Reduce the fields in golf tournaments?

[cdnglf]

18 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Even if the rule was not changed how would that better for the spectators?  Now they have have 15 groups on Sunday?  And many want to watch their favorite player.  Do you exempt the world top 10 from the Saturday night cut?  It’s the same reason match play is not that popular a format for tour events.  Too good a chance the crowd faves are gone early.

 

I’m not in favor of radical format changes, just mentioned MDF as the discussion had turned to Saturday cuts.

If I recall correctly, MDF was created for logistical reasons - made it easier to finish a tournament on Sunday if there was a delay, at the minor cost of a few extra tee times for guys who had zero chance of winning. The reduced cut of 65 grm mentioned accomplishes the same thing.

 

 

[LBB]

14 hours ago, Shilgy said:

So the other 40 or so guys that are cut on Saturday make nothing? Why are some stuck thinking only the top 30 or so matter?

  Look at it this way….the equivalent to what you are proposing is that only the best player on the team hits in MLB because the fans only want to see the best over and over and over?  Only Durant gets to shoot for the Nets because the fans don’t want to see Harden shoot-bad example because I cannot stand Harden but I digress.  
 

How would these guys get better by being cut? Tiger finished t60 in his first event….he should have been cut after third round?

 

 

No...the guys that get cut Saturday are slotted into their paid slot that they finish in.  If you're in 65th place at the end of the 3rd round, you are cut from the final round and get 65th place money...whatever that is.  If you finish the 2nd round and make the "first cut", congratulations...you're going to get paid, get FedEx points, etc..  But you better make a move on Saturday if you want an opportunity at more money.

 

If you create bigger gaps between such cuts, it'd incentivize better play that rewards golfers to get into contention.  For example if you make the first cut, you're guaranteed $20,000 and X number of FedEx points.  But unless you make the 2nd cut, everyone who finishes 31st to 70th gets paid the same (with maybe a 25% reduction for 3rd round WDs).  If you make the second cut at top 30, you're minimum payout is say $65,000 and you also get a meaningful boost in FedEx cup points over those guys that finish 31st-70th.

 

Again though...while I think this would create more incentive on "not coasting" for players...it really serves little purpose for fans and viewers.  TV wouldn't be able to cover all of the movement going on between the 3rd round leaders and those fighting to make the cut for the final round (unless it's a very notable name in a big tournament).  And the on course spectators and sponsors probably don't want only 30 golfers on the course Sunday when they currently have 70.  There is some value to having guys not in contention still playing on Sunday...if it means a guy like Phil is walking the course and giving waist high thumbs up and signing autographs.

 

 

 

 

 

[smashdn]

I like the second cut idea.  Theoretically would allow the fourth around more flexibility to start early for weather or around football or whatever.  Also, keeps the guy that is starting the round dead last on the 4th round from mailing it in and just getting around the course as fast as possible and getting on down the road.  That might be how it helps from the fan perspective.

 

I also like what you propose with the increase in purse and points for making that second cut.  That was what I think Horschel was getting at.  He just didn't detail a plan to incentivize players to need to get to that uppermost level of performance and placement.

[bscinstnct]

29 minutes ago, LBB said:

No...the guys that get cut Saturday are slotted into their paid slot that they finish in.  If you're in 65th place at the end of the 3rd round, you are cut from the final round and get 65th place money...whatever that is.  If you finish the 2nd round and make the "first cut", congratulations...you're going to get paid, get FedEx points, etc..  But you better make a move on Saturday if you want an opportunity at more money.

 

If you create bigger gaps between such cuts, it'd incentivize better play that rewards golfers to get into contention.  For example if you make the first cut, you're guaranteed $20,000 and X number of FedEx points.  But unless you make the 2nd cut, everyone who finishes 31st to 70th gets paid the same (with maybe a 25% reduction for 3rd round WDs).  If you make the second cut at top 30, you're minimum payout is say $65,000 and you also get a meaningful boost in FedEx cup points over those guys that finish 31st-70th.

 

Again though...while I think this would create more incentive on "not coasting" for players...it really serves little purpose for fans and viewers.  TV wouldn't be able to cover all of the movement going on between the 3rd round leaders and those fighting to make the cut for the final round (unless it's a very notable name in a big tournament).  And the on course spectators and sponsors probably don't want only 30 golfers on the course Sunday when they currently have 70.  There is some value to having guys not in contention still playing on Sunday...if it means a guy like Phil is walking the course and giving waist high thumbs up and signing autographs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Due respect 

 

But it’s impossible for you (or me) to understand the mindset and motivations of guys who play sports to make a living.

 

They all go play their butts off every shot. 
 

The guy who is looking at missing the guy feels huge pressure to not go home empty handed.

 

The guy who is in 10 shots back 60th and looking at making 15k. Imagine his level of motivation to go low, pick up 6-7 shots on the weekend and make himself 100 grand?

 

And the guy who’s is 25th and could make more. But imagine the pressure he feels if he blows up a couple of holes and sees 10s of thousands going down the toilet while his wife is watching on TV browsing for a new house?

 

I think the system is great as is.

 

I wish other sports were more performance based in the pay.

 

The Jets would be eating like,
 

 

Edited November 24, 2021 by bscinstnct

[Titleist99]

25 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Due respect 

 

But it’s impossible for you (or me) to understand the mindset and motivations of guys who play sports to make a living.

 

They all go play their butts off every shot. 
 

The guy who is looking at missing the guy feels huge pressure to not go home empty handed.

 

The guy who is in 10 shots back 60th and looking at making 15k. Imagine his level of motivation to go low, pick up 6-7 shots on the weekend and make himself 100 grand?

 

And the guy who’s is 25th and could make more. But imagine the pressure he feels if he blows up a couple of holes and sees 10s of thousands going down the toilet while his wife is watching on TV browsing for a new house?

 

I think the system is great as is.

 

I wish other sports were more performance based in the pay.

 

The Jets would be eating like,
 

 

Agree 100%......Plus the fact that most touring pros feel that they are one round or one shot away from fulfilling their potential.
The object is to get in as many rounds as possible. Even though the smaller field would be more manageable the PGATOUR is only interest in meeting one deadline and that's the six o'clock television timeline EST.

Any player within ten shots has a chance to win on any given weekend ........IMO

[smashdn]

29 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

But it’s impossible for you (or me) to understand the mindset and motivations of guys who play sports to make a living.

 

They all go play their butts off every shot. 

 

You realize the irony of your statements don't you?

 

If none of us outside the ropes can understand the mindset and motivations, why do we have such heartburn towards a guy who is "one of them" and around "them" and has apparently had the conversations with his peers on the PAC and, according to him, there is some level of consensus that it is occurring?

 

[bobfoster]

I see nothing at all wrong with the current tournament format. It mutually optimizes for the PGA Tour, for the players, for sponsors, and most importantly, for the spectators and TV viewers.

 

Frankly, the idea that "coasting" is some sort of major problem on tour, that players somehow need additional incentives to try their hardest is almost laughable on its face. 

 

This is the PGA Tour - the largest and wealthiest golf tour on the planet. Thousands want to get cards for every one that does. Most of the very best in the world play it - some even move to the states (or at least lease houses) to play it. It is wickedly, brutally competitive. With very rare (usually temporary) exceptions, on players "coasts"  and stays on the Tour for very long.

[bscinstnct]

2 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Agree 100%......Plus the fact that most touring pros feel that they are one round or one shot away from fulfilling their potential.
The object is to get in as many rounds as possible. Even though the smaller field would be more manageable the PGATOUR is only interest in meeting one deadline and that's the six o'clock television timeline EST.

Any player within ten shots has a chance to win on any given weekend ........IMO

 

Yes, To get on the Tour, you gotta be insane good. 
 

Insane good. Like I remember Bubba say he like play against his friends and they play scramble and he used just 3 clubs and he beat them.

 

These guys all think they can get up and down from anywhere. 
 

Now, BHo is saying maybe some guys are happy to make cuts, get a top 5 and some top 25s and make a million bucks.

 

But I doubt this is the case. Maybe once a guy is making 5MM a year. Couple on the course and some endorsements, he’s feeling good about life. 
 

But when he’s out there. As you said, he’s maybe a great swing or two from making another 50k or more. Or a bad swing from dropping 20, 50, 100 grand.

 

Nobody is “coasting” out there. 

[smashdn]

3 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

With very rare (usually temporary) exceptions, on players "coasts"  and stays on the Tour for very long.

 

Because I agree with @bscinstnct, and I cannot know the motivations or mindset of players, I am not saying he is coasting, only pointing out what I see as a flaw in the current system.  And I generally like this player so I am not grinding an axe.

 

But I give you my exhibit A, Mr. Ian Poulter.  Currently a card carrying member or the PGA Tour and fully exempt for the 2021-2022 season.

 

• Member of the Tour since 2004.
• Three (3) < That is 3 now, victories in that time on the PGA Tour - 2010 WGC Match Play, 2012 WGC HSBC and his most recent 2018 Houston Open (April of 2018)
• 27.7mil in career earnings
• In 2021, in 21 events, best finish was T3, 3 top 10's (T9 in Match Play, T3 Charles Schwab, T10 St. Jude Invite
• 2022, 4 events, 1 top 25 (T18) and 3 MC's

 

The top 125 in Fed ex cup points is exempt.  Maybe that is too many?

[bscinstnct]

14 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

You realize the irony of your statements don't you?

 

If none of us outside the ropes can understand the mindset and motivations, why do we have such heartburn towards a guy who is "one of them" and around "them" and has apparently had the conversations with his peers on the PAC and, according to him, there is some level of consensus that it is occurring?

 

 

I’d love if a reporter asked BHo

 

”BHo, in over 10 years on tour, you’ve never won a major. You’ve only have 2-top 25 finishes and you’ve missed a third of the cuts at the majors.

 

Is this because the other guys are that much better than you? Or has making big money just made you content enough to not work harder to win on the biggest stage”

 

[Titleist99]

8 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Yes, To get on the Tour, you gotta be insane good. 
 

Insane good. Like I remember Bubba say he like play against his friends and they play scramble and he used just 3 clubs and he beat them.

 

These guys all think they can get up and down from anywhere. 
 

Now, BHo is saying maybe some guys are happy to make cuts, get a top 5 and some top 25s and make a million bucks.

 

But I doubt this is the case. Maybe once a guy is making 5MM a year. Couple on the course and some endorsements, he’s feeling good about life. 
 

But when he’s out there. As you said, he’s maybe a great swing or two from making another 50k or more. Or a bad swing from dropping 20, 50, 100 grand.

 

Nobody is “coasting” out there. 

LOL!.....Yep, if anybody is coasting it's the guys that got it made...... but i doubt if that's the case either. Just look at Rory's shirt......LOL!....IMO

 

You never know when a world class player will find a little confidence.....which is gold in the professional ranks.....they need reps, all they can get under tournament conditions......IMO

[Titleist99]

16 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Because I agree with @bscinstnct, and I cannot know the motivations or mindset of players, I am not saying he is coasting, only pointing out what I see as a flaw in the current system.  And I generally like this player so I am not grinding an axe.

 

But I give you my exhibit A, Mr. Ian Poulter.  Currently a card carrying member or the PGA Tour and fully exempt for the 2021-2022 season.

 

• Member of the Tour since 2004.
• Three (3) < That is 3 now, victories in that time on the PGA Tour - 2010 WGC Match Play, 2012 WGC HSBC and his most recent 2018 Houston Open (April of 2018)
• 27.7mil in career earnings
• In 2021, in 21 events, best finish was T3, 3 top 10's (T9 in Match Play, T3 Charles Schwab, T10 St. Jude Invite
• 2022, 4 events, 1 top 25 (T18) and 3 MC's

 

The top 125 in Fed ex cup points is exempt.  Maybe that is too many?

Just for clarification. what are you saying regarding Ian Poulter? Is he coasting or is in a slump? I ask because I don't want to misrepresent your comment .....

 

Full disclosure.....I'M not a big fan of IP.

[smashdn]

16 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I’d love if a reporter asked BHo

 

”BHo, in over 10 years on tour, you’ve never won a major. You’ve only have 2-top 25 finishes and you’ve missed a third of the cuts at the majors.

 

Is this because the other guys are that much better than you? Or has making big money just made you content enough to not work harder to win on the biggest stage”

 

 

Hey, I said I found it odd coming from him.  He is one of those protected guys.  Can't say whether he is coasting or not but the system protects him and Poulter and I am sure a good many others.

 

I just don't think we can question his view when he is out there with those guys mucking it up with them.  If we on the outside can't know their motivations why do we give a guy who is closer to the inside than us crap for his view?

[Titleist99]

3 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Hey, I said I found it odd coming from him.  He is one of those protected guys.  Can't say whether he is coasting or not but the system protects him and Poulter and I am sure a good many others.

 

I just don't think we can question his view when he is out there with those guys mucking it up with them.  If we on the outside can't know their motivations why do we give a guy who is closer to the inside than us crap for his view?

I will admit he may, he may know just a little bit more than us GOLFWRXers.......but if he's not willing to name names he should tone it down......IMO

 

But I am for kicking Poulter off the PGATOUR......I kid...

[smashdn]

Just now, Titleist99 said:

Just for clarification. what are you saying regarding Ian Poulter? Is he coasting or is in a slump? I ask because I don't want to misrepresent your comment .....

 

Full disclosure.....I'M not a big fan of IP.

 

All I am saying is he is protected.  It doesn't matter whether he is resting on his laurels or busting his hump and just can't get it done.  It is a merit thing.  I find some fault with that system in light of what Billy Ho is saying.  You can't criticize guys not giving their 100% percent effort if you protect middling players (for whatever reason) too.

 

I think Billy Ho's comment is indicating that there is cushion enough due to money, afforded to those lower places that you can coast, if you are already good enough.  I am not saying that is a good thing or bad.  I fully get when you are up and coming and grinding that the first break through win affords you a chance to take a breather so to speak.  That is different, in my mind at least, than lets say, having the potential of a Rory or JT or Rahm, the talent to win or be top 5 or 10 more often than not, but electing to not put in time on the range, or work on putting or whatever to maximize your potential because, even slacking a bit, you can cash nice checks at T30.  That is just reality and while it might be unpalatable to someone like Billy Ho who might be busting it but can only get t30 by doing so, that is just life.  Life isn't fair.  Intelligence, talents, looks, etc. are not doled out evenly.  You make the most of what you got with the amount of effort you want to put into it that makes you happy I guess.

[cdnglf]

2 hours ago, LBB said:

No...the guys that get cut Saturday are slotted into their paid slot that they finish in.  If you're in 65th place at the end of the 3rd round, you are cut from the final round and get 65th place money...whatever that is.  If you finish the 2nd round and make the "first cut", congratulations...you're going to get paid, get FedEx points, etc..  But you better make a move on Saturday if you want an opportunity at more money.

 

If you create bigger gaps between such cuts, it'd incentivize better play that rewards golfers to get into contention.  For example if you make the first cut, you're guaranteed $20,000 and X number of FedEx points.  But unless you make the 2nd cut, everyone who finishes 31st to 70th gets paid the same (with maybe a 25% reduction for 3rd round WDs).  If you make the second cut at top 30, you're minimum payout is say $65,000 and you also get a meaningful boost in FedEx cup points over those guys that finish 31st-70th.

 

Again though...while I think this would create more incentive on "not coasting" for players...it really serves little purpose for fans and viewers.  TV wouldn't be able to cover all of the movement going on between the 3rd round leaders and those fighting to make the cut for the final round (unless it's a very notable name in a big tournament).  And the on course spectators and sponsors probably don't want only 30 golfers on the course Sunday when they currently have 70.  There is some value to having guys not in contention still playing on Sunday...if it means a guy like Phil is walking the course and giving waist high thumbs up and signing autographs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't get these "increase incentive" arguments.

 

Tiger used to make nearly $100M/y including endorsements. Rory and Phil have been over $50M/y. Other top guys consistently make $10-20M (much more if they win the Fedex Cup). They have multiple homes on different contintents, fly private, etc.

 

The PGA Tour rank and file makes $1-2M. 

 

How is the current situation not incentive enough?

Edited November 24, 2021 by cdnglf

[Soloman1]

1 hour ago, cdnglf said:

 

I don't get these "increase incentive" arguments.

 

Tiger used to make nearly $100M/y including endorsements. Rory and Phil have been over $50M/y. Other top guys consistently make $10-20M (much more if they win the Fedex Cup). They have multiple homes on different contintents, fly private, etc.

 

The PGA Tour rank and file makes $1-2M. 

 

How is the current situation not incentive enough?

 

I think there's been a formal declaration that no one here understands the professional athlete mindset.

 

They're coasting.

 

Now, as the founder and CEO of . . .

[Shilgy]

6 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Because I agree with @bscinstnct, and I cannot know the motivations or mindset of players, I am not saying he is coasting, only pointing out what I see as a flaw in the current system.  And I generally like this player so I am not grinding an axe.

 

But I give you my exhibit A, Mr. Ian Poulter.  Currently a card carrying member or the PGA Tour and fully exempt for the 2021-2022 season.

 

• Member of the Tour since 2004.
• Three (3) < That is 3 now, victories in that time on the PGA Tour - 2010 WGC Match Play, 2012 WGC HSBC and his most recent 2018 Houston Open (April of 2018)
• 27.7mil in career earnings
• In 2021, in 21 events, best finish was T3, 3 top 10's (T9 in Match Play, T3 Charles Schwab, T10 St. Jude Invite
• 2022, 4 events, 1 top 25 (T18) and 3 MC's

 

The top 125 in Fed ex cup points is exempt.  Maybe that is too many?

You forgot….Poulter is #50 IN THE WORLD at what he does.  He would have to be insanely talented to be coasting and yet maintain that position.

 

#50 is “exhibit A” in the premise that 125 is too many?

 

Really?

 

 

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

[Jc0]

10 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Because I agree with @bscinstnct, and I cannot know the motivations or mindset of players, I am not saying he is coasting, only pointing out what I see as a flaw in the current system.  And I generally like this player so I am not grinding an axe.

 

But I give you my exhibit A, Mr. Ian Poulter.  Currently a card carrying member or the PGA Tour and fully exempt for the 2021-2022 season.

 

• Member of the Tour since 2004.
• Three (3) < That is 3 now, victories in that time on the PGA Tour - 2010 WGC Match Play, 2012 WGC HSBC and his most recent 2018 Houston Open (April of 2018)
• 27.7mil in career earnings
• In 2021, in 21 events, best finish was T3, 3 top 10's (T9 in Match Play, T3 Charles Schwab, T10 St. Jude Invite
• 2022, 4 events, 1 top 25 (T18) and 3 MC's

 

The top 125 in Fed ex cup points is exempt.  Maybe that is too many?

 

Why is this an issue? In every sport there are players who do less than this that make more than this. 

 

I think because golf is an individual sport we think that if you don't win it's a failure when it's way harder to win then any other sport. If a team wins a game its a 50/50 chance because they are only playing one opponent. In golf you are trying to beat over 100 unique individuals each week. Also golfers can't hide behind a bad game. On a team an individual can have a poor day but the team still win. That's just not possible in golf. 

 

For reference the ESPN has 637 players playing tour events last season. If there were 40 tournaments that means if a  unique winner won each tournament only 6% of players won a tournament. Since players win multiple tournaments that means less than 5% of players who play on tour win a tournament each year. Not sure why people think it so easy to win. 

 

[Fairway14]

The OP's thread title is misleading. Billy Horschel did not suggest "reducing the field" of any tournament. He proposed limiting the number of fully exempt players (from 125 to 100), while increasing the number of Monday qualifying spots available.

[OrangeGravy]

On 11/23/2021 at 9:05 AM, Soloman1 said:

Sooner or later, people get tired of hearing about someone else's money, money, money, whether from a person or a tax-exempt entity crowing about saving the children, tugging at heartstrings with background music and beating their chests about doing it all for charity. The charity comes from the local tournaments that give a whopping 16% of revenues to local charities.

 

How about living up to the spirit of a non-profit and not the technical legalese to color on the boundary line? Watch, the top PGA Tour Admin people are going to give themselves some fat raises, too.

 

And the golf fans and viewers will get...

More commercials in the form of a permanent PIP playing through campaign. It's gonna be awesome.  All you need is 10x8 projector screen to see the action

[golfortennis]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:13 PM, smashdn said:

 

Because I agree with @bscinstnct, and I cannot know the motivations or mindset of players, I am not saying he is coasting, only pointing out what I see as a flaw in the current system.  And I generally like this player so I am not grinding an axe.

 

But I give you my exhibit A, Mr. Ian Poulter.  Currently a card carrying member or the PGA Tour and fully exempt for the 2021-2022 season.

 

• Member of the Tour since 2004.
• Three (3) < That is 3 now, victories in that time on the PGA Tour - 2010 WGC Match Play, 2012 WGC HSBC and his most recent 2018 Houston Open (April of 2018)
• 27.7mil in career earnings
• In 2021, in 21 events, best finish was T3, 3 top 10's (T9 in Match Play, T3 Charles Schwab, T10 St. Jude Invite
• 2022, 4 events, 1 top 25 (T18) and 3 MC's

 

The top 125 in Fed ex cup points is exempt.  Maybe that is too many?

 

If you like Poulter, would you not choose a player who has not spent at least as much time on the European Tour for your example?  

 

I mean, I think this whole idea is bunk as I've said many time, but wouldn't Briny Baird have been a better example for what is being lamented?

 

[Shilgy]

On 11/25/2021 at 6:12 AM, Fairway14 said:

The OP's thread title is misleading. Billy Horschel did not suggest "reducing the field" of any tournament. He proposed limiting the number of fully exempt players (from 125 to 100), while increasing the number of Monday qualifying spots available.

Seems to me the more players that have earned a spot over repeated good play-meaning more earned exemptions-is better than having more players that just played well on Monday to get into an event.

[Fairway14]

7 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Seems to me the more players that have earned a spot over repeated good play-meaning more earned exemptions-is better than having more players that just played well on Monday to get into an event.

 

What defines "good play"?  Horschell's point is that these days a guy can make millions of dollars simply by making cuts , which in effect allows him to retain his exempt status for the following season. Horschell believes that if the number of fully exempt players is reduced it will compel players to perform at a higher level, and he is absolutely correct about that.

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

What defines "good play"?  Horschell's point is that these days a guy can make millions of dollars simply by making cuts , which in effect allows him to retain his exempt status for the following season. Horschell believes that if the number of fully exempt players is reduced it will compel players to perform at a higher level, and he is absolutely correct about that.

So easy….”simply by making cuts”.  Finish in the top half of arguably the best in the world is easy?  Congrats.

 

A player could play a full season….let’s say 25 events….and make the cut in every event and still be well under $1m.  Not the easy millions you and Billy imply.  Let’s just eliminate the safety net of the KF Tour as well while we are at it. No reason for those guys to be able to make a living in the so called minors.

 

Ive said it before….keeping your card is roughly the equivalent of being a Pro Bowl player in the NFL.  Finishing in the top 70 is the equivalent of a MLB all star.  The best are just keeping their card with their play. Not with guaranteed contracts.

 

[cdnglf]

3 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

What defines "good play"?  Horschell's point is that these days a guy can make millions of dollars simply by making cuts , which in effect allows him to retain his exempt status for the following season. Horschell believes that if the number of fully exempt players is reduced it will compel players to perform at a higher level, and he is absolutely correct about that.

 

What is the magic number of guaranteed spots? 100? 50? 1?

[smashdn]

On 11/24/2021 at 5:30 PM, Shilgy said:

You forgot….Poulter is #50 IN THE WORLD at what he does.  He would have to be insanely talented to be coasting and yet maintain that position.

 

#50 is “exhibit A” in the premise that 125 is too many?

 

Really?

 

 

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

 

A) I didn't say he was coasting.

B) I feel confident that I can name fifty players in the entire world that are better golfers than Ian Poulter.

C) The fact he is number fifty can be exhibit A that OWGR is also perhaps flawed.

 

His lack of winning, recent winning, and his placing in that range where Billy Ho intimated that you could live a very comfortable existence while not really doing all that much, is why I bring him up.  Look what he did in 2021.  And he is exempt by virtue of being 125 in FedEx points.  Maybe that 125 bar is too low?  <That was what I was asking.

 

How do you keep guys hungry when it ceases to be about money for a good deal of them?  

[smashdn]

On 11/24/2021 at 9:41 PM, Jc0 said:

 

Why is this an issue? In every sport there are players who do less than this that make more than this. 

 

 

Not germane to the topic at hand.

 

Why do sports stars have higher income than surgeons and teachers?  A good question but not on topic.

[smashdn]

On 11/26/2021 at 2:37 PM, golfortennis said:

 

If you like Poulter, would you not choose a player who has not spent at least as much time on the European Tour for your example?  

 

I mean, I think this whole idea is bunk as I've said many time, but wouldn't Briny Baird have been a better example for what is being lamented?

 

 

To your first question, he was the first player who came to mind for me.  I didn't recall him winning anything lately.  Whether he spends his time on the ET or PGAT, he is a fully exempt member of the PGAT.

 

Didn't take too much time to research players to fit the point I was trying to make.  Didn't have to really.

 

(Probably could have used Billy Horschel as well for that matter.)

[Titleist99]

15 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

What defines "good play"?  Horschell's point is that these days a guy can make millions of dollars simply by making cuts , which in effect allows him to retain his exempt status for the following season. Horschell believes that if the number of fully exempt players is reduced it will compel players to perform at a higher level, and he is absolutely correct about that.

Tell me again why you would want your competitor to get better.....

 

All professional players will eventually travel the road in which Billy Ho would gladly eliminate.....Including Billy relatively soon.