Jump to content

How coming from money helps guys reach the tour..


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 275
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Travel hockey parents would like you to consider their investment.

Deep talent, desire and work ethic is waaaay more important.   Look up all the stories of guys who hit balls in the backyard, garage into mattress, etc.   If you have the game people will back you, t

> @Fairways_and_Greens said: > > @RichieHunt said: > > > > > 2. The player that has marginal golf skills, but has a great mentality to be a Tour player. They have the

I would think nowadays, its a bigger factor. Even the course you're able to play I think has a ton to making a better golfer.

 

I went from playing a little 6,400 yard course with no rough irrigation and greens that I'd consider mostly crabgrass, to a 7,000 yard course with actual green complexes and slick putting surfaces and I'm a ton better golfer even though I play/practice less. So depending where the child gets to play, I think, can make a huge difference.

 

Plus the whole expenses associated with getting them into prestigious tournaments so they get exposure to scouts to get a scholarship to a college where they have a program that can help them take their game to the next level. You see the occasional world beaters that don't really need the college experience, but I'd think the time (however limited it was) has helped a lot of the good younger players develop into athletes and not just golfers. But at the end of the day, I think the $ only has a minor impact when the talent, skills, and desire are there.

G410 10.5* LST -  F9 14.5* - F6 17.5* - G410 23* - i500 5-U - Glide Stealth 56* ( at 55*) and 60* - BG F22

https://Instagram/avgjoesgolf/
Link to post
Share on other sites

What it comes down to, is truly that desire to push yourself at that prime age. Typically, the switch has to turn on around the time these kids get into Jr. High and early High School. Money will open the doors to many opportunities, but like many have said, when adversity hits those kids that have been able to throw mommy and daddy's money at things. Are they mentally equipped to handle those types of situations? Or is it the kid who has had to grind and make ends meet with their parents, and have had to figure things out on their own to an extent will typically be able to handle things better because of things they've experienced, which isn't the always glamorous life, that these "rich kids" might have gotten through the years.

 

I grew up with a single parent that was a preschool teacher, and we always made ends meet, granted, I didn't play golf growing up, but did play the other sports that weren't big money sports. We always found a way to make things work. But now as a parent, who my wife and I make around 100k a year, if our son decides to get serious with golf, or any sport for that matter, we will do our best to provide the best opportunities for him. But we will also try to build his mental make-up and allow him to fall on his face and learn from experiences, which other parents, which we've already noticed take care of everything that goes right or wrong with their kids.

One thing that we do have in our favor, is my wife's family does have some money, where if he did some how decide that he would pursue a sport and costs were rising, we would have my FIL to potentially help float him and help cover expenses in many different ways. So, coming from little to nothing, I have the understanding of that aspect, my wife who didn't play sports but has money can make things work if and when that potentially happened. But in the end, it comes down to this GREAT quote:

 

"Hard Work Beats Talent, When Talent Doesn't Work Hard"

TaylorMade M5 9* Hzrdus Smoke 70g 6.5 
TaylorMade M6 3w Hzrdus Smoke 70g 6.5
Taylormade P790 UDI Hzrdus Smoke 106.5g 6.5
TaylorMade P760 KBS C-Taper 4-AW X-Stiff +1/2"
TaylorMade Milled Grind Chrome 52* 
TaylorMade Milled Grind Chrome 56*
TaylorMade Milled Grind Chrome 60*
[color=#ff0000]Scotty Cameron[/color] Newport 2 35"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree and disagree. Yes, throwing $$$ at a kid can be a waste if the kid doesn't have talent matched with desire and determination. But if you have a kid that has inside what makes a great player and give him access, then he can show you what he or she is made of. My story is pretty much like a lot of people contributing here, so I will leave with this. As a 17 year old, I shot 69 at Stanford GC in the 1st round of USGA Jr AM qualifying. Excited I come home and tell my parents that with another good round I could make it to Brookline CC and play at the national level,... the colleges that would come knocking etc . Instead of my folks saying " that is great, go get em tomorrow!" they said, with what money? We are not giving you anything if you make it With that weighing over my head I shot 80 the next day and was a first alternate. yeah, I let that get to me, but what if I did not have to worry about that and was free to go play the next day? So i agree and disagree.

 

Who knew that GolfWrx could be a therapy session?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree and disagree. Yes, throwing $$$ at a kid can be a waste if the kid doesn't have talent matched with desire and determination. But if you have a kid that has inside what makes a great player and give him access, then he can show you what he or she is made of. My story is pretty much like a lot of people contributing here, so I will leave with this. As a 17 year old, I shot 69 at Stanford GC in the 1st round of USGA Jr AM qualifying. Excited I come home and tell my parents that with another good round I could make it to Brookline CC and play at the national level,... the colleges that would come knocking etc . Instead of my folks saying " that is great, go get em tomorrow!" they said, with what money? We are not giving you anything if you make it With that weighing over my head I shot 80 the next day and was a first alternate. yeah, I let that get to me, but what if I did not have to worry about that and was free to go play the next day? So i agree and disagree.

 

Who knew that GolfWrx could be a therapy session?

 

That is an unfortunate story.

SYard T388
TaylorMade RBZ 13-15
Miura CB-57 3-PW
Miura 51Y, 52K,56K, 57C, 60K
Old Titleist Blade

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam Saunders is only on tour because of Arnold. There are lots of guys that if you gave 10-12 starts a year would be able to keep a card. Problem is getting that chance.

There's not a lot of guys who if given 10-12 starts would keep a card. And the ones who would are top 150 in the OWGR and at the top of the money list on a different tour.

 

Sam earned his card with his play. He earned his Web.com card through Q School and his PGA Tour card through Web.com Tour twice.

 

I would never say that any tour player didn't earn their way. The competition is way to fierce for them not to. You are either good enough or you are not. Money just gets you more chances to be good enough. I was shooting low 70's as a broke 17 year old that played 10 times a year and practiced once a week if that. If given the chance to have help, play more often, and play nicer courses, go to camps, etc. Who knows what would have happened.

 

Most likely the same result but I don't know that.

Golf clubs are amazingly supportive of talent. If you would have wanted you would have gone hat in hand and offered to work at a local club. That would have given you the opportunity to practice and play.

 

At least that has been my experience in Minnesota and Arizona.

 

possibly. that is true. there are other factors as well. Distance to courses, transportation, other responsibilities. There are lots of things that I could have done different.

Driver: Taylormade SIM 9 Project X Green 60TX

Fairway Finder: Taylormade Original One 13.5 Ventus Red 9X
Taylormade Gapr low 2 ventus blue 9x
4-PW Cobra king forged CB KBS $ Taper 130 X flex
Wedges 50, 54, 60 Cleveland ZIPCORE
PUTTER; Kronos release long neck
BALL; Bridgestone BX, OR Taylomade TP5x PIX

Link to post
Share on other sites

The two most important things for success in sports are talent and drive. Then come intangibles and money. Golf is more similar to baseball and soccer when it comes to the intangibles. Size, speed, and strength can all be overcome depending on play style and/or position. Money is the big difference maker in golf.

 

If your parents don't play, you probably won't be playing much. You also may not be a member at a course. A parent on a tight budget is not going to understand why clubs cost so much, why free fees cost so much, why lessons cost so much, I know mine didn't. My first clubs were the Walmart single him special. Nothing was close to fitting. And when I went to group lessons, I didn't get much time. I didn't realize it til later, but trying to teach me anything with that mismatched group of clubs was a fools errand. Greens fees were $20 which was a huge sum for a 9 hole muni. And I was footing the bill. I'm not a good player now but I'm also not saying I would have been great.

 

Money is a huge difference maker in golf. Everyone in here claiming tiger didn't have much money is correct. Tiger also never had to pay for anything growing up. He wasn't charged for greens fees, range buckets, instructions, caddying, etc. he only had to cover tournament costs and travel fees. And those were expenses covered by IMG. Earl was paid as a talent scout specifically to ensure tiger would sing when he turned pro.

Earl did get money from IMG. But that was also AFTER Tiger was already TIGER. He certainly was not thrown money at an early age.

WITB
Tools for the job!


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two most important things for success in sports are talent and drive. Then come intangibles and money. Golf is more similar to baseball and soccer when it comes to the intangibles. Size, speed, and strength can all be overcome depending on play style and/or position. Money is the big difference maker in golf.

 

If your parents don't play, you probably won't be playing much. You also may not be a member at a course. A parent on a tight budget is not going to understand why clubs cost so much, why free fees cost so much, why lessons cost so much, I know mine didn't. My first clubs were the Walmart single him special. Nothing was close to fitting. And when I went to group lessons, I didn't get much time. I didn't realize it til later, but trying to teach me anything with that mismatched group of clubs was a fools errand. Greens fees were $20 which was a huge sum for a 9 hole muni. And I was footing the bill. I'm not a good player now but I'm also not saying I would have been great.

 

Money is a huge difference maker in golf. Everyone in here claiming tiger didn't have much money is correct. Tiger also never had to pay for anything growing up. He wasn't charged for greens fees, range buckets, instructions, caddying, etc. he only had to cover tournament costs and travel fees. And those were expenses covered by IMG. Earl was paid as a talent scout specifically to ensure tiger would sing when he turned pro.

Earl did get money from IMG. But that was also AFTER Tiger was already TIGER. He certainly was not thrown money at an early age.

 

I keep reading that Tiger didn't have much money growing up... relative to whom? Phil?

Tiger was effectively an only child. Earl was a Lieutenant Colonel.

 

Not exactly Vijay/Angel Cab/Lebron/Vlad Guerrero territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this . Out of all the sports i watch , golf is the only sport to me where it is equally important to have the financial resources as it is to have the talent . Right off the bat guys like Peter Uihlein and Mav McNealy come to mind. These guys had unlimited financial resources and even more important no worries about money as they made their ways up the level of tours. YouTube is chock full of guys with serious game , but lack of resources which basically puts extreme pressure on guys like that as opposed to other kids like Uihlein , McNealy ...and now following George Gankas who teaches kids who come from serious money like Tristan Gretzky. So generally speaking , I know there are guys who didn't come from money ...but generally speaking is it more important to have the deep pockets or the deep talent ? Just seems like a player with superior talent might lose out on opportunities to that of a player with good talent , and unlimited funds.

 

I think the expense and time it takes to get good at golf thins out the talent pool. The greatest golfer in the world may be out there and we will never hear of him or her because they cannot afford to finance or have the time to put in to it. So yes. you need a bit of money and time for even public or muni courses and you need a lot of money for better course conditions, coaches and instruction and equipment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this . Out of all the sports i watch , golf is the only sport to me where it is equally important to have the financial resources as it is to have the talent . Right off the bat guys like Peter Uihlein and Mav McNealy come to mind. These guys had unlimited financial resources and even more important no worries about money as they made their ways up the level of tours. YouTube is chock full of guys with serious game , but lack of resources which basically puts extreme pressure on guys like that as opposed to other kids like Uihlein , McNealy ...and now following George Gankas who teaches kids who come from serious money like Tristan Gretzky. So generally speaking , I know there are guys who didn't come from money ...but generally speaking is it more important to have the deep pockets or the deep talent ? Just seems like a player with superior talent might lose out on opportunities to that of a player with good talent , and unlimited funds.

 

i know a few teaching pros who spent a number of years on the web.com and nike tours. They all say the same thing, they ran out of $ before they ran out of time. If they got hot at the right time (winning streaks) they would be on tour. Yes I believe they have the talent, but one guy had to call it quits after he went 140k in debt financing his web.com career.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this . Out of all the sports i watch , golf is the only sport to me where it is equally important to have the financial resources as it is to have the talent . Right off the bat guys like Peter Uihlein and Mav McNealy come to mind. These guys had unlimited financial resources and even more important no worries about money as they made their ways up the level of tours. YouTube is chock full of guys with serious game , but lack of resources which basically puts extreme pressure on guys like that as opposed to other kids like Uihlein , McNealy ...and now following George Gankas who teaches kids who come from serious money like Tristan Gretzky. So generally speaking , I know there are guys who didn't come from money ...but generally speaking is it more important to have the deep pockets or the deep talent ? Just seems like a player with superior talent might lose out on opportunities to that of a player with good talent , and unlimited funds.

 

i know a few teaching pros who spent a number of years on the web.com and nike tours. They all say the same thing, they ran out of $ before they ran out of time. If they got hot at the right time (winnign streaks) they would be on tour. Yes I beleive they have the talent, but one guy had to call it quits after he went 140k in debt financing his web.com career.

EXACTLY. Especially with the game of golf , where regardless of how good you are you're gonna go through rough patches in competition . If you happen to go through that rough patch when the money is thin, it could be over just like that .
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 comments

 

If you’re unwilling to beat your competitors brains and the courses brains in for 800 you won’t make it.

 

You also won’t make it if you’re not at least a respectable putter , especially on mini tours. IMO tour courses are harder and reward putting but they aren’t a putting contest like lower level golf is so to speak

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this . Out of all the sports i watch , golf is the only sport to me where it is equally important to have the financial resources as it is to have the talent . Right off the bat guys like Peter Uihlein and Mav McNealy come to mind. These guys had unlimited financial resources and even more important no worries about money as they made their ways up the level of tours. YouTube is chock full of guys with serious game , but lack of resources which basically puts extreme pressure on guys like that as opposed to other kids like Uihlein , McNealy ...and now following George Gankas who teaches kids who come from serious money like Tristan Gretzky. So generally speaking , I know there are guys who didn't come from money ...but generally speaking is it more important to have the deep pockets or the deep talent ? Just seems like a player with superior talent might lose out on opportunities to that of a player with good talent , and unlimited funds.

 

i know a few teaching pros who spent a number of years on the web.com and nike tours. They all say the same thing, they ran out of $ before they ran out of time. If they got hot at the right time (winnign streaks) they would be on tour. Yes I beleive they have the talent, but one guy had to call it quits after he went 140k in debt financing his web.com career.

 

If he was 140k in debt he wasn’t good enough to make it. It’s easy to say that if they won a few events in a row they’d be on tour. They can all say that. Doing it is an entirely different story. The guys good enough to make it don’t lose money on the Web.com tour for any extended period of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this . Out of all the sports i watch , golf is the only sport to me where it is equally important to have the financial resources as it is to have the talent . Right off the bat guys like Peter Uihlein and Mav McNealy come to mind. These guys had unlimited financial resources and even more important no worries about money as they made their ways up the level of tours. YouTube is chock full of guys with serious game , but lack of resources which basically puts extreme pressure on guys like that as opposed to other kids like Uihlein , McNealy ...and now following George Gankas who teaches kids who come from serious money like Tristan Gretzky. So generally speaking , I know there are guys who didn't come from money ...but generally speaking is it more important to have the deep pockets or the deep talent ? Just seems like a player with superior talent might lose out on opportunities to that of a player with good talent , and unlimited funds.

 

i know a few teaching pros who spent a number of years on the web.com and nike tours. They all say the same thing, they ran out of $ before they ran out of time. If they got hot at the right time (winnign streaks) they would be on tour. Yes I beleive they have the talent, but one guy had to call it quits after he went 140k in debt financing his web.com career.

 

If he was 140k in debt he wasnt good enough to make it. Its easy to say that if they won a few events in a row theyd be on tour. They can all say that. Doing it is an entirely different story. The guys good enough to make it dont lose money on the Web.com tour for any extended period of time.

I'd argue the vast majority of guys on web barely turn a profit.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this . Out of all the sports i watch , golf is the only sport to me where it is equally important to have the financial resources as it is to have the talent . Right off the bat guys like Peter Uihlein and Mav McNealy come to mind. These guys had unlimited financial resources and even more important no worries about money as they made their ways up the level of tours. YouTube is chock full of guys with serious game , but lack of resources which basically puts extreme pressure on guys like that as opposed to other kids like Uihlein , McNealy ...and now following George Gankas who teaches kids who come from serious money like Tristan Gretzky. So generally speaking , I know there are guys who didn't come from money ...but generally speaking is it more important to have the deep pockets or the deep talent ? Just seems like a player with superior talent might lose out on opportunities to that of a player with good talent , and unlimited funds.

 

i know a few teaching pros who spent a number of years on the web.com and nike tours. They all say the same thing, they ran out of $ before they ran out of time. If they got hot at the right time (winnign streaks) they would be on tour. Yes I beleive they have the talent, but one guy had to call it quits after he went 140k in debt financing his web.com career.

 

If he was 140k in debt he wasn’t good enough to make it. It’s easy to say that if they won a few events in a row they’d be on tour. They can all say that. Doing it is an entirely different story. The guys good enough to make it don’t lose money on the Web.com tour for any extended period of time.

I'd argue the vast majority of guys on web barely turn a profit.

Do the vast majority of web.com players make the tour?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this . Out of all the sports i watch , golf is the only sport to me where it is equally important to have the financial resources as it is to have the talent . Right off the bat guys like Peter Uihlein and Mav McNealy come to mind. These guys had unlimited financial resources and even more important no worries about money as they made their ways up the level of tours. YouTube is chock full of guys with serious game , but lack of resources which basically puts extreme pressure on guys like that as opposed to other kids like Uihlein , McNealy ...and now following George Gankas who teaches kids who come from serious money like Tristan Gretzky. So generally speaking , I know there are guys who didn't come from money ...but generally speaking is it more important to have the deep pockets or the deep talent ? Just seems like a player with superior talent might lose out on opportunities to that of a player with good talent , and unlimited funds.

 

i know a few teaching pros who spent a number of years on the web.com and nike tours. They all say the same thing, they ran out of $ before they ran out of time. If they got hot at the right time (winnign streaks) they would be on tour. Yes I beleive they have the talent, but one guy had to call it quits after he went 140k in debt financing his web.com career.

 

If he was 140k in debt he wasn’t good enough to make it. It’s easy to say that if they won a few events in a row they’d be on tour. They can all say that. Doing it is an entirely different story. The guys good enough to make it don’t lose money on the Web.com tour for any extended period of time.

I'd argue the vast majority of guys on web barely turn a profit.

Do the vast majority of web.com players make the tour?

So you don't think the top 50 guys on web have game to play at pga level .. because other than the top 10 to 20 guys , they aren't making a profit. How many guys just jump onto web for a year then straight to the pga ?. Most guys it takes a few years , so yeah I think there are quite a few guys who have pga talent and simply run out of funds before they can get through.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this . Out of all the sports i watch , golf is the only sport to me where it is equally important to have the financial resources as it is to have the talent . Right off the bat guys like Peter Uihlein and Mav McNealy come to mind. These guys had unlimited financial resources and even more important no worries about money as they made their ways up the level of tours. YouTube is chock full of guys with serious game , but lack of resources which basically puts extreme pressure on guys like that as opposed to other kids like Uihlein , McNealy ...and now following George Gankas who teaches kids who come from serious money like Tristan Gretzky. So generally speaking , I know there are guys who didn't come from money ...but generally speaking is it more important to have the deep pockets or the deep talent ? Just seems like a player with superior talent might lose out on opportunities to that of a player with good talent , and unlimited funds.

 

i know a few teaching pros who spent a number of years on the web.com and nike tours. They all say the same thing, they ran out of $ before they ran out of time. If they got hot at the right time (winnign streaks) they would be on tour. Yes I beleive they have the talent, but one guy had to call it quits after he went 140k in debt financing his web.com career.

 

If he was 140k in debt he wasn’t good enough to make it. It’s easy to say that if they won a few events in a row they’d be on tour. They can all say that. Doing it is an entirely different story. The guys good enough to make it don’t lose money on the Web.com tour for any extended period of time.

I'd argue the vast majority of guys on web barely turn a profit.

 

Everyone in the top 100 on regular season money list is easily making a profit. I’ve taught players out there and higher level tours for over a decade. If you’re losing $140k out there you’re simply not good enough

Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare a guy on web with loads of talent , low funds , has a mediocre season ...to a baseball player in his first year of triple A ball that hits .245. Golfer career simply could be ended due to lack of funds while the baseball player even though he isn't making much money , he isn't losing money , doesn't have to pay his way through the season . He's gonna get a couple more years to prove himself at the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i know a few teaching pros who spent a number of years on the web.com and nike tours. They all say the same thing, they ran out of $ before they ran out of time. If they got hot at the right time (winnign streaks) they would be on tour. Yes I beleive they have the talent, but one guy had to call it quits after he went 140k in debt financing his web.com career.

 

If he was 140k in debt he wasn’t good enough to make it. It’s easy to say that if they won a few events in a row they’d be on tour. They can all say that. Doing it is an entirely different story. The guys good enough to make it don’t lose money on the Web.com tour for any extended period of time.

I'd argue the vast majority of guys on web barely turn a profit.

Do the vast majority of web.com players make the tour?

So you don't think the top 50 guys on web have game to play at pga level .. because other than the top 10 to 20 guys , they aren't making a profit. How many guys just jump onto web for a year then straight to the pga ?. Most guys it takes a few years , so yeah I think there are quite a few guys who have pga talent and simply run out of funds before they can get through.

 

You’re wrong. The top 130-150 guys aren’t losing money. The 50th ranked player earned just under $200,000 last year with endorsements. He absolutely made a profit and a pretty decent one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this . Out of all the sports i watch , golf is the only sport to me where it is equally important to have the financial resources as it is to have the talent . Right off the bat guys like Peter Uihlein and Mav McNealy come to mind. These guys had unlimited financial resources and even more important no worries about money as they made their ways up the level of tours. YouTube is chock full of guys with serious game , but lack of resources which basically puts extreme pressure on guys like that as opposed to other kids like Uihlein , McNealy ...and now following George Gankas who teaches kids who come from serious money like Tristan Gretzky. So generally speaking , I know there are guys who didn't come from money ...but generally speaking is it more important to have the deep pockets or the deep talent ? Just seems like a player with superior talent might lose out on opportunities to that of a player with good talent , and unlimited funds.

 

i know a few teaching pros who spent a number of years on the web.com and nike tours. They all say the same thing, they ran out of $ before they ran out of time. If they got hot at the right time (winnign streaks) they would be on tour. Yes I beleive they have the talent, but one guy had to call it quits after he went 140k in debt financing his web.com career.

 

If he was 140k in debt he wasn't good enough to make it. It's easy to say that if they won a few events in a row they'd be on tour. They can all say that. Doing it is an entirely different story. The guys good enough to make it don't lose money on the Web.com tour for any extended period of time.

I'd argue the vast majority of guys on web barely turn a profit.

 

Everyone in the top 100 on regular season money list is easily making a profit. I've taught players out there and higher level tours for over a decade. If you're losing $140k out there you're simply not good enough

the 50th ranked guy on web money list last year made 41k.... "Easily make a profit" !?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare a guy on web with loads of talent , low funds , has a mediocre season ...to a baseball player in his first year of triple A ball that hits .245. Golfer career simply could be ended due to lack of funds while the baseball player even though he isn't making much money , he isn't losing money , doesn't have to pay his way through the season . He's gonna get a couple more years to prove himself at the least.

 

What’s your definition of mediocre? Did the player keep his card?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this . Out of all the sports i watch , golf is the only sport to me where it is equally important to have the financial resources as it is to have the talent . Right off the bat guys like Peter Uihlein and Mav McNealy come to mind. These guys had unlimited financial resources and even more important no worries about money as they made their ways up the level of tours. YouTube is chock full of guys with serious game , but lack of resources which basically puts extreme pressure on guys like that as opposed to other kids like Uihlein , McNealy ...and now following George Gankas who teaches kids who come from serious money like Tristan Gretzky. So generally speaking , I know there are guys who didn't come from money ...but generally speaking is it more important to have the deep pockets or the deep talent ? Just seems like a player with superior talent might lose out on opportunities to that of a player with good talent , and unlimited funds.

 

i know a few teaching pros who spent a number of years on the web.com and nike tours. They all say the same thing, they ran out of $ before they ran out of time. If they got hot at the right time (winnign streaks) they would be on tour. Yes I beleive they have the talent, but one guy had to call it quits after he went 140k in debt financing his web.com career.

 

If he was 140k in debt he wasn’t good enough to make it. It’s easy to say that if they won a few events in a row they’d be on tour. They can all say that. Doing it is an entirely different story. The guys good enough to make it don’t lose money on the Web.com tour for any extended period of time.

I'd argue the vast majority of guys on web barely turn a profit.

 

I had heard that recently the top 100 guys make over 200k a year?

Or is that the top 20?

 

Either way that’s really good money for not going to school forever.

 

And they can write off all their expenses which saves them an additional ohhh 10% total cash spent coming back in the form of a refund .

 

However, if you did want to go to school forever you would have a career of 25+ years at 200+ and that is rare in golf. Let’s see that is total of 5 mill earned over your career as say a lawyer. You would have to win 3 pga tourneys and have a lot of top 10’s to get there as a pro golfer.

Ahhh choices choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...