El Tucan Speaks..... (NO POLITICS)

[deadsolid...shank]

This makes A LOT of guys on here look real stupid. Stupid as rocks.

 

$5k is embarrassing.

 

Really? Stupid? Because they have a different opinion?

 

Chalk one up for your side of the debate. (That was sarcasm for the rest of my stupid side).

 

But I’m guessing you would know about rocks, now go crawl back under yours.

 

Dude, take it easy. Have you got money invested in Kuch or something? It's only a low level tour story.

 

When the story broke, sourced information was presented and instead of considering the information people painted Kuch as a PGA Tour Angel. Turns out he stiffed the guy, cuz he could, simple as that. He's drawing criticism for that and rightfully so. The court of popular opinion is a tough school.

 

I'm not crawling under any rocks I'm staring down keyboard warriors and trolls lol. Have a good one.

 

Hey, you’re the one who used the stupid word. There’s been a lot of debate both ways but that was the first one to sink to that level.

 

it’s good that that all the keyboard warriors and trolls have you to put them in their place. Again you just lumped a lot of quality people into that category.

 

Why can’t you just state your argument, like you did above, without resorting to the juvenile name calling?

[cdnglf]

 

 

And I’ll tell you how this whole pathetic thing got started.....

 

How much cash did Kuchar actually have on him or have access to in Mexico?? I’d be willing to bet that he gave Tucan everything he had at the moment. I’m also betting Tucan didn’t want a personal check.

 

No one is cruising around Mexico with a giant wad of cash other than the Drug lords.....and maybe Phil....LOL!!

 

There’s a reason he got paid in a lot of small bills in a thick envelope. Kuch certainly cleaned out the ATM machine at the resort and the front desk.

 

The resorts deliberately keep very limited cash on hand to avoid getting jacked. Most things are on credit card. What do you think the odds are that Tucan was SUPPOSED to get more money later via a wire transfer and things somehow went terribly sideways?

 

Allegedly, the tip was the money ZJ paid to Kuchar’s wife for carrying his bag for 4 holes after his caddy got sick.

[CasualLie]

 

 

Do they typically give this to all employees are only high level ones? Not my industry so I'm genuinely curious

 

There is a wide variety in SV on how this is done. 10 years ago, stock options were common, meaning you got nothing unless the stock went up after the option was exercised, or in the meantime of option eligibility vs exercise. Sign on bonuses for highly in demand employees were more common than today. Still exists in pockets, but not so much.

 

Now RSUs are more common and they take 3 or 4 years to vest (1/3 or 1/4 each year). I've seen RSUs given as part of the package day one for as low of role as individual contributors when the company is successful and the ranges of RSUs varies by level of positions.

 

You have some companies successful and pay well, and you have others very successful and pay on the lower side of scale because they think it is a privilege for you to work there as you will leave in a few years anyways.

 

It would not be uncommon for a Program Manager with 5 years of experience to be hired for $100k/yr and get 500 shares of RSUs.

[dropkicked]

Karma is real..

 

I wonder... If the caddie was an American, would Kuch have paid him appropriately?

 

The karma thing is interesting. Golfers thrive on confidence, and Kuch didn't win in 4 years. He goes to this tournament and wins, than goes on a stretch where he finishes top 20, top 20, another win and a top 5. The guy is now first in the Fed-Ex and has nearly won $3,000,000 already this year. If there is such a thing as karma, it's hasn't happened yet. You could make an argument that $50,000 like the caddy wanted might not even be enough now for what that weekend did for Kuch so far this year.

It's definitely real and while his fortunes may favor him now, it may not end in the same fashion..

 

Kuch, had a shot at a life defining moment and he shanked it. He was given the chance and the ability to change another human beings life and the lives of his lineage forever and he declined the universes invitation to greatness... The $50k he let go would have been paid back 100x, by the ovations from his fans across the globe. His image and name would have preceded him wherever he would travel... He would have been a marketers dream!.. He would have truly lived up to his image..

 

 

But!.......

[CasualLie]

And I'll tell you how this whole pathetic thing got started.....

 

How much cash did Kuchar actually have on him or have access to in Mexico?? I'd be willing to bet that he gave Tucan everything he had at the moment. I'm also betting Tucan didn't want a personal check.

 

No one is cruising around Mexico with a giant wad of cash other than the Drug lords.....and maybe Phil....LOL!!

 

There's a reason he got paid in a lot of small bills in a thick envelope. Kuch certainly cleaned out the ATM machine at the resort and the front desk.

 

The resorts deliberately keep very limited cash on hand to avoid getting jacked. Most things are on credit card. What do you think the odds are that Tucan was SUPPOSED to get more money later via a wire transfer and things somehow went terribly sideways?

 

Allegedly, the tip was the money ZJ paid to Kuchar's wife for carrying his bag for 4 holes after his caddy got sick.

 

Uh....no. I made that up in the last thread as a joke. ZJ didn't pay Kuchar's wife. No need to...

 

It is funny the envelope had small bills, but not surprising given the situation. Cash is not something carried around a lot these days. Tour is not full of a bunch of Phil's and their choke roll of $100s

[BlackDiamondPar5]

ElTucan sounds like a self-entitled jerk. He and some others are pretty much clueless as to the additional duties of the tour caddie. Guy does a fraction of the job for a week and wants full pay... Total BS. I'm also going to bet the El Tucan pretty much cost himself future earnings with the pros.

 

I'll make this offer, If Kuch or any other pro want to pay me $5k to caddie for them for the week I'll gladly take the week off and sling their bag around.

 

Did you even read the article? He even points out, that he wasn't expecting full tour caddie money.

 

I did... "On that basis, in the euphoria of victory, Ortiz had hoped to make as much as $130,000."

 

Hoped to make as much, not expected to make 130,000. Big difference, also

 

"Ortiz said he did not expect to be paid what a Tour caddie would have made, but said he believed his work and contribution toward the win was worth $50,000."

Why is 50 the right number? If that's what he expected then they should have agreed to it. As it is Kuch offered him another 15 and he refused. He didn't even do 1/2 the job as a regular caddie and had expenses of 100% less than a regular caddie.

 

Would I have given him more? Maybe but that's not my call. I wasn't there and it's not my money. But maybe the guy did little more than carry. Maybe he sucked? Did he carry his bag during the practice rounds? Did he work with him on the range? He certainly can't provide detailed expertise based on Matt's shot characteristics. He certainly didn't incur any costs to caddie at the event, nor did he do any pre or post round work as typical for a regular bagman. So even half pay seems overly generous.

[deadsolid...shank]

Some of you on this thread on Team Kuchar need to read up on the a fallacy known (among other names) as the "continuum fallacy," or "fallacy of the beard."

 

Being cheap is a thing. Being generous is a thing. Just because some of you can't put an exact number on what is cheap doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called "being cheap."

 

So just stop with this "I don't know how much he should have given him, so therefore it can't have been cheap." None of you are actually saying those words, but that is, nevertheless, your argument. That's flat-out fallacious reasoning.

 

No tip on top of the $3,000 would have been cheap. $1.00 would have been cheap. (Virtually) everyone would agree with that. And so on, up to a certain point that varies from individual to individual. At some point we all have a point at which the tip becomes "reasonable," and then flows over into "generous." That is a given.

 

This is really the only argument here from those of us on Team Toucan. That's it. We're literally arguing about the definition of cheap in this instance, which is why I posted my question earlier in the thread. I really wish some of you guys on Team Kuchar would answer it, because I think it would help minimize the snark.

 

Hi Obee, I plan on mostly staying out of this but will respond to you because I respect you and feel we can have a good dialog.

 

I just don't see this much differently than most employer/employee relationships. Many of us work in large businesses, and chances are good that if you make 50-60k or whatever, your CEO might make 10M. People who work for Google, GoPro, apple, Microsoft whoever...there are employees there that make 50k, 150k, and there are people that have net worths in the multi millions.

 

When Microsoft posts a job opening for a junior developer or something, they list a salary of X. If you want that job you can take it, if you don't you don't. People don't usually argue "well Steve Ballmer is worth 20B so they can afford more". There is a general understanding of how the economy works.

 

I argued in the other thread about markets, that Kuchar has a right to post a job every weekend if he wants and say "caddy for hire, 3000$". And if he can fill it, great! That's his right. He just won a PGA tournament with a 5000$ caddy. Maybe that's the correct market value. Or maybe not. If he posted that and no one took the gig, or did a poor job that hurt kuchar's chances, than it's not good and he should pay more

 

I don't care if people call him cheap that's their prerogative too. But I just don't succumb to "we need to do X because that's always what has been done"

 

No one here that I know of is arguing about the $3,000. It's what happened after the $3,000 for the week was settled.

 

Do you think there was zero expectation on the part of both Kuchar and Toucan that if he won or placed highly in the tournament that there would be no further remuneration?

 

Of course you don't believe that. There is a rate we pay a caddie, and then there is the tip. Always. Which Kuchar acknowledges by giving him the $2,000 additional tip beyond their agreed amount. We're arguing about Kuchar's cheap tip. Period.

 

He had the absolute right to stiff the guy if he wanted. That is not at issue, bud.

 

So he gave him a 66.6% tip....

[Under2hours]

And I'll tell you how this whole pathetic thing got started.....

 

How much cash did Kuchar actually have on him or have access to in Mexico?? I'd be willing to bet that he gave Tucan everything he had at the moment. I'm also betting Tucan didn't want a personal check.

 

No one is cruising around Mexico with a giant wad of cash other than the Drug lords.....and maybe Phil....LOL!!

 

There's a reason he got paid in a lot of small bills in a thick envelope. Kuch certainly cleaned out the ATM machine at the resort and the front desk.

 

The resorts deliberately keep very limited cash on hand to avoid getting jacked. Most things are on credit card. What do you think the odds are that Tucan was SUPPOSED to get more money later via a wire transfer and things somehow went terribly sideways?

 

Allegedly, the tip was the money ZJ paid to Kuchar's wife for carrying his bag for 4 holes after his caddy got sick.

Hope he paid back his wife!!!!!!!

[Circaflex]

ElTucan sounds like a self-entitled jerk. He and some others are pretty much clueless as to the additional duties of the tour caddie. Guy does a fraction of the job for a week and wants full pay... Total BS. I'm also going to bet the El Tucan pretty much cost himself future earnings with the pros.

 

I'll make this offer, If Kuch or any other pro want to pay me $5k to caddie for them for the week I'll gladly take the week off and sling their bag around.

 

Did you even read the article? He even points out, that he wasn't expecting full tour caddie money.

 

I did... "On that basis, in the euphoria of victory, Ortiz had hoped to make as much as $130,000."

 

Hoped to make as much, not expected to make 130,000. Big difference, also

 

"Ortiz said he did not expect to be paid what a Tour caddie would have made, but said he believed his work and contribution toward the win was worth $50,000."

He didn't even do 1/2 the job as a regular caddie and had expenses of 100% less than a regular caddie.

 

How on earth, can you possibly know that?

[SMcGavin1]

This makes A LOT of guys on here look real stupid. Stupid as rocks.

 

$5k is embarrassing.

 

Really? Stupid? Because they have a different opinion?

 

Chalk one up for your side of the debate. (That was sarcasm for the rest of my stupid side).

 

But I'm guessing you would know about rocks, now go crawl back under yours.

 

Dude, take it easy. Have you got money invested in Kuch or something? It's only a low level tour story.

 

When the story broke, sourced information was presented and instead of considering the information people painted Kuch as a PGA Tour Angel. Turns out he stiffed the guy, cuz he could, simple as that. He's drawing criticism for that and rightfully so. The court of popular opinion is a tough school.

 

I'm not crawling under any rocks I'm staring down keyboard warriors and trolls lol. Have a good one.

 

Hey, you're the one who used the stupid word. There's been a lot of debate both ways but that was the first one to sink to that level.

 

it's good that that all the keyboard warriors and trolls have you to put them in their place. Again you just lumped a lot of quality people into that category.

 

Why can't you just state your argument, like you did above, without resorting to the juvenile name calling?

 

Quality people don't tip 0.38% and don't advocate for others to do the same behind the banner of "Well the guy agreed to it, so it's just good business!"

[BlackDiamondPar5]

 

 

How on earth, can you possibly know that?

 

Because a tour caddie doesn't just show up and carry.

[SMcGavin1]

Some of you on this thread on Team Kuchar need to read up on the a fallacy known (among other names) as the "continuum fallacy," or "fallacy of the beard."

 

Being cheap is a thing. Being generous is a thing. Just because some of you can't put an exact number on what is cheap doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called "being cheap."

 

So just stop with this "I don't know how much he should have given him, so therefore it can't have been cheap." None of you are actually saying those words, but that is, nevertheless, your argument. That's flat-out fallacious reasoning.

 

No tip on top of the $3,000 would have been cheap. $1.00 would have been cheap. (Virtually) everyone would agree with that. And so on, up to a certain point that varies from individual to individual. At some point we all have a point at which the tip becomes "reasonable," and then flows over into "generous." That is a given.

 

This is really the only argument here from those of us on Team Toucan. That's it. We're literally arguing about the definition of cheap in this instance, which is why I posted my question earlier in the thread. I really wish some of you guys on Team Kuchar would answer it, because I think it would help minimize the snark.

 

Hi Obee, I plan on mostly staying out of this but will respond to you because I respect you and feel we can have a good dialog.

 

I just don't see this much differently than most employer/employee relationships. Many of us work in large businesses, and chances are good that if you make 50-60k or whatever, your CEO might make 10M. People who work for Google, GoPro, apple, Microsoft whoever...there are employees there that make 50k, 150k, and there are people that have net worths in the multi millions.

 

When Microsoft posts a job opening for a junior developer or something, they list a salary of X. If you want that job you can take it, if you don't you don't. People don't usually argue "well Steve Ballmer is worth 20B so they can afford more". There is a general understanding of how the economy works.

 

I argued in the other thread about markets, that Kuchar has a right to post a job every weekend if he wants and say "caddy for hire, 3000$". And if he can fill it, great! That's his right. He just won a PGA tournament with a 5000$ caddy. Maybe that's the correct market value. Or maybe not. If he posted that and no one took the gig, or did a poor job that hurt kuchar's chances, than it's not good and he should pay more

 

I don't care if people call him cheap that's their prerogative too. But I just don't succumb to "we need to do X because that's always what has been done"

 

No one here that I know of is arguing about the $3,000. It's what happened after the $3,000 for the week was settled.

 

Do you think there was zero expectation on the part of both Kuchar and Toucan that if he won or placed highly in the tournament that there would be no further remuneration?

 

Of course you don't believe that. There is a rate we pay a caddie, and then there is the tip. Always. Which Kuchar acknowledges by giving him the $2,000 additional tip beyond their agreed amount. We're arguing about Kuchar's cheap tip. Period.

 

He had the absolute right to stiff the guy if he wanted. That is not at issue, bud.

 

So he gave him a 66.6% tip....

 

0.38%

[Pent08]

This is a tough one. Businesses are only obligated, from a market standpoint, to pay a competitive wage since their margins are typically razor thin. In this situation, Kuchar just looks cheap, considering what would have been appropriate would have been pocket change in proportion to his earnings.

[bigchucksr]

Karma is real..

 

I wonder... If the caddie was an American, would Kuch have paid him appropriately?

 

The karma thing is interesting. Golfers thrive on confidence, and Kuch didn't win in 4 years. He goes to this tournament and wins, than goes on a stretch where he finishes top 20, top 20, another win and a top 5. The guy is now first in the Fed-Ex and has nearly won $3,000,000 already this year. If there is such a thing as karma, it's hasn't happened yet. You could make an argument that $50,000 like the caddy wanted might not even be enough now for what that weekend did for Kuch so far this year.

It's definitely real and while his fortunes may favor him now, it may not end in the same fashion..

 

Kuch, had a shot at a life defining moment and he shanked it. He was given the chance and the ability to change another human beings life and the lives of his lineage forever and he declined the universes invitation to greatness... The $50k he let go would have been paid back 100x, by the ovations from his fans across the globe. His image and name would have preceded him wherever he would travel... He would have been a marketers dream!.. He would have truly lived up to his image..

 

 

But!.......

Anyone looking for a great definition of "Drivel"?

[deadsolid...shank]

Some of you on this thread on Team Kuchar need to read up on the a fallacy known (among other names) as the "continuum fallacy," or "fallacy of the beard."

 

Being cheap is a thing. Being generous is a thing. Just because some of you can't put an exact number on what is cheap doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called "being cheap."

 

So just stop with this "I don't know how much he should have given him, so therefore it can't have been cheap." None of you are actually saying those words, but that is, nevertheless, your argument. That's flat-out fallacious reasoning.

 

No tip on top of the $3,000 would have been cheap. $1.00 would have been cheap. (Virtually) everyone would agree with that. And so on, up to a certain point that varies from individual to individual. At some point we all have a point at which the tip becomes "reasonable," and then flows over into "generous." That is a given.

 

This is really the only argument here from those of us on Team Toucan. That's it. We're literally arguing about the definition of cheap in this instance, which is why I posted my question earlier in the thread. I really wish some of you guys on Team Kuchar would answer it, because I think it would help minimize the snark.

 

Hi Obee, I plan on mostly staying out of this but will respond to you because I respect you and feel we can have a good dialog.

 

I just don't see this much differently than most employer/employee relationships. Many of us work in large businesses, and chances are good that if you make 50-60k or whatever, your CEO might make 10M. People who work for Google, GoPro, apple, Microsoft whoever...there are employees there that make 50k, 150k, and there are people that have net worths in the multi millions.

 

When Microsoft posts a job opening for a junior developer or something, they list a salary of X. If you want that job you can take it, if you don't you don't. People don't usually argue "well Steve Ballmer is worth 20B so they can afford more". There is a general understanding of how the economy works.

 

I argued in the other thread about markets, that Kuchar has a right to post a job every weekend if he wants and say "caddy for hire, 3000$". And if he can fill it, great! That's his right. He just won a PGA tournament with a 5000$ caddy. Maybe that's the correct market value. Or maybe not. If he posted that and no one took the gig, or did a poor job that hurt kuchar's chances, than it's not good and he should pay more

 

I don't care if people call him cheap that's their prerogative too. But I just don't succumb to "we need to do X because that's always what has been done"

 

No one here that I know of is arguing about the $3,000. It's what happened after the $3,000 for the week was settled.

 

Do you think there was zero expectation on the part of both Kuchar and Toucan that if he won or placed highly in the tournament that there would be no further remuneration?

 

Of course you don't believe that. There is a rate we pay a caddie, and then there is the tip. Always. Which Kuchar acknowledges by giving him the $2,000 additional tip beyond their agreed amount. We're arguing about Kuchar's cheap tip. Period.

 

He had the absolute right to stiff the guy if he wanted. That is not at issue, bud.

 

So he gave him a 66.6% tip....

 

0.38%

 

38%? A $2,000 tip on a $3,000 bill is 66.6%. And I realize that’s not the point, I was just playing semantics with Obee with that post.

[SMcGavin1]

 

Hi Obee, I plan on mostly staying out of this but will respond to you because I respect you and feel we can have a good dialog.

 

I just don't see this much differently than most employer/employee relationships. Many of us work in large businesses, and chances are good that if you make 50-60k or whatever, your CEO might make 10M. People who work for Google, GoPro, apple, Microsoft whoever...there are employees there that make 50k, 150k, and there are people that have net worths in the multi millions.

 

When Microsoft posts a job opening for a junior developer or something, they list a salary of X. If you want that job you can take it, if you don't you don't. People don't usually argue "well Steve Ballmer is worth 20B so they can afford more". There is a general understanding of how the economy works.

 

I argued in the other thread about markets, that Kuchar has a right to post a job every weekend if he wants and say "caddy for hire, 3000$". And if he can fill it, great! That's his right. He just won a PGA tournament with a 5000$ caddy. Maybe that's the correct market value. Or maybe not. If he posted that and no one took the gig, or did a poor job that hurt kuchar's chances, than it's not good and he should pay more

 

I don't care if people call him cheap that's their prerogative too. But I just don't succumb to "we need to do X because that's always what has been done"

 

No one here that I know of is arguing about the $3,000. It's what happened after the $3,000 for the week was settled.

 

Do you think there was zero expectation on the part of both Kuchar and Toucan that if he won or placed highly in the tournament that there would be no further remuneration?

 

Of course you don't believe that. There is a rate we pay a caddie, and then there is the tip. Always. Which Kuchar acknowledges by giving him the $2,000 additional tip beyond their agreed amount. We're arguing about Kuchar's cheap tip. Period.

 

He had the absolute right to stiff the guy if he wanted. That is not at issue, bud.

 

So he gave him a 66.6% tip....

 

0.38%

 

38%? A $2,000 tip on a $3,000 bill is 66.6%. And I realize that’s not the point, I was just playing semantics with Obee with that post.

 

He tipped the dude 0.38% on his winnings. And people are arguing he did the right thing. "Quality people" lol

[straightshot7]

Some of you guys are still arguing about there being no "agreement" and that Kuch wasn't "obligated" to do anything? Really? You want out of doing the standard/correct thing by a technicality?

 

Imagine you go to a restaurant/bar with one of your friends and you guys eat and drink and your bill is $100.

 

Are you going to leave a 16 CENT tip? $00.16? And then tell the waiter and everyone else, "Sorry, there was no agreement".

 

Of course not. But 16 cents (more precisely 15.5 cents) is the mathematical equivalent of giving a $2,000 tip on $1,290,000 in winnings.

 

You can go through life not tipping or giving .155% tips if you want. No one is going to arrest you. You aren't technically "obligated", but does that make it right?

 

Kuchar said about El Tucan that week after winning: “He was definitely my lucky charm,” Kuchar said. “He brought me good luck and certainly some extra crowd support and did a great job as well. He did just what I was hoping for and looking for.”

[bigeasy]

Heard of the Lucas Glover story? Wife: Thats all he is getting

Matt: yes dear

End of story.

[straightshot7]

38%? A $2,000 tip on a $3,000 bill is 66.6%. And I realize that’s not the point, I was just playing semantics with Obee with that post.

 

? Caddie tip is always based on the player's winnings: $1,296,000.

[deadsolid...shank]

 

 

Hi Obee, I plan on mostly staying out of this but will respond to you because I respect you and feel we can have a good dialog.

 

I just don't see this much differently than most employer/employee relationships. Many of us work in large businesses, and chances are good that if you make 50-60k or whatever, your CEO might make 10M. People who work for Google, GoPro, apple, Microsoft whoever...there are employees there that make 50k, 150k, and there are people that have net worths in the multi millions.

 

When Microsoft posts a job opening for a junior developer or something, they list a salary of X. If you want that job you can take it, if you don't you don't. People don't usually argue "well Steve Ballmer is worth 20B so they can afford more". There is a general understanding of how the economy works.

 

I argued in the other thread about markets, that Kuchar has a right to post a job every weekend if he wants and say "caddy for hire, 3000$". And if he can fill it, great! That's his right. He just won a PGA tournament with a 5000$ caddy. Maybe that's the correct market value. Or maybe not. If he posted that and no one took the gig, or did a poor job that hurt kuchar's chances, than it's not good and he should pay more

 

I don't care if people call him cheap that's their prerogative too. But I just don't succumb to "we need to do X because that's always what has been done"

 

No one here that I know of is arguing about the $3,000. It's what happened after the $3,000 for the week was settled.

 

Do you think there was zero expectation on the part of both Kuchar and Toucan that if he won or placed highly in the tournament that there would be no further remuneration?

 

Of course you don't believe that. There is a rate we pay a caddie, and then there is the tip. Always. Which Kuchar acknowledges by giving him the $2,000 additional tip beyond their agreed amount. We're arguing about Kuchar's cheap tip. Period.

 

He had the absolute right to stiff the guy if he wanted. That is not at issue, bud.

 

So he gave him a 66.6% tip....

0.38%

 

38%? A $2,000 tip on a $3,000 bill is 66.6%. And I realize that’s not the point, I was just playing semantics with Obee with that post.

 

He tipped the dude 0.38% on his winnings. And people are arguing he did the right thing. "Quality people" lol

 

I’m sorry, I missed the decimal point. I see what you meant.

 

As to the “quality people” comment, that’s pretty encompassing of an awful lot of people just because they have a different opinion.

[chigolfer1]

Not sure why he wouldn't accept the extra money even if its not the $50k... His common law wife obviously has expensive taste spending that $5k on paint, blinds, and a mirror.

 

Yes, this is literally the definition of looking a gift horse in the mouth. It's not like this is a negotiation and he has a "right" any money. He may not be happy with 20k vs. 50k but it makes no sense to me to not accept it as if that is going to shame them into paying more. After he refused, I'd say whatever and wash my hands of the whole thing.

 

And yes, sounds like Kuch was cheap as hell and could have just paid the guy ~20k to begin with.

[jaymayor]

Some of you on this thread on Team Kuchar need to read up on the a fallacy known (among other names) as the "continuum fallacy," or "fallacy of the beard."

 

Being cheap is a thing. Being generous is a thing. Just because some of you can't put an exact number on what is cheap doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called "being cheap."

 

So just stop with this "I don't know how much he should have given him, so therefore it can't have been cheap." None of you are actually saying those words, but that is, nevertheless, your argument. That's flat-out fallacious reasoning.

 

No tip on top of the $3,000 would have been cheap. $1.00 would have been cheap. (Virtually) everyone would agree with that. And so on, up to a certain point that varies from individual to individual. At some point we all have a point at which the tip becomes "reasonable," and then flows over into "generous." That is a given.

 

This is really the only argument here from those of us on Team Toucan. That's it. We're literally arguing about the definition of cheap in this instance, which is why I posted my question earlier in the thread. I really wish some of you guys on Team Kuchar would answer it, because I think it would help minimize the snark.

 

Hi Obee, I plan on mostly staying out of this but will respond to you because I respect you and feel we can have a good dialog.

 

I just don't see this much differently than most employer/employee relationships. Many of us work in large businesses, and chances are good that if you make 50-60k or whatever, your CEO might make 10M. People who work for Google, GoPro, apple, Microsoft whoever...there are employees there that make 50k, 150k, and there are people that have net worths in the multi millions.

 

When Microsoft posts a job opening for a junior developer or something, they list a salary of X. If you want that job you can take it, if you don't you don't. People don't usually argue "well Steve Ballmer is worth 20B so they can afford more". There is a general understanding of how the economy works.

 

I argued in the other thread about markets, that Kuchar has a right to post a job every weekend if he wants and say "caddy for hire, 3000$". And if he can fill it, great! That's his right. He just won a PGA tournament with a 5000$ caddy. Maybe that's the correct market value. Or maybe not. If he posted that and no one took the gig, or did a poor job that hurt kuchar's chances, than it's not good and he should pay more

 

I don't care if people call him cheap that's their prerogative too. But I just don't succumb to "we need to do X because that's always what has been done"

 

No one here that I know of is arguing about the $3,000. It's what happened after the $3,000 for the week was settled.

 

Do you think there was zero expectation on the part of both Kuchar and Toucan that if he won or placed highly in the tournament that there would be no further remuneration?

 

Of course you don't believe that. There is a rate we pay a caddie, and then there is the tip. Always. Which Kuchar acknowledges by giving him the $2,000 additional tip beyond their agreed amount. We're arguing about Kuchar's cheap tip. Period.

 

He had the absolute right to stiff the guy if he wanted. That is not at issue, bud.

 

So he gave him a 66.6% tip....

 

Wouldn't the tip be made on the total earnings in this case since they agreed to a $3000 flat fee and a "percentage of the winnings"?

[kcsf]

Some of you guys are still arguing about there being no "agreement" and that Kuch wasn't "obligated" to do anything? Really? You want out of doing the standard/correct thing by a technicality?

 

Imagine you go to a restaurant/bar with one of your friends and you guys eat and drink and your bill is $100.

 

Are you going to leave a 16 CENT tip? $00.16? And then tell the waiter and everyone else, "Sorry, there was no agreement".

 

Of course not. But 16 cents (more precisely 15.5 cents) is the mathematical equivalent of giving a $2,000 tip on $1,290,000 in winnings.

 

You can go through life not tipping or giving .155% tips if you want. No one is going to arrest you. You aren't technically "obligated", but does that make it right?

 

Kuchar said about El Tucan that week after winning: “He was definitely my lucky charm,” Kuchar said. “He brought me good luck and certainly some extra crowd support and did a great job as well. He did just what I was hoping for and looking for.”

 

Your math and well supported logic has no place in this thread! We tried the restaurant analogy in the last thread and it fell on deaf ears.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

i got an uber home from the restaurant one evening....agreed to pay the driver $23 for the ride. I then asked if he could go little out of his way and i'd give him an extra $5. he stopped at a gas station so i could grab a snack. i also grabbed a lotto ticket. scratched it off on the way home and won $1 Million dollars. gave the driver $5.....because we agreed on $5....ok not really but who here yelling 'a contract is a contract' wouldn't maybe give the driver more than agreed upon....contractually kuchar doesn't owe this guy anything more than agreed on. but i now have the right to think smiling kuchar is a complete cheapskate and word not allowed

[BottleCap]

Some of you guys are still arguing about there being no "agreement" and that Kuch wasn't "obligated" to do anything? Really? You want out of doing the standard/correct thing by a technicality?

 

Imagine you go to a restaurant/bar with one of your friends and you guys eat and drink and your bill is $100.

 

Are you going to leave a 16 CENT tip? $00.16? And then tell the waiter and everyone else, "Sorry, there was no agreement".

 

Of course not. But 16 cents (more precisely 15.5 cents) is the mathematical equivalent of giving a $2,000 tip on $1,290,000 in winnings.

 

You can go through life not tipping or giving .155% tips if you want. No one is going to arrest you. You aren't technically "obligated", but does that make it right?

 

Kuchar said about El Tucan that week after winning: “He was definitely my lucky charm,” Kuchar said. “He brought me good luck and certainly some extra crowd support and did a great job as well. He did just what I was hoping for and looking for.”

 

No, these guys would obviously round down and leave a 15 cent tip and use that 1 cent savings to buy more Chromesofts

[ironmikes]

According to Kuchar this is a non story. Not so sure about that, Matt. Kuchar is cheap and this is a bad look.

 

Completely agree. A SUBSTANTIAL Bonus based on performance and total winnngs is absolutely 100% expected. Fill in caddie or not.

 

A $5,000 total payment after a win is so vile, so cheap, so disgusting, that I will never view Kuchar the same way again.

 

Grotesque.

 

 

 

Have to agree 100% with you . Matt will lose more than a few dollars over this.

 

Knowing who he has for a manager says all we need to know about him .

[deadsolid...shank]

Yes people, I know a caddie’s tip is based on percentage of winnings. Although technically that’s really not a tip either, that’s a built in condition of most contracts.

 

A gratuity is “something given voluntarily or beyond obligation”. So not part of the contract. I was trying to be a little tongue in cheek with Obee with the exact phrasing. I apologize it didn’t come off how I intended it to.

[straightshot7]

i got an uber home from the restaurant one evening....agreed to pay the driver $23 for the ride. I then asked if he could go little out of his way and i'd give him an extra $5. he stopped at a gas station so i could grab a snack. i also grabbed a lotto ticket. scratched it off on the way home and won $1 Million dollars. gave the driver $5.....because we agreed on $5....ok not really but who here yelling 'a contract is a contract' wouldn't maybe give the driver more than agreed upon....contractually kuchar doesn't owe this guy anything more than agreed on. but i now have the right to think smiling kuchar is a complete cheapskate and word not allowed

 

Now imagine he cleaned your balls as well.

[NMBob]

Here my formula for what El Tucan might have been paid. If Standard tour caddie pay would be ~10% for a win, kuchars regular bagman would have been paid $126K. Since a resort looper probably did about 15% of the work that a regular caddie would do leading up to and during the tournament week and ZERO expenses, that's $19k. The complaining still would be the same.

Tell us how he would do 15% of the work of a regular caddie? A regular caddie would walk the course and figure out all his yardages and take notes from all over the course (this guy already has that done since he is local), regular caddie would spend time on the greens and learn them (this guy already knows them since he's local), only thing he likely wouldn't do that the regular caddie did was give club advice, so the guy likely did 75% or more work that a regular caddie would, easily justifying a 50-60k payment. I also do know that at a local Womans US Open here in which I was a caddies in that yard, and about 12-15 locals were used, all received the appropriate tour caddie compensation, and several pros dropped their regulars to take local caddies because the greens had so many nuances.

 

Amazing how the concept of .....this guy has extensive knowledge that he has spend years developing....not something just calculated days before, gets glanced over as maybe it has been treated this way for years. But maybe he should charge........more?

[kcsf]

A topic that has been skimmer over but not really exhausted (like the rest of the items) is the seemingly failure of Toucan and Kuchar to come to a % agreement on winnings. There would be nothing to discuss had that item been determined on Wednesday. I'm paraphrasing, but Toucan himself said he trusted a fair amount would be paid by Kuchar after the tourney was over.

 

Expensive lessoned learned by Toucan.