examines the financial realities of the average LPGA Tour player

[Stooch]

55 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

Everything you say is true here, but I would argue this is one fallacy nearly everyone makes.  Success is attributed nearly entirely to individual skill, effort, knowledge while failure if blamed on bad luck, had a bad day, the industry is bad, blah, blah, blah.

 

The best CEO in the world can't grow a company that's in a dying industry.  An average CEO can produce growth/look good in a company in an industry that doubles every three years.

 

Again, it's impossible to say whether the purses would be here had "anyone else" taken over.  Maybe he did do great to get back the lost dollars.  But for all of those who say the LPGA was/is "underpaid" then his "recovery" wasn't such a hard feat.  It was like selling umbrellas in a rainstorm.  All you had to do was be there and be open for business.

 

There's a lot more randomness and right place, right time (or wrong place, wrong time) then people like to acknowledge.

 

I'm actually indifferent on the subject with my basic point he left it better after leaving than he had when he got it, I think that matters for something and I guess this discussion is really how much it matters.

 

The one specific I'll reference in regards to the subject, is from about 2008-2013/14 the big problem was the lack of US corporate sponsorship, this could be a weakness from Whan.  But he was able to go outside the US and got corporate sponsorship from other countries and was able to add more events.  The sponsorship form other countries was even paying for purses for event that were held in the US, like one example the swinging skirts event.  Sure, I guess some of sponsors may have benefitted from the US market but I got admit I give him a +1 for this strategy.

 

The thing about the LPGA is that it's the first to lose sponsors in the golf world and the last to gain them back with economic woes.  We'll see what the world's economy is like in a year or two after the pandemic.  Maybe this is why Mike stepped down and he's smarter than we give him credit for, if the world economy does take a down turn, the LPGA is gonna lose money no matter who's running it.  Mike may be reading tea leaves and saying to himself "I'm leaving while my stock is high and I'll wait to parlay that into my next opportunity".

[golfortennis]

14 hours ago, Stooch said:

 

I'm actually indifferent on the subject with my basic point he left it better after leaving than he had when he got it, I think that matters for something and I guess this discussion is really how much it matters.

 

The one specific I'll reference in regards to the subject, is from about 2008-2013/14 the big problem was the lack of US corporate sponsorship, this could be a weakness from Whan.  But he was able to go outside the US and got corporate sponsorship from other countries and was able to add more events.  The sponsorship form other countries was even paying for purses for event that were held in the US, like one example the swinging skirts event.  Sure, I guess some of sponsors may have benefitted from the US market but I got admit I give him a +1 for this strategy.

 

The thing about the LPGA is that it's the first to lose sponsors in the golf world and the last to gain them back with economic woes.  We'll see what the world's economy is like in a year or two after the pandemic.  Maybe this is why Mike stepped down and he's smarter than we give him credit for, if the world economy does take a down turn, the LPGA is gonna lose money no matter who's running it.  Mike may be reading tea leaves and saying to himself "I'm leaving while my stock is high and I'll wait to parlay that into my next opportunity".

 

Yeah I think the big thing is Whan has restored some respectability to the LPGA Tour.  They were almost radioactive after the Bivens tenure.  People can pick and choose items to support their PoV, and they may be right, but for me the biggest thing is, when Bivens left, if you polled CEOs and asked if they would consider sponsoring an LPGA tour event, you would have had a certain percentage say yes.  Poll those same people today, I would hazard a guess that the number is much higher today.

 

 

[Titleist_PT23]

I found Whan's November 2019 letter.  It obviously reads very well.  If he gets the USGA job, I'll be happy for him.  Most importantly, I just want the LPGA to do well.

 

But, for those that think Whan undeniably did a great job and grew the tour astronomically since he started, please consider the following closely.  Bivens, with all of her shortcomings, could get the tour ~$60B in 2008 before the crash.  11 years later in 2019, Whan could get the tour ~$70B or ~+16%.  In the same timeframe, the PGA Tour grew 48%.  So if Bivens was so bad and Whan was so great, how could he "only" grow it 16% while the golf tour was +48%?   If your predecessor was so incompetent, wouldn't it be easy to do a lot better after you've been flying the plane for a while? 

 

This is why I think you cannot just look at the growth since when he started (and yes, from 2010 the numbers will look good).  He took over an asset/tour with a $60B revenue capability (in 2008 dollars).  Did Bivens cause a lot of pain and give him a tough starting point?  Absolutely.  But a lot of things can be fixed over the course of a decade, especially in a growing industry (and sports is growing). 

 

To phrase the question another way, Bivens could get Ochoa, Creamer, Tseng, Sorenstam, and Alfredsson (Top 5 in money in 2008) $60B while Whan could get JYK, SYK, Lee6, Nelly, and Brooke $70B in 2019 (vs. $60B x 1.48 = ~$89B).  Do we think Whan's players/product are less marketable than what Bivens was able to drum up money with?  Not to mention people like Lydia, In Gee, etc that have attracted huge sponsorship dollars off the course.  Further, for those that believe the LPGA is currently "underpaid," did it become "more underpaid" from 2008 to 2019?  It will be impossible to separate how much of the ~1/3 drop from 2008 to 2010 was a) economic (little credit for growing it back) or b) all Biven's destruction (does deserve credit for getting it back).  Or perhaps, LPGA was overpaid in 2008 and everything Whan did from 2010 onwards was magic.  Who knows.  But for the LPGA tour to lose ground (at least vs. PGA Tour) over a decade+ time period makes me wonder.

 

Whan undoubtedly left it better than where he inherited it.  And as others have pointed out, maybe that's all we should care about.  He will go down as a great commissioner, and in the actual scorecard of life/business he seems to have got himself a new job so he is WINNING!!! 

 

I'm definitely not claiming he did a bad job.  I just think there is more to the story than what happened from the exact day he took over.

[18majors]

6 hours ago, agolf1 said:

I found Whan's November 2019 letter.  It obviously reads very well.  If he gets the USGA job, I'll be happy for him.  Most importantly, I just want the LPGA to do well.

 

But, for those that think Whan undeniably did a great job and grew the tour astronomically since he started, please consider the following closely.  Bivens, with all of her shortcomings, could get the tour ~$60B in 2008 before the crash.  11 years later in 2019, Whan could get the tour ~$70B or ~+16%.  In the same timeframe, the PGA Tour grew 48%.  So if Bivens was so bad and Whan was so great, how could he "only" grow it 16% while the golf tour was +48%?   If your predecessor was so incompetent, wouldn't it be easy to do a lot better after you've been flying the plane for a while? 

 

This is why I think you cannot just look at the growth since when he started (and yes, from 2010 the numbers will look good).  He took over an asset/tour with a $60B revenue capability (in 2008 dollars).  Did Bivens cause a lot of pain and give him a tough starting point?  Absolutely.  But a lot of things can be fixed over the course of a decade, especially in a growing industry (and sports is growing). 

 

To phrase the question another way, Bivens could get Ochoa, Creamer, Tseng, Sorenstam, and Alfredsson (Top 5 in money in 2008) $60B while Whan could get JYK, SYK, Lee6, Nelly, and Brooke $70B in 2019 (vs. $60B x 1.48 = ~$89B).  Do we think Whan's players/product are less marketable than what Bivens was able to drum up money with?  Not to mention people like Lydia, In Gee, etc that have attracted huge sponsorship dollars off the course.  Further, for those that believe the LPGA is currently "underpaid," did it become "more underpaid" from 2008 to 2019?  It will be impossible to separate how much of the ~1/3 drop from 2008 to 2010 was a) economic (little credit for growing it back) or b) all Biven's destruction (does deserve credit for getting it back).  Or perhaps, LPGA was overpaid in 2008 and everything Whan did from 2010 onwards was magic.  Who knows.  But for the LPGA tour to lose ground (at least vs. PGA Tour) over a decade+ time period makes me wonder.

 

Whan undoubtedly left it better than where he inherited it.  And as others have pointed out, maybe that's all we should care about.  He will go down as a great commissioner, and in the actual scorecard of life/business he seems to have got himself a new job so he is WINNING!!! 

 

I'm definitely not claiming he did a bad job.  I just think there is more to the story than what happened from the exact day he took over.

 

 

My main issue with Mike Whan is that he failed to make his players superstars, given that he was given with so many wonderful players over the years.

 

USGA job will suit him, public relations is his forte.

[Titleist_PT23]

1 hour ago, 18majors said:

My main issue with Mike Whan is that he failed to make his players superstars, given that he was given with so many wonderful players over the years.

I think it's hard when no one stays at the top for more than a couple/few years?  Even take Rory or Spieth, they put up huge major numbers in a handful of years (and subsequently flamed out, at least for now).  LPGA stars are currently log jammed at 2 majors.  The current trend is to make it to the top of the game and then change your swing, look, etc.

 

1 hour ago, 18majors said:

USGA job will suit him, public relations is his forte.

Are you saying some people here have been bamboozled?  

Edited February 17, 2021 by agolf1
.

[18majors]

2 hours ago, agolf1 said:

I think it's hard when no one stays at the top for more than a couple/few years?  Even take Rory or Spieth, they put up huge major numbers in a handful of years (and subsequently flamed out, at least for now).  LPGA stars are currently log jammed at 2 majors.  The current trend is to make it to the top of the game and then change your swing, look, etc.

 

Are you saying some people here have been bamboozled?  

 

 

The difference is either Rory or Spieth are still superstars.  Rory pulls in more than $50.0 million a year in endorsements, Spieth is in the ballpark of $30.0-40.0 millions.

 

Just imagine any PGA Tour player has Lydia Ko's record as a teenager; he'd be bigger than Tiger Woods and pulls in more than one billion a year in endorsements.

 

I'm saying the only superstar Mike Whan created in the last ten years is he, himself!

[Stooch]

12 hours ago, agolf1 said:

I found Whan's November 2019 letter.  It obviously reads very well.  If he gets the USGA job, I'll be happy for him.  Most importantly, I just want the LPGA to do well.

 

But, for those that think Whan undeniably did a great job and grew the tour astronomically since he started, please consider the following closely.  Bivens, with all of her shortcomings, could get the tour ~$60B in 2008 before the crash.  11 years later in 2019, Whan could get the tour ~$70B or ~+16%.  In the same timeframe, the PGA Tour grew 48%.  So if Bivens was so bad and Whan was so great, how could he "only" grow it 16% while the golf tour was +48%?   If your predecessor was so incompetent, wouldn't it be easy to do a lot better after you've been flying the plane for a while? 

 

This is why I think you cannot just look at the growth since when he started (and yes, from 2010 the numbers will look good).  He took over an asset/tour with a $60B revenue capability (in 2008 dollars).  Did Bivens cause a lot of pain and give him a tough starting point?  Absolutely.  But a lot of things can be fixed over the course of a decade, especially in a growing industry (and sports is growing). 

 

To phrase the question another way, Bivens could get Ochoa, Creamer, Tseng, Sorenstam, and Alfredsson (Top 5 in money in 2008) $60B while Whan could get JYK, SYK, Lee6, Nelly, and Brooke $70B in 2019 (vs. $60B x 1.48 = ~$89B).  Do we think Whan's players/product are less marketable than what Bivens was able to drum up money with?  Not to mention people like Lydia, In Gee, etc that have attracted huge sponsorship dollars off the course.  Further, for those that believe the LPGA is currently "underpaid," did it become "more underpaid" from 2008 to 2019?  It will be impossible to separate how much of the ~1/3 drop from 2008 to 2010 was a) economic (little credit for growing it back) or b) all Biven's destruction (does deserve credit for getting it back).  Or perhaps, LPGA was overpaid in 2008 and everything Whan did from 2010 onwards was magic.  Who knows.  But for the LPGA tour to lose ground (at least vs. PGA Tour) over a decade+ time period makes me wonder.

 

Whan undoubtedly left it better than where he inherited it.  And as others have pointed out, maybe that's all we should care about.  He will go down as a great commissioner, and in the actual scorecard of life/business he seems to have got himself a new job so he is WINNING!!! 

 

I'm definitely not claiming he did a bad job.  I just think there is more to the story than what happened from the exact day he took over.

 

I agree there are many layers when judging it.  I've previously described Whan as the "Champagne Commissioner", he's good at schmoozing the sponsors and organizers but missed the boat on other important aspects of growing the tour.  I'll use Hewlett-Packer as an example in the 90's and early 2000's they were rocking so to speak with computer, printers and fax machines as their solid base and foundation and it was good while it lasted but they didn't have the foresight to see the quick changes in tech and got caught with their pants down when the Tech shifted.  Apple on the other hand was much better at predicting the new Tech whether through their music service or the Iphone and they grew exponentially, where HP basically got their stock price back to 2002 levels around 2018 but the total market in all sectors was skyrocketing around this time.  So with this example I would say Whan is closer to Meg Whitman than Steve Jobs.  Although probably not fair to uses Meg in this, most issues probably had nothing to do with her, but you get what I'm saying.

 

My biggest gripe was the LPGA missed the boat on taking total control of their own content and maybe this was due to the contract with Golf Channel, if I'm not mistaken Biven's locked it in for 10 years.  I truly wish the LPGA controlled and produced their own content and offered a premium global streaming service, cause I don't think it's unrealistic to expect 500K dedicated subscribers who'd pay 9.99/mth for it globally and after the initial investment you'd be making roughly 5 mil a month I think that would easily cover the costs of covering your tour each month.  Plus the biggest issue in getting the big Networks to cover you is the fact they gotta send all the equipment and resources to do it and I'm not sure the LPGA revenue to these Networks justified that level of commitment.  If you went to these Networks and told them all you gotta do is press play and sell advertising, they'd probably be like "sure".  And you could also do this globally with all sporting Networks of various countries and add that on  top of your streaming revenue.  This is my major complaint with Whan, I feel he never paid attention to the fan experience of those not at the course and that's what you gotta do IMO for growth of a sport.  Sure the LPGA has a great reputation for dealing with the fans at every event and I'm sure that gets you new fans but content that's reliable and readily available is how you keep them.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Stooch

[North Texas]

From 2010 to 2019, total prize money for the LPGA Tour increased 69%.

 

From 2010 to 2019, total prize money for the PGA Tour increased 52%.

 

Geez, give the man his due. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by North Texas

[Titleist_PT23]

2 hours ago, North Texas said:

From 2010 to 2019, total prize money for the LPGA Tour increased 69.

 

From 2010 to 2019, total prize money for the PGA Tour increased 52%.

 

Geez, give the man his due. 

LOL.  Sorry to ask for some critical reasoning/thinking.  LOL.  

 

I have two friends, both are realtors.  One started in early-2005 and the other started in early-2009.  Which one do you think has a better CAGR in houses sold, all of their skills are the same.

 

Have a good one.

Edited February 17, 2021 by agolf1
.

[18majors]

6 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

LOL.  Sorry to ask for some critical reasoning/thinking.  LOL.  

 

I have two friends, both are realtors.  One started in early-2005 and the other started in early-2009.  Which one do you think has a better CAGR in houses sold, all of their skills are the same.

 

Have a good one.

 

 

Thanks, my friend!

 

These type of exchanges vividly display there all walks of life and they're all different!

[North Texas]

15 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

LOL.  Sorry to ask for some critical reasoning/thinking.  LOL.  

 

I have two friends, both are realtors.  One started in early-2005 and the other started in early-2009.  Which one do you think has a better CAGR in houses sold, all of their skills are the same.

 

Have a good one.

 

I merely posted some facts showing what happened with purses for the PGA and LPGA during the same period of time. Without comment. 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by North Texas

[Titleist_PT23]

3 hours ago, North Texas said:

Geez, give the man his due. 

 

13 minutes ago, North Texas said:

I merely posted some facts showing what happened with purses for the PGA and LPGA during the same period of time. Without comment. 

Kind of wrong but OK.

[North Texas]

2 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

 

Kind of wrong but OK.

 

Got me. Kind of, lol. 

[Titleist_PT23]

4 minutes ago, North Texas said:

 

Got me. Kind of, lol. 

Look up the definition of merely.  Look at your post.

[North Texas]

11 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

Look up the definition of merely.  Look at your post.

 

Go ahead and tell me the definition of the word merely. You know you want to and you know you're not going to let this go, lol.

 

Never mind that I did post some facts which cannot be disputed. But whatever, it's obvious that you are not going to give Mike Whan his due. 

[Titleist_PT23]

7 minutes ago, North Texas said:

Never mind that I did post some facts which cannot be disputed. But whatever, it's obvious that you are not going to give Mike Whan his due. 

Wrong again.  I think he did a great job from 2010 onwards.   Tournament count and prize money are up.  And even if some of the counterpoints I've questioned are true, it's always easier to say it could be done than actually go do it.  He did the later, and I commend him for that.

 

What I question is people simply quoting that he nearly doubled the prize money from when he started.  Factually true, absolutely.  We can all disagree whether we think it's the whole story.  Personally, I just think there's a lot of inconsistencies throughout the thread; he grew it great but they're still unpaid, they were underpaid but that doesn't make growth easier, his predecessor was so incompetent but he can barely get back to where she was plus inflation, his predecessor drove it down so far because she was so bad but that doesn't make a rebound easier, etc.  Would be great to hear some actual counterpoints or explanations as to why on all of these things.  I've been wrong many times before and changed my mind after others enlighten me.  Maybe we are lucky the prize money went up at all after Bivens left (i.e. it was that bad).  But here, I see people merely focused on two points and wanting to close their eyes to all other information surrounding the situation.  It's the only argument they've got.  I guess that's fine and indicative of how people process info these days.  

[mallrat]

On 2/17/2021 at 9:17 AM, 18majors said:

 

 

The difference is either Rory or Spieth are still superstars.  Rory pulls in more than $50.0 million a year in endorsements, Spieth is in the ballpark of $30.0-40.0 millions.

 

Just imagine any PGA Tour player has Lydia Ko's record as a teenager; he'd be bigger than Tiger Woods and pulls in more than one billion a year in endorsements.

 

I'm saying the only superstar Mike Whan created in the last ten years is he, himself!

Sorry but no athlete, at this point in time is coming close to a billion a year in any capacity. 
 

Also, Whan’s job is not to Make a superstar, that’s on the players. His job is to promote and grow the tour. Now he can use certain players to market the tour and he could have done better with that. I’m not sure if there are more events now or when he took over, but that is one way he should be judged. Now if prize money is down a little bit events are up, well which would you take? 

[ALIF]

Women’s golf is boring to me. I do not watch it. There I said it. Flame away. Many feel the same way, hence it doesn’t pay as well. Sorry, that’s the free market.

[2bGood]

8 hours ago, ALIF said:

Women’s golf is boring to me. I do not watch it. There I said it. Flame away. Many feel the same way, hence it doesn’t pay as well. Sorry, that’s the free market.

Kind of a boring troll. 

[North Texas]

9 hours ago, ALIF said:

Women’s golf is boring to me. I do not watch it. There I said it. Flame away. Many feel the same way, hence it doesn’t pay as well. Sorry, that’s the free market.

 

Women's golf is boring and I do not watch it. But despite my total lack of interest in women's golf, l chose to participate in a discussion about women's golf. 

 

Guess that makes sense, lol. 

[MagicClassic407]

11 hours ago, ALIF said:

Women’s golf is boring to me. I do not watch it. There I said it. Flame away. Many feel the same way, hence it doesn’t pay as well. Sorry, that’s the free market.

I don't watch men's golf as it is boring to me, mainly because it's unrelatable.

[golfortennis]

On 2/17/2021 at 1:18 PM, Stooch said:

 

I agree there are many layers when judging it.  I've previously described Whan as the "Champagne Commissioner", he's good at schmoozing the sponsors and organizers but missed the boat on other important aspects of growing the tour.  I'll use Hewlett-Packer as an example in the 90's and early 2000's they were rocking so to speak with computer, printers and fax machines as their solid base and foundation and it was good while it lasted but they didn't have the foresight to see the quick changes in tech and got caught with their pants down when the Tech shifted.  Apple on the other hand was much better at predicting the new Tech whether through their music service or the Iphone and they grew exponentially, where HP basically got their stock price back to 2002 levels around 2018 but the total market in all sectors was skyrocketing around this time.  So with this example I would say Whan is closer to Meg Whitman than Steve Jobs.  Although probably not fair to uses Meg in this, most issues probably had nothing to do with her, but you get what I'm saying.

 

My biggest gripe was the LPGA missed the boat on taking total control of their own content and maybe this was due to the contract with Golf Channel, if I'm not mistaken Biven's locked it in for 10 years.  I truly wish the LPGA controlled and produced their own content and offered a premium global streaming service, cause I don't think it's unrealistic to expect 500K dedicated subscribers who'd pay 9.99/mth for it globally and after the initial investment you'd be making roughly 5 mil a month I think that would easily cover the costs of covering your tour each month.  Plus the biggest issue in getting the big Networks to cover you is the fact they gotta send all the equipment and resources to do it and I'm not sure the LPGA revenue to these Networks justified that level of commitment.  If you went to these Networks and told them all you gotta do is press play and sell advertising, they'd probably be like "sure".  And you could also do this globally with all sporting Networks of various countries and add that on  top of your streaming revenue.  This is my major complaint with Whan, I feel he never paid attention to the fan experience of those not at the course and that's what you gotta do IMO for growth of a sport.  Sure the LPGA has a great reputation for dealing with the fans at every event and I'm sure that gets you new fans but content that's reliable and readily available is how you keep them.

 

People often make this mistake with Apple.  Did Apple have something good?  Sure.  But it wasn't until they decided to make the Ipod and software compatible with Windows that they took off.  Apple actually wasn't so much about new ideas(Palm Pilot long predated the iPhone, MP3 players had been around), where they excelled was making them easier to use.  And if you are going to reference HP of that era, you need to talk about the Compaq merger and all the problems that caused until years later.  

 

As for your second paragraph, the final round of the US WOmen's Open in 2019(back when all the options were out there, 2020 isn't accurate because there were very few sports/new programming coming out) drew 728,000.  On Fox.  You honestly think that when that few people in the US who can tune in for free for the biggest tournament of the year, you could then get 500k to actually pay a monthly fee to watch the other tournaments?  The LPGA can't sell those rights, or the Women's Open.  Sorry, your intentions are good but you are really reaching here.  If the LPGA was a bigger draw, they wouldn't scramble to be on TV at all.  Would you put up the first $25k for your idea?   

 

[mallrat]

1 hour ago, golfortennis said:

 

People often make this mistake with Apple.  Did Apple have something good?  Sure.  But it wasn't until they decided to make the Ipod and software compatible with Windows that they took off.  Apple actually wasn't so much about new ideas(Palm Pilot long predated the iPhone, MP3 players had been around), where they excelled was making them easier to use.  And if you are going to reference HP of that era, you need to talk about the Compaq merger and all the problems that caused until years later.  

 

As for your second paragraph, the final round of the US WOmen's Open in 2019(back when all the options were out there, 2020 isn't accurate because there were very few sports/new programming coming out) drew 728,000.  On Fox.  You honestly think that when that few people in the US who can tune in for free for the biggest tournament of the year, you could then get 500k to actually pay a monthly fee to watch the other tournaments?  The LPGA can't sell those rights, or the Women's Open.  Sorry, your intentions are good but you are really reaching here.  If the LPGA was a bigger draw, they wouldn't scramble to be on TV at all.  Would you put up the first $25k for your idea?   

 

It’s not just about the US in the model he is talking about. So say they get 250k to pay the monthly fee in the US. Now add another 250k in Korea (which is probably on the low end), 100k in China, 100-200k for Japan, 50-100k for the UK, 5-10k for both Canada and Australia. So you are realistically looking at 750k subscribers in the first few months. 
 

Now that also went up against the NBA & NHL finals along with being the first weekend in June when 1/2 the country is getting used to being outside from being locked inside from 6 months of winter. 

[golfortennis]

21 minutes ago, mallrat said:

It’s not just about the US in the model he is talking about. So say they get 250k to pay the monthly fee in the US. Now add another 250k in Korea (which is probably on the low end), 100k in China, 100-200k for Japan, 50-100k for the UK, 5-10k for both Canada and Australia. So you are realistically looking at 750k subscribers in the first few months. 
 

Now that also went up against the NBA & NHL finals along with being the first weekend in June when 1/2 the country is getting used to being outside from being locked inside from 6 months of winter. 

 

Oh I know he means beyond US borders.  But people you are now talking about getting people to pay.  How many people would honestly pay a monthly fee for LPGA tournaments?  I can't seem to find stats anywhere for the number of subscribers of TennisTV, which I think would be a good starting point.  Men's tennis is far more popular than LPGA golf.  If they have a couple million subscribers, maybe, *maybe* you can think about 500K for LPGA golf, but I think it is quite optimistic.    

 

[ALIF]

14 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Kind of a boring troll. 

Just because I make a statement that you don’t agree with that you’re super sensitive about doesn’t mean I’m a troll. No one has to agree with you. This is a discussion board and I am just stating how I feel just as you are free to state how you feel. No need to resort to calling anyone names. We don’t need that kind of pettiness here.

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, ALIF said:

Just because I make a statement that you don’t agree with that you’re super sensitive about doesn’t mean I’m a troll. No one has to agree with you. This is a discussion board and I am just stating how I feel just as you are free to state how you feel. No need to resort to calling anyone names. We don’t need that kind of pettiness here.

For a guy that requests that people "flame away" you certainly get upset easy. Did you not actually want people to flame you? As far as 'flames' go mine was barely an amber. 

 

Troll defined: In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

 

Then you comment is about how women's golf is Boring.

 

 Boring + Flame away = Boring Troll. I don't think there could be more perfect way to describe your post. 😀

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by 2bGood

[MagicClassic407]

9 hours ago, ALIF said:

Just because I make a statement that you don’t agree with that you’re super sensitive about doesn’t mean I’m a troll. No one has to agree with you. This is a discussion board and I am just stating how I feel just as you are free to state how you feel. No need to resort to calling anyone names. We don’t need that kind of pettiness here.

But you didn't stick with just 'you', you used the word 'many'. Guess you're their self-appointed spokesperson. 

[ALIF]

14 hours ago, MagicClassic407 said:

But you didn't stick with just 'you', you used the word 'many'. Guess you're their self-appointed spokesperson. 

Wow, your defensiveness really is surprising. Must have struck a nerve. Nevertheless, many people feel the same as myself when it comes to women’s golf. Sorry bud, nothing you can do to change this. 

[ALIF]

23 hours ago, 2bGood said:

For a guy that requests that people "flame away" you certainly get upset easy. Did you not actually want people to flame you? As far as 'flames' go mine was barely an amber. 

 

Troll defined: In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

 

Then you comment is about how women's golf is Boring.

 

 Boring + Flame away = Boring Troll. I don't think there could be more perfect way to describe your post. 😀

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey bud, definitely not upset. Are you? Not trolling either. Just stating my opinion.

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, ALIF said:

Hey bud, definitely not upset. Are you? Not trolling either. Just stating my opinion.

Not upset at all. I find it kind of funny. 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by 2bGood