Dear PGA Tour - Is the concept of a Mid-Senior Tour really that bad?

[LukeDonaldsTiger]

Thanks for sharing, Jeff

[tacklingdummy]

On 11/2/2021 at 5:34 AM, cardoustie said:

This is like my mid-am comments in the past, mid am should be 35-49 and senior am should move down to 50 to match the pro’s, super senior at 65

 

The could have a mini tournament inside a tournament for age categories but won’t go there I feel

 

Yeah, I don't get why the USGA senior age is 55 when the Senior Champions Tour is 50. 

 

I think the name Mid-Senior would be better just Mid-Pro or Mid-PGA. I wouldn't call the 40-50 pros senior. The 40-50 year old PGA tour players still have the game and good distance, but I think it is more mental why the 40-50 PGA tour players don't play as good. 

Edited November 3, 2021 by tacklingdummy

[golfnhack]

In South Africa, mid am age is 35. I think that is FAR more realistic that 24. Senior is also 50, not 55. I wish the USGA would wake up and modernize the starting ages for the divisions. Even at the state level, senior starts at 50. State level also has Mid-Senior which starts at 40.

[Dpavs]

Multiple choice exam.

 

Question 1 : Who on the PGA or any other existing Tour is going to be in favor of splitting the pool of available network and sponsor money even further in order to support something like this?

 

A. No one

B. No one

C. No one

[smashdn]

On 11/2/2021 at 12:53 PM, PJE said:

The PGA Tour is the ultimate meritocracy.   And there's something great about that dynamic or quality. 

The Champions Tour is already a haven for has beens, some of whom were great heroes in their prime, but does golf really need another arena for those who can't cut the mustard anymore?  A mid senior Tour will reward mediocrity instead of merit. 

 

Difference between PGA Tour and Champions Tour is length of courses played and 72 holes versus 54 correct?  Why do those two things make it a "haven for has beens?"  

 

I am asking not to challenge your opinion but to better understand how those two changes change who can win a tournament.

 

Why does Langer dominate at his age on shorter courses and 54 hole tournaments and a 35-48 year old is not/cannot on the PGA Tour?

[golfnhack]

1 hour ago, Dpavs said:

Multiple choice exam.

 

Question 1 : Who on the PGA or any other existing Tour is going to be in favor of splitting the pool of available network and sponsor money even further in order to support something like this?

 

A. No one

B. No one

C. No one

D

[Dpavs]

14 minutes ago, golfnhack said:

D

Forgot to add that one... 😆

 

D. All of the above

[PJE]

3 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Difference between PGA Tour and Champions Tour is length of courses played and 72 holes versus 54 correct?  Why do those two things make it a "haven for has beens?"  

 

I am asking not to challenge your opinion but to better understand how those two changes change who can win a tournament.

 

Why does Langer dominate at his age on shorter courses and 54 hole tournaments and a 35-48 year old is not/cannot on the PGA Tour?

Well, it is a forum so feel free to challenge my opinion. I appreciate the differing viewpoint.  

But, as you pointed out the courses are shorter. I also have heard the greens are slower and the course set ups, i.e., pins, seem to be easier than on the PGA Tour. I think that's a big reason why guys who have just turned 50 and who were still active on the PGA Tour feast on the Champions Tour when they first arrive. 

Additionally, most of the Champions Tour events, if I recall correctly, do not have cuts and the number of players in the field is much lower than on the PGA Tour. Thus the strength of competition is diluted.

Langer is an outlier regarding proficiency and age but he is not long enough and he is not a good enough putter to win on the PGA Tour despite his Champions Tour dominance. 

So, add all the preceding up and the Champions Tour is definitely B League pro golf with the prime attraction seeing former greats still teeing it up as opposed to their skills. No one escapes Father Time. 

With some notable exceptions, e.g, Phil Mickelson, Champions Tour players cannot seriously vie for titles on the PGA Tour.

[Lobby]

A tour reserved for 40 - 50 year old golfers?  What a horrible idea.  

[golfnhack]

19 hours ago, Lobby said:

A tour reserved for 40 - 50 year old golfers?  What a horrible idea.  

No... not 40-50... 40 Minimum... anyone over 40 can play.

[bobfoster]

On 11/2/2021 at 3:48 PM, Shilgy said:

Langer is doing fine at 64.  Actually a lot of the guys are doing well at an older age.than in the past

 

Absolutely - as the saying goes, "50 is the new 40". People in general are living longer, and are staying healthier as they age. We know a lot more about things like nutrition and exercise and sports medicine than we did 40 years ago when the Champions Tour (at first called the Senior Tour) started. (In 1980, average lifespan was around 73, it is now 78, and the long term trend line is projected to keep climbing.) Heck, in 1980 you'd still occasionally see pros walking down a fairway smoking a cigarette ... but since the Tiger era most of these guys have turned into genuine athletes. Some of them hit the gym as often as any baseball or football player.

 

If anything, the starting age for the Champions Tour should be moved up to 52 or even 55. There's soon going to be an entire generation of people like Phil who, at 50, will still be fully competitive on the PGA Tour. Almost seems unfair to have someone who can be in serious contention at a PGA Tour major to play Champions Tour events - it kind of defeats the purpose of the Champions Tour itself. IMO, a golfer should need to choose - either play the regular tour, or the Champions, not both.

 

And to the OP - I think there's likely never going to be three tours (regular/senior/super senior). It just wouldn't be financially tenable. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by bobfoster

[cxx]

The idea of the middle age tour is the opposite of what was intended for the senior tour. As I recall the senior tour started out with some spectacularly old players and only started to come into it's own when Palmer, Nichlous and Player showed up to play. I think they changed to age limit to 50 to accommodate some of these guys.  They also had a super-senior within the senor tour for January and his era.

 

At the time the regular tour wasn't doing as well.  Not enough TV friendly players.  I think there was a period where the senior tour was more popular and had better ratings than the regular tour.

 

The other thing about the senior tour was that it was built to favor aging regular tour players.  There were very few players that hadn't had status on the regular tour.  Remember that plumber who made it? The senior tour was a another look at known, popular players.  This drove the ratings. The idea of a mid life crisis tour just doesn't add up.

 

 

[smashdn]

22 hours ago, PJE said:

Well, it is a forum so feel free to challenge my opinion. I appreciate the differing viewpoint.  

 

Not educated enough on the subject to have a strong opinion one way or the other.  Was kind of hoping someone had done a deep dive into the Strokes Gained side of things and compared how the various measurables where different from a PGA Tour average victory to a Champions Tour average victory. What is the formula that Langer uses if he isn't long off the tee and not a particularly great putter?

[MountainKing]

Not sure there'd be enough draw on this one. Late 30's to 50 is an awkward age range in that skills ususally decline to make it hard to compete on tour.  I don't think there's enough draw in that age range to support it, and it would probably be somewhat awkward to incorporate it into a regular tour event, especially if you have a week where the winner of that event scores lower than the winner of the main event..  If anything, drop the SR tour age down to 45, but the issue with that is you'd probably end up with a lot of guys coming on there at 45 and making it impsossible for the veterans to compete.  There's really not a great answer for this one, but I guess by the time you get in your 40's, you're pretty much done in most sports anyway. 

[ilikegolf26]

On 11/2/2021 at 8:34 AM, cardoustie said:

This is like my mid-am comments in the past, mid am should be 35-49 and senior am should move down to 50 to match the pro’s, super senior at 65

 

The could have a mini tournament inside a tournament for age categories but won’t go there I feel

I somewhat agree but 35 might be too old. 30 seems right or even leave it at 25 but giving former pros their amateur status back so easily really hurts amateur golf.  That’s something I’ve always thought the USGA should address way more tougher. I play with a guy routinely who played the mini tours for a short time, didn’t make any money and only a year later is back competing in local ams. There should be an actual consequence of turning pro and failing in terms of amateur status. 

[3whacker]

diluting the talent pool is NOT the answer...if you think its going to get Eldrick to play you are delusional...Look at PM he wanted to prove he could still compete and WIN on the big boy Tour and he got himself a MAJOR, no player wants to play in the minor leagues, they want the big show

[Hawkeye77]

Oh boy, Tiger can't catch Jack so they are plotting to take away 3 of Jack's majors!

[tgreenwood11]

I think they tried this in the late 80s

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, tgreenwood11 said:

I think they tried this in the late 80s

That was just the boring regular tour - they seemed old. 
 

 

[BIG STU]

On 11/5/2021 at 11:15 AM, cxx said:

The idea of the middle age tour is the opposite of what was intended for the senior tour. As I recall the senior tour started out with some spectacularly old players and only started to come into it's own when Palmer, Nichlous and Player showed up to play. I think they changed to age limit to 50 to accommodate some of these guys.  They also had a super-senior within the senor tour for January and his era.

 

At the time the regular tour wasn't doing as well.  Not enough TV friendly players.  I think there was a period where the senior tour was more popular and had better ratings than the regular tour.

 

The other thing about the senior tour was that it was built to favor aging regular tour players.  There were very few players that hadn't had status on the regular tour.  Remember that plumber who made it? The senior tour was a another look at known, popular players.  This drove the ratings. The idea of a mid life crisis tour just doesn't add up.

 

 

The era you were talking about in the last paragraph was what I called the gap era on that tour. Nicklaus Palmer and Trevino were aging and some of the newer fresh blood was coming in. A lot of club pros retired like Larry Loretti and came out to play. Then you had Walt Zembreski who was a steel worker most of his life he retired from his real job and came out-- You also had the Milkman who retired from his real job and came out and for the life of me I can not remember his name-- About 6 or 8 years ago you had guys like Gene Jones and Mike Goodes--- Back in the 80s Jones was basically the Jack Nicklaus on the SE mini tours--- Mike Goodes as anyone in golf from the Carolinas knows was an insurance salesman and had a stellar Amateur career in the Carolinas. Guys like that added an interesting back story IMHO. Now days the relative unknowns popping up are Steven Alker and Doug Barron add a good mix to the Hall of Famers

[chigolfer1]

To answer the OP's question,  yes it really is that bad of a concept

[bscinstnct]

Well,

 

Its not looking like the PGL is gonna make it trying to compete with the PGA Tour so maybe

 

Greg Norman start

 

The Mandelbaum Octogenarian Tour!