, that he would retroactively fix the situation. I got to page 8 and gave up.

 

Here's a brief summary of what we know so far, beyond the initial reports of the 3K payment:

 

-Kuch and the Caddy were actually mortal enemies, Kuch had been trying to not pay him for several years

-It led to a showdown at an airplane hangar, and they fought and in the process the caddy was knocked into a coma

-Kuch recommended he and the caddy "switch faces" in order for Kuch to find out more about the caddy's lifestyle and learn about him

-The caddy awoke unexpectedly and then used Kuchar's face.

-Both guys than ran with each other's gangs for a few weeks, posing as the other one

 

that's what we know so far

 

So you’re saying that Tucan hooked up with Kuch’s wife during the face swap and, after discovering this, Kuch was cool with it?

 

Debt paid in full.

 

Well that part of the film , err, story, probably didn't age all that well so we're just gonna pretend that never happened

 

But maybe he taught his daughter to fend off attackers with a butterfly knife.

 

[kcsf]

Kuchar didn't find the caddy...course did. The course was likely involved in communicating to Kuchar what the cost for the caddy would be (little English for caddy) for the tournament (Let's assume $3,000). So, a fee of $3,000 and a tip of $2,000 is over a 65% tip!

• This is not a normal Player/Caddy situation where it's part of the job to usually get a percentage of the winnings on top of the daily salary.
  
• El Tucan did not likely do anything more than he would in his regular job.
  
• Kuchar and El Tucan were not business partners in this venture.
  
• El Tucan was a casual laborer arranged by the Golf Course.
  

When looked at under the normal Player/Caddy partnership, yah this looks bad. Kuchar could have gave more, but is it not similar to this?

 

I arrange to have an important business meeting at a high end steak house. I call the restaurant ahead of time and explain the situation. I would like a private room and best waiter you have so that everything can go well. Night goes great, I sign a business deal for over $1 million and I'm happy with the work the restaurant and waiter did. Bill came to $3,000. I leave a $5,000...that's over a 65% tip. But now my colleges look down on me because I didn't give the waiter/restaurant 10% of my $1 Million dollar deal? The waiter made the night go smooth, made the clients feel at ease and even told me to relax and take a breath at one point during my presentation. To some here, I know owe the waiter $100,000???

 

Same analogy fits for me playing in a big money game on the golf course while using a resort course caddy. Does he now get a percentage of my winnings?

Bumping this ^^^^

More people should read this before commenting further.

 

 

I think a few details have been left out of that analogy that are crucial to the narrative.

 

--You have your own service staff that normally travels with you, but cannot due to an illness

--Your normal service staff is paid a pre-determined % for all closed deals. Let's say it's 5% for deals under $100k, 10% if over $1MM

--This % is a standard in your industry. All staff in your industry are paid a % of closed deals

--It's customary at this steakhouse in the private rooms that there is a negotiated flat fee for the service staff, but again, it's commonly known a % is paid for closed deals

--The steakhouse negotiates a flat fee for their staff after looking at your closing record (somehow they have this info) and sees you haven't closed a deal in over 4 years. The staff is ok with the fixed rate as they give you a ~1% chance of closing the deal. (over 4 years of ~30 meetings a year=~120-130 meetings between closings)

--The staff figures $3k for 2 days work is fair, this guy has no chance of closing the deal. Easy money that's 2x what they usually make

--The staff ends up working 8-10 hours a day for 5 days.

--You crush the meeting and close the deal for $1.3MM with the help of your staff. You could've prepared the food yourself, plated it, served it, and cleared while giving the presentation, but you chose to receive help.

--You are thrilled with the result and give a 65% tip to the staff.

 

--Contractually, you've fulfilled your commitment with the staff according to the pre-negotiated agreement, and provided a great tip.

--A staff member that was let go years ago because of poor performance is still friends with the current staff and feels the need to publicly out you as they feel you stiffed the staff.

--You respond to the criticism by denying it was only $3k but not providing an actual amount. ($5k is .38 %)

 

Should you give the staff a professionally accepted standard % or are you just a shrewd businessman? In my eyes this is the only relevant question.

 

 

*feel free to correct and dissect the above narrative as I'm no snowflake. Discourse is good.

[Matt J]

kcsf - I like the analogy, but it is also based on material facts that are unknown at this time.

 

This entire thread has relied upon information that is not, in my humble opinion, reliable as of yet.

 

It has in essence turned into a common American "red state vs. blue state" screaming match. There is the Kuch is cheap camp and the Mind your own business camp.

 

Some of the Mind your own business camp has determined that anyone in the Kuch is cheap camp must be a liberal snowflake social justice warrior. They have reverted back to the childhood practice of name calling.

[kcsf]

kcsf - I like the analogy, but it is also based on material facts that are unknown at this time.

 

This entire thread has relied upon information that is not, in my humble opinion, reliable as of yet.

 

It has in essence turned into a common American "red state vs. blue state" screaming match. There is the Kuch is cheap camp and the Mind your own business camp.

 

Some of the Mind your own business camp has determined that anyone in the Kuch is cheap camp must be a liberal snowflake social justice warrior. They have reverted back to the childhood practice of name calling.

 

Couldn't agree more regarding the facts as we truly have no idea what went down. Maybe Koochy thinks we can't handle the truth, ala Jack Nicholson.

[cxx]

kcsf - I like the analogy, but it is also based on material facts that are unknown at this time.

 

This entire thread has relied upon information that is not, in my humble opinion, reliable as of yet.

 

It has in essence turned into a common American "red state vs. blue state" screaming match. There is the Kuch is cheap camp and the Mind your own business camp.

 

Some of the Mind your own business camp has determined that anyone in the Kuch is cheap camp must be a liberal snowflake social justice warrior. They have reverted back to the childhood practice of name calling.

 

If the shoe fits you must acquit.

[bscinstnct]

Kuchar didn't find the caddy...course did. The course was likely involved in communicating to Kuchar what the cost for the caddy would be (little English for caddy) for the tournament (Let's assume $3,000). So, a fee of $3,000 and a tip of $2,000 is over a 65% tip!

• This is not a normal Player/Caddy situation where it's part of the job to usually get a percentage of the winnings on top of the daily salary.
  
• El Tucan did not likely do anything more than he would in his regular job.
  
• Kuchar and El Tucan were not business partners in this venture.
  
• El Tucan was a casual laborer arranged by the Golf Course.
  

When looked at under the normal Player/Caddy partnership, yah this looks bad. Kuchar could have gave more, but is it not similar to this?

 

I arrange to have an important business meeting at a high end steak house. I call the restaurant ahead of time and explain the situation. I would like a private room and best waiter you have so that everything can go well. Night goes great, I sign a business deal for over $1 million and I'm happy with the work the restaurant and waiter did. Bill came to $3,000. I leave a $5,000...that's over a 65% tip. But now my colleges look down on me because I didn't give the waiter/restaurant 10% of my $1 Million dollar deal? The waiter made the night go smooth, made the clients feel at ease and even told me to relax and take a breath at one point during my presentation. To some here, I know owe the waiter $100,000???

 

Same analogy fits for me playing in a big money game on the golf course while using a resort course caddy. Does he now get a percentage of my winnings?

Bumping this ^^^^

More people should read this before commenting further.

 

If the waiter sat down next to you during the whole meal and provided you with advice on the contract, since besides being a waiter, he also regularly provides advice in these types of deals, then you should probably cut him in for more than a 2k tip on your million dollar deal ; )

[Ignatius Reilly]

Kuchar didn't find the caddy...course did. The course was likely involved in communicating to Kuchar what the cost for the caddy would be (little English for caddy) for the tournament (Let's assume $3,000). So, a fee of $3,000 and a tip of $2,000 is over a 65% tip!

• This is not a normal Player/Caddy situation where it's part of the job to usually get a percentage of the winnings on top of the daily salary.
  
• El Tucan did not likely do anything more than he would in his regular job.
  
• Kuchar and El Tucan were not business partners in this venture.
  
• El Tucan was a casual laborer arranged by the Golf Course.
  

When looked at under the normal Player/Caddy partnership, yah this looks bad. Kuchar could have gave more, but is it not similar to this?

 

I arrange to have an important business meeting at a high end steak house. I call the restaurant ahead of time and explain the situation. I would like a private room and best waiter you have so that everything can go well. Night goes great, I sign a business deal for over $1 million and I'm happy with the work the restaurant and waiter did. Bill came to $3,000. I leave a $5,000...that's over a 65% tip. But now my colleges look down on me because I didn't give the waiter/restaurant 10% of my $1 Million dollar deal? The waiter made the night go smooth, made the clients feel at ease and even told me to relax and take a breath at one point during my presentation. To some here, I know owe the waiter $100,000???

 

Same analogy fits for me playing in a big money game on the golf course while using a resort course caddy. Does he now get a percentage of my winnings?

Bumping this ^^^^

More people should read this before commenting further.

 

Why would they want to let actual facts get in the way?

 

I highlighted 3 assumptions and 1 statement that goes against what most are saying - Many feel that "Kuch and El Tucan had a previously negotiated deal at $3k, and that makes them business partners of a sort.

 

Your restaurant analogy is nonsense. There are approximately NO restaurants that work on a % of closed business deals. There are approximately 100% of caddies in Tour events that share the winner's purse at something like 5-10% of winnings.

 

I keep thinking I'm done with this! But you can't go calling assumptions facts to make your point, and you can't paint an analogy that's virtually unheard of as a comparison.

 

To be clear: "To some here, I now owe the waiter $100,000" is incorrect. You've misunderstood what "some here" are saying. I'm willing to bet that absolutely no one here actually thinks that.

[Matt J]

I will unambiguously say that I would have more respect for Kuch if he revealed the terms of the agreement between himself and the caddie.

 

Honestly, I can see the argument for both sides, but I do not fit into the "Kuch doesn't owe anyone an answer" camp.

 

Despite the lack of relevant information, it is clear to me that between Gillis's source and the guy in the plaid shorts that Ortiz feels he has been wronged. Both his account of what transpired and Kuch's would help clear the air.

 

I understand the sentiment that it was a business deal between two men, but ultimately there was a miscommunication or someone is being dishonest and that's when the details must be addressed.

 

I think had Kuch been more clear, i.e. the agreement was for $3,000 for the week in base with no bonus and I chose to give him a $2,000 bonus because that was what was left in my wallet before I jumped on the plane, then at least his side of the story would be on record.

 

Played golf with a friend yesterday that has been a resort caddie at some prestigious places with some tour caddies and he said unequivocally a resort caddie that picked up a bag in an event would expect the 10% bonus.

 

I think that's where some of you guys are missing the mark. If the "culture" of the PGA TOUR is that the bonus is paid then Kuch would have needed to have expressly told Ortiz, you will not receive any bonus regardless of my finish.

 

My friend also said he thought it would be very likely that the caddies would be unified in no one picking up the bag if that was stated. So, had Kuch told Ortiz, you will not receive the bonus he might have had his wife on the bag for all 4 rounds. Maybe one of the multitude of WRX'ers who gladly said they would have carried the bag would have done so for $3,000 and maybe Kuch would have still won? Having met up with some WRX'ers I don't know how many of you would have made it around Mayakoba with a tour bag 5 times in 5 days.

[cxx]

I will unambiguously say that I would have more respect for Kuch if he revealed the terms of the agreement between himself and the caddie.

 

Honestly, I can see the argument for both sides, but I do not fit into the "Kuch doesn't owe anyone an answer" camp.

 

Despite the lack of relevant information, it is clear to me that between Gillis's source and the guy in the plaid shorts that Ortiz feels he has been wronged. Both his account of what transpired and Kuch's would help clear the air.

 

I understand the sentiment that it was a business deal between two men, but ultimately there was a miscommunication or someone is being dishonest and that's when the details must be addressed.

 

I think had Kuch been more clear, i.e. the agreement was for $3,000 for the week in base with no bonus and I chose to give him a $2,000 bonus because that was what was left in my wallet before I jumped on the plane, then at least his side of the story would be on record.

 

Played golf with a friend yesterday that has been a resort caddie at some prestigious places with some tour caddies and he said unequivocally a resort caddie that picked up a bag in an event would expect the 10% bonus.

 

I think that's where some of you guys are missing the mark. If the "culture" of the PGA TOUR is that the bonus is paid then Kuch would have needed to have expressly told Ortiz, you will not receive any bonus regardless of my finish.

 

My friend also said he thought it would be very likely that the caddies would be unified in no one picking up the bag if that was stated. So, had Kuch told Ortiz, you will not receive the bonus he might have had his wife on the bag for all 4 rounds. Maybe one of the multitude of WRX'ers who gladly said they would have carried the bag would have done so for $3,000 and maybe Kuch would have still won? Having met up with some WRX'ers I don't know how many of you would have made it around Mayakoba with a tour bag 5 times in 5 days.

 

The strangest thing is that you seem to believe that Kucher owes you an explanation so you can judge his actions. That's a bit beyond the pale.

[ebrasmus21]

Can someone tell me what a pro looper does vs a cc/resort looper? And I'm not talking about a full time relationship, but one that a pro might pick up the night before a tournament..say Bones had twisted his ankle at the Pro Am dance, and Phil needed a pro caddie (not Tim!) on his bag...he's paying full freight, no? Also, I've had former pro caddies (journeyman caddies, you might say) caddie for me at clubs...they're no better or worse than the excellent locals.

 

Here is a quote from Ben Crenshaw regarding a certain local caddie:

 

"I don't know if I can last that long," Crenshaw says. "Especially with as much course as they've got out there now. If and when I give it up, I'll do everything in my power to make sure Carl has somebody's bag during the Masters for as long as he wants to continue. I do know this: Everything I've achieved over the years in the Masters, I owe to Carl Jackson."

 

My guess is Ben paid Carl pretty well. Heck, from what I've read, Phil tips the various locker room attendants more during Masters week than Kuchar paid for his win!

And?

 

Morning fam. Have the Montague's given up yet??

Out a little late last night?

 

I’ll fess up. I had a few margaritas last night.

[Matt J]

I will unambiguously say that I would have more respect for Kuch if he revealed the terms of the agreement between himself and the caddie.

 

Honestly, I can see the argument for both sides, but I do not fit into the "Kuch doesn't owe anyone an answer" camp.

 

Despite the lack of relevant information, it is clear to me that between Gillis's source and the guy in the plaid shorts that Ortiz feels he has been wronged. Both his account of what transpired and Kuch's would help clear the air.

 

I understand the sentiment that it was a business deal between two men, but ultimately there was a miscommunication or someone is being dishonest and that's when the details must be addressed.

 

I think had Kuch been more clear, i.e. the agreement was for $3,000 for the week in base with no bonus and I chose to give him a $2,000 bonus because that was what was left in my wallet before I jumped on the plane, then at least his side of the story would be on record.

 

Played golf with a friend yesterday that has been a resort caddie at some prestigious places with some tour caddies and he said unequivocally a resort caddie that picked up a bag in an event would expect the 10% bonus.

 

I think that's where some of you guys are missing the mark. If the "culture" of the PGA TOUR is that the bonus is paid then Kuch would have needed to have expressly told Ortiz, you will not receive any bonus regardless of my finish.

 

My friend also said he thought it would be very likely that the caddies would be unified in no one picking up the bag if that was stated. So, had Kuch told Ortiz, you will not receive the bonus he might have had his wife on the bag for all 4 rounds. Maybe one of the multitude of WRX'ers who gladly said they would have carried the bag would have done so for $3,000 and maybe Kuch would have still won? Having met up with some WRX'ers I don't know how many of you would have made it around Mayakoba with a tour bag 5 times in 5 days.

 

The strangest thing is that you seem to believe that Kucher owes you an explanation so you can judge his actions. That's a bit beyond the pale.

 

Well, that's like your opinion, man :)

 

We are all entitled to them.

 

In my mind when you choose to make your money in the public arena, you expose yourself to the opinions of the general public.

 

The guy takes a ton of money in endorsements and purses. If those companies want my support and dollars then they are subject to my opinion. I explain myself to clients everyday. I think they are entitled to those explanations. Maybe Kuch, the PGA TOUR, Skechers, Bridgestone, et al. don't want my business and don't want to provide an explanation. That's fine. My point is that if they do want my dollars then they owe me an explanation that is plausible.

[cxx]

I will unambiguously say that I would have more respect for Kuch if he revealed the terms of the agreement between himself and the caddie.

 

Honestly, I can see the argument for both sides, but I do not fit into the "Kuch doesn't owe anyone an answer" camp.

 

Despite the lack of relevant information, it is clear to me that between Gillis's source and the guy in the plaid shorts that Ortiz feels he has been wronged. Both his account of what transpired and Kuch's would help clear the air.

 

I understand the sentiment that it was a business deal between two men, but ultimately there was a miscommunication or someone is being dishonest and that's when the details must be addressed.

 

I think had Kuch been more clear, i.e. the agreement was for $3,000 for the week in base with no bonus and I chose to give him a $2,000 bonus because that was what was left in my wallet before I jumped on the plane, then at least his side of the story would be on record.

 

Played golf with a friend yesterday that has been a resort caddie at some prestigious places with some tour caddies and he said unequivocally a resort caddie that picked up a bag in an event would expect the 10% bonus.

 

I think that's where some of you guys are missing the mark. If the "culture" of the PGA TOUR is that the bonus is paid then Kuch would have needed to have expressly told Ortiz, you will not receive any bonus regardless of my finish.

 

My friend also said he thought it would be very likely that the caddies would be unified in no one picking up the bag if that was stated. So, had Kuch told Ortiz, you will not receive the bonus he might have had his wife on the bag for all 4 rounds. Maybe one of the multitude of WRX'ers who gladly said they would have carried the bag would have done so for $3,000 and maybe Kuch would have still won? Having met up with some WRX'ers I don't know how many of you would have made it around Mayakoba with a tour bag 5 times in 5 days.

 

The strangest thing is that you seem to believe that Kucher owes you an explanation so you can judge his actions. That's a bit beyond the pale.

 

Well, that's like your opinion, man :)

 

We are all entitled to them.

 

In my mind when you choose to make your money in the public arena, you expose yourself to the opinions of the general public.

 

The guy takes a ton of money in endorsements and purses. If those companies want my support and dollars then they are subject to my opinion. I explain myself to clients everyday. I think they are entitled to those explanations. Maybe Kuch, the PGA TOUR, Skechers, Bridgestone, et al. don't want my business and don't want to provide an explanation. That's fine. My point is that if they do want my dollars then they owe me an explanation that is plausible.

 

Maybe you should send him an email and ask.

[jmck]

I will unambiguously say that I would have more respect for Kuch if he revealed the terms of the agreement between himself and the caddie.

 

Honestly, I can see the argument for both sides, but I do not fit into the "Kuch doesn't owe anyone an answer" camp.

 

Despite the lack of relevant information, it is clear to me that between Gillis's source and the guy in the plaid shorts that Ortiz feels he has been wronged. Both his account of what transpired and Kuch's would help clear the air.

 

I understand the sentiment that it was a business deal between two men, but ultimately there was a miscommunication or someone is being dishonest and that's when the details must be addressed.

 

I think had Kuch been more clear, i.e. the agreement was for $3,000 for the week in base with no bonus and I chose to give him a $2,000 bonus because that was what was left in my wallet before I jumped on the plane, then at least his side of the story would be on record.

 

Played golf with a friend yesterday that has been a resort caddie at some prestigious places with some tour caddies and he said unequivocally a resort caddie that picked up a bag in an event would expect the 10% bonus.

 

I think that's where some of you guys are missing the mark. If the "culture" of the PGA TOUR is that the bonus is paid then Kuch would have needed to have expressly told Ortiz, you will not receive any bonus regardless of my finish.

 

My friend also said he thought it would be very likely that the caddies would be unified in no one picking up the bag if that was stated. So, had Kuch told Ortiz, you will not receive the bonus he might have had his wife on the bag for all 4 rounds. Maybe one of the multitude of WRX'ers who gladly said they would have carried the bag would have done so for $3,000 and maybe Kuch would have still won? Having met up with some WRX'ers I don't know how many of you would have made it around Mayakoba with a tour bag 5 times in 5 days.

 

^^^^ This. Kuch isn't going to go into specifics, because the specifics make him look bad. He tried wiggling out of it with the "more than $3k, less than 10% line" which is designed to imply that the actual number was somewhere near the middle of that range, rather than much much closer to $3001 than 10% of 1.3m.

 

What the "mind your own business" crowd doesn't get is that Kuch did something so far out of the ordinary culture of caddie-player compensation, so egregiously against the cultural norms of how things work on tour, that some rando felt obligated to call him out on it. No, it's all shoot the messenger instead. This is not someone tipping 10% at a restaurant when the cultural norm is 20%. This is someone leaving $100 when the bill came to $99.70. This isn't a waitress thinking "that guy was cheap," this is "I'm gonna spit in that guy's food if I ever see him again." If Kuch came anywhere remotely near doing what is usually done under the circumstances there's zero chance some rando calls him out for being cheap. He wasn't a little cheap, he was egregiously cheap, hence this whole kerfuffle.

 

Secondly, the "mind your own business" crowd seems unwilling to accept that he's a public figure. Certainly not on the order of someone like Tiger, but he's getting paid to wear someone's logo and put his face on ads in Golf Digest. I go and bang a bunch of porn stars that's between me and my family, because I'm not a public figure (sorry Honey!). Tiger goes and bangs a bunch of porn stars and, being a public figure, his sponsors turn off the spigot. There's only so much privacy you get once you're a public figure. If Kuch doesn't want some rando calling him out for being cheap then he shouldn't be cheap. As a public figure, he should expect that, regardless of the high standards of privacy expected by those here on golfwrx.

[bscinstnct]

Kooch should have asked himself

 

What would Phil do?

 

; )

[cxx]

Kooch should have asked himself

 

What would Phil do?

 

; )

 

Sue

[bscinstnct]

Kooch should have asked himself

 

What would Phil do?

 

; )

 

Sue

 

Ha! I substituted Phil for...never mind.

 

You know Phil. Hed have given the guy 200k, filmed a commercial with the two of them dancing, and then taken him and his family to the Superbowl ; )

[MtlJeff]

"mind your own business" crowd....."social justice" crowd.....LOL.....This thread is long enough that we can start our own Facebook pages.

 

The "mind your own business" crowd understands your points just fine, at least i do. I just don't really care about them when i form mine. I'm not going to pan a guy because his transaction didn't fall into an expected societal norm. You're allowed to call him cheap, and as a public figure he needs to accept a public reaction to anything he does. I don't dispute that....

 

But if he wants to pay local caddies every week 3000$ that's his right as an independent contractor. For all we know caddy pay is a market inefficiency that Kuchar discovered by winning with someone who's willing to accept 3K. Just like paying Taxi drivers 2X what an Uber was 10 years ago.

 

Maybe Kuchar's discovery will help young struggling pros last on the tours longer because they'll cut their caddy costs down , potentially by having locals carry a bag for a smaller fee

[deadsolid...shank]

I will unambiguously say that I would have more respect for Kuch if he revealed the terms of the agreement between himself and the caddie.

 

Honestly, I can see the argument for both sides, but I do not fit into the "Kuch doesn't owe anyone an answer" camp.

 

Despite the lack of relevant information, it is clear to me that between Gillis's source and the guy in the plaid shorts that Ortiz feels he has been wronged. Both his account of what transpired and Kuch's would help clear the air.

 

I understand the sentiment that it was a business deal between two men, but ultimately there was a miscommunication or someone is being dishonest and that's when the details must be addressed.

 

I think had Kuch been more clear, i.e. the agreement was for $3,000 for the week in base with no bonus and I chose to give him a $2,000 bonus because that was what was left in my wallet before I jumped on the plane, then at least his side of the story would be on record.

 

Played golf with a friend yesterday that has been a resort caddie at some prestigious places with some tour caddies and he said unequivocally a resort caddie that picked up a bag in an event would expect the 10% bonus.

 

I think that's where some of you guys are missing the mark. If the "culture" of the PGA TOUR is that the bonus is paid then Kuch would have needed to have expressly told Ortiz, you will not receive any bonus regardless of my finish.

 

My friend also said he thought it would be very likely that the caddies would be unified in no one picking up the bag if that was stated. So, had Kuch told Ortiz, you will not receive the bonus he might have had his wife on the bag for all 4 rounds. Maybe one of the multitude of WRX'ers who gladly said they would have carried the bag would have done so for $3,000 and maybe Kuch would have still won? Having met up with some WRX'ers I don't know how many of you would have made it around Mayakoba with a tour bag 5 times in 5 days.

 

^^^^ This. Kuch isn't going to go into specifics, because the specifics make him look bad. He tried wiggling out of it with the "more than $3k, less than 10% line" which is designed to imply that the actual number was somewhere near the middle of that range, rather than much much closer to $3001 than 10% of 1.3m.

 

What the "mind your own business" crowd doesn't get is that Kuch did something so far out of the ordinary culture of caddie-player compensation, so egregiously against the cultural norms of how things work on tour, that some rando felt obligated to call him out on it. No, it's all shoot the messenger instead. This is not someone tipping 10% at a restaurant when the cultural norm is 20%. This is someone leaving $100 when the bill came to $99.70. This isn't a waitress thinking "that guy was cheap," this is "I'm gonna spit in that guy's food if I ever see him again." If Kuch came anywhere remotely near doing what is usually done under the circumstances there's zero chance some rando calls him out for being cheap. He wasn't a little cheap, he was egregiously cheap, hence this whole kerfuffle.

 

Secondly, the "mind your own business" crowd seems unwilling to accept that he's a public figure. Certainly not on the order of someone like Tiger, but he's getting paid to wear someone's logo and put his face on ads in Golf Digest. I go and bang a bunch of porn stars that's between me and my family, because I'm not a public figure (sorry Honey!). Tiger goes and bangs a bunch of porn stars and, being a public figure, his sponsors turn off the spigot. There's only so much privacy you get once you're a public figure. If Kuch doesn't want some rando calling him out for being cheap then he shouldn't be cheap. As a public figure, he should expect that, regardless of the high standards of privacy expected by those here on golfwrx.

 

You think the specifics would make him look bad, but the reality is YOU DONT KNOW. you’re speculating just the same as everyone else.

 

And so what if he’s a public figure, he’s not an elected one. We don’t have a right to know any specifics.

 

Bottom line for me, Kucher May well be a cheapskate, I don’t know. What I do know......two people, TWO, know what exactly the payment arrangements were, and exactly what payments were actually made.

[braincramp52]

I guess I live in a completely different world. Not once in my 66 years on this planet have I ever thought someone in the public view owed me a explanation about something he may or may not have done. Why? Because of sponsors!? Bu!!sh!t. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Now, if my son or daughter, or wife does something that isn't right they need to explain. But just because the person is on my TV means nothing.

[Gnomesteel]

I guess I live in a completely different world. Not once in my 66 years on this planet have I ever thought someone in the public view owed me a explanation about something he may or may not have done. Why? Because of sponsors!? Bu!!sh!t. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Now, if my son or daughter, or wife does something that isn't right they need to explain. But just because the person is on my TV means nothing.

 

You’ve never been critical of someone in public view? Not once? Calling bullxxxx on that one.

 

Kuch makes a living as a public figure in golf. He is paid by companies that sell gear we buy and review. That opens him up to public criticism. It’s pretty simple.

[jmck]

Where did I say I think Kuchar owes anyone an explanation? I didn't, because I don't think he does. BUT I do think that if there was something simple he could say by way of explanation that would make him look good he would've already said it. That's simple human nature. Instead we got the "non-story" comment, and the mealy mouthed "more than $3k less than 10%."

 

I also never said that he owes us an explanation because of his sponsors. That's just silly. Maybe the point I was trying to make was too fine of a one for some of you deep thinkers, but the point is being a public person has its pluses and minuses. If you're going to accept the positive side--money for wearing a logo--you better be prepared to accept the negative side, e.g., getting called out on twitter for being a cheapskate after you egregiously stiff a caddie. Maybe some of you law and order types would understand it better this way: "don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

[Hawkeye77]

I guess I live in a completely different world. Not once in my 66 years on this planet have I ever thought someone in the public view owed me a explanation about something he may or may not have done. Why? Because of sponsors!? Bu!!sh!t. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Now, if my son or daughter, or wife does something that isn't right they need to explain. But just because the person is on my TV means nothing.

 

You’ve never been critical of someone in public view? Not once? Calling bullxxxx on that one.

 

Kuch makes a living as a public figure in golf. He is paid by companies that sell gear we buy and review. That opens him up to public criticism. It’s pretty simple.

 

He didn't say that.

[DBill]

Bunch of socialist on this thread.

[DBill]

Kuch was not feeling the Bern to change this man's life, he is evil!

[Ignatius Reilly]

"mind your own business" crowd....."social justice" crowd.....LOL.....This thread is long enough that we can start our own Facebook pages.

 

The "mind your own business" crowd understands your points just fine, at least i do. I just don't really care about them when i form mine. I'm not going to pan a guy because his transaction didn't fall into an expected societal norm. You're allowed to call him cheap, and as a public figure he needs to accept a public reaction to anything he does. I don't dispute that....

 

But if he wants to pay local caddies every week 3000$ that's his right as an independent contractor. For all we know caddy pay is a market inefficiency that Kuchar discovered by winning with someone who's willing to accept 3K. Just like paying Taxi drivers 2X what an Uber was 10 years ago.

 

Maybe Kuchar's discovery will help young struggling pros last on the tours longer because they'll cut their caddy costs down , potentially by having locals carry a bag for a smaller fee

 

That's all quite possible.

 

Remind me, did the newly-enlightened Kuch use this theory ever again? Did he use it when he won last week?

 

Maybe he paid his regular guy $5k for the win, under this new deal! We'll never know, and it's a private matter anyway.....

[Matt J]

If you guys don't think sponsors care how their athletes are perceived I just don't know what to tell you.

 

What's the point of sponsoring someone? They help you sell product.

 

Bridgestone, Ecco, RBC Bank, Workday, Grey Goose, and Net Jets - if and when you purchase their products a small % of the purchase price goes to Kuch. Interestingly, it's nearly the same percentage he tips.

[bscinstnct]

Bunch of socialist on this thread.

 

Ya, we like

 

 

 

[cxx]

The more I think of it, Kuch will weather this tempest in a tea cup just fine. Gillis, maybe not. Who would want someone like that as a representative of your product, a low brow click monger. It's the small guys that wind up as a splat on the windshield.