LIV Tour Discussion Thread (*** NO POLITICS ***)

[hook_or_slice]

On 5/22/2023 at 9:27 PM, King_Slender said:

..........

 

Considering everyone can agree that LIV has some of the best players, it wouldn't be unreasonable for majors to say they are taking the Top 5-10 LIV players based on their LIV rankings.  Some will likely have qualified otherwise, but it's a reasonable middle ground.

 

It actually would be unreasonable to expect Majors to accept LIV Players without some type of reciprocity. 

 

If a players wins the Masters he qualities for the PGA, the Open Championship and the US Open

 

If the Masters were to accept LIV Players based on their play on that tour, would it not be reasonable for the Masters winner to be allowed to play in any LIV event he wanted to?

[Bye]

12 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

He also said equitable.  That it is not currently

 

https://www.golflink.com/list_113_rules-qualify-us-golf-open.html  (sorry for the formatting in the quote)

8  Winners of the Players Championship the last three years (including current year)
9	Winner of the most recent European Tour BMW PGA Championship
10	Those players who qualified for the previous season-ending Tour Championship
11	Multiple winners of PGA Tour events that award a full-point allocation for the FedEx Cup from the conclusion of the previous U.S. Open to the current year U.S. Open

 

 

We can argue the merits and numbers of players from LIV who should or should not be afforded similar auto qualifying, I am just pointing out that auto qualifying exists according to your winning PGAT events (Players, TC) and DWPT.

 

You could say something along the lines of "The individual top points earner of the LIV Tour" and it would be equitable.  In no sense am I suggesting that LIV should be awarded the same number of auto qualifying positions.

 

 

I can't see why it should be equitable or how it can be. None of the players own the system they just operated within it. They chose to leave and those choices were always going to have consequences.

 

The majors are honouring anyone with a current exemption and there is still the opportunity to qualify for the 2 Opens. Some of those guys would have been going to the regional qualifying anyway.  

 

The qualification criteria has developed over time. It's not to say it wont adapt again to accommodate LIV, but the expectation can't be that it's going to happen over night or even in the first year. Players have earned qualification through the system in place which now allows for more non US players to get in. Is it fair for some of those players to miss out to accommodate the LIV players?

 

It may come to that and top player or the top 3 get an exemption in to the majors. We will see.. 

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

8 hours ago, hook_or_slice said:

 

It actually would be unreasonable to expect Majors to accept LIV Players without some type of reciprocity. 

 

If a players wins the Masters he qualities for the PGA, the Open Championship and the US Open

 

If the Masters were to accept LIV Players based on their play on that tour, would it not be reasonable for the Masters winner to be allowed to play in any LIV event he wanted to?

That relates to the various events (which are not the PGA Tour) setting their own criteria for exemptions so no, there would be no need for "reciprocity".

[Hawkeye77]

9 hours ago, HomaComa said:

 

I did a little bit of research on those tours and one these 54 hole tours is the "GIRA De Golf Professional Mexicana". This particular has fields of 70+ players and has a 36-hole cut unlike LIV.

And isn't a "team" competition with shotgun starts.

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, cohenfive said:

I think LIV events should have OWGR points attached, but they should be relative to full field PGA tour events. Deduct for smaller field, deduct for no cut, deduct for 54 holes, deduct for lack of depth of the field...you probably end up with LIV events at 25% of the big full field pga events. That sounds about right to me...plus they get points for the majors just like everyone else. The problem is, LIV thinks its little tournaments deserve the same points as PGA events...they do not.

 

They have to address a method for the purpose of the cut, if the purpose of the cut is to ensure that half the field (give or take) does not get the opportunity to just show up and collect points, however small it may be.  

 

Everything else you mentioned is just math.

 

Last bolded part, I haven't heard or read of them asking for full points as the PGAT.  That one is new to me and for the mathematical reasons above does not hold water.  

 

(Not sure if they should or could use another method other than OWGR points to determine strength of field?  Some of these guys are clearly better than their current rankings but by virtue of how they dropped in the rankings due to not having a path to get points it may further hamper them.  You may see Cam Smith keep dropping compared to say a Ryan Palmer or Russell Knox but I think most people who are watching golf would agree that Cam Smith is significantly better player than either.  But that is how the straight math may work out.  Is a full-field LIV, 54 hole second place finish going to be worth less than a T15 in a PGAT event?  It may be from a math standpoint.)

[smashdn]

21 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Lol. On the last part.  I enjoy that type humor. You're probably right.  Kids would probably love Skeletor ( they all run off now to google who the Heck I’m taking about 😂)

but Greg. He just gives off the slimiest  vibe possible.  You just know you can’t be in favor of whether he’s selling.  
 

disagree of course on the rest.  The “ round with your bros” look is exactly why I hate it.  It’s a slippery slope to simpleton-ville.  Competition should be the product.  Not a soap opera.  I get that the big names draw fans.  But what I don’t get is why they think they need tiger money ?  They don’t draw tiger fans.  
 

the market will self correct if a tiger second coming happens.  That guy can get tiger money.  

 

I agree with that.  Why I cringe when anyone wears those joggers, on any tour save for the ladies tours.  The golf course is these guys' office so to speak.  When you go to the office you should (imo) abide by a certain decorum.  

 

I am also careful of the "product" viewpoint though.  You build a product for your customer.  The old cliche the customer is always right comes to mind.  And then the quote attributed to PT Barnum regarding the ignorance of the American public.  Be a nice thought to keep your "product" true and pure from a golf and challenge standpoint, but lots of sports here lately have bent to the shortened attention span and lack of understanding of and appreciation for nuance.

 

Why bother to master the golf swing to be able to make use of and appreciate the understated beauty and wonderful feel of a set of forged blades when this new titanium and urethane impregnated cavity muscle iron allows me to hit the ball 6 yards further per iron and auto corrects ball flight so the side to side deviation is less than 2 yards?  The best persimmon woods were sanded, weighted, balanced and finished by craftsmen.  Now we mass produce drivers and woods with some automated equipment housed in China.  The consumer doesn't appreciate the process nor have time or desire to savor what should not be instant gratification.

[smashdn]

5 hours ago, Bye said:

I can't see why it should be equitable or how it can be. None of the players own the system they just operated within it. They chose to leave and those choices were always going to have consequences.

 

The majors are honouring anyone with a current exemption and there is still the opportunity to qualify for the 2 Opens. Some of those guys would have been going to the regional qualifying anyway.  

 

The qualification criteria has developed over time. It's not to say it wont adapt again to accommodate LIV, but the expectation can't be that it's going to happen over night or even in the first year. Players have earned qualification through the system in place which now allows for more non US players to get in. Is it fair for some of those players to miss out to accommodate the LIV players?

 

It may come to that and top player or the top 3 get an exemption in to the majors. We will see.. 

 

 

 

A) I didn't say it should be equitable.  I only pointed out that someone's response failed to address the issue of equitability in their reply.

B) Math is one way to make it equitable.  You got 400 some-odd card carrying members of the PGAT and the majors (different among them so just going to grab a generality for example's sake) say that the top 40 players on the PGAT (playoff qualifiers IIRC) are automatically qualified.  What does that come out to for LIV, one or two?  So say the top finisher on the season in LIV is automatically qualified for the field if not already exempt in.  Easy and equitable.

[grm24]

18 hours ago, leezer99 said:

Brooks has a Nike contact that was in place before LIV and Nike is one of the few companies that hasn’t exiled their players. BK is just honoring that contract. 

I'm well aware of that as this same "issue" was discussed extensively in The Masters thread. Appears many people missed it then.

[ahenderX]

13 hours ago, subrew said:

 

I know it is popular to say they should get points, but then deduct a % for things like no cut, smaller field, only 54 holes etc., but the OWGR already awards points to plenty of 54 hole event.  And non-cut events.  And events with limited fields.  Those events don't get hit with an arbitrary "deduct 25% because of this" thing.  The points tends to be reduced because of things like strength of field ratings.  Having only 48 players already reduces points.  

 

-The week of LIV's inaugural event in London last year, nine events received OWGR points.  Four of them were 54 hole events.

 

-Plenty of no cut events receive OWGR, including PGAT events.  Prime example, Jon Rahm won the Sentry Tournament of Champions in Week 1.  It only had 37 players, and was no cut.  He earned 37.67 points for the win.  That was more than Jason Day earned winning at the Byron Nelson (36.14 points)  That was more than T4 got at the PGA Championships this past weekend.  

 

-Speaking of limited fields, Tiger's Hero World challenge hit and giggle was won by Viktor Hovland the past two years.  Only 20 players, invited by Tiger.  Viktor earned 29.8 points.  More than what Tony Finau won at the Mexico Open (29.77) which was a full-field, with cut event.

 

 

Someone calc'd out what the strength of field would be for a LIV event mid-way through last season.  It was the equivalent of like a off-weekend PGAT event without many top players.  So they (LIV) would already be taking a points hit because their strength of field rating wouldn't be high.  

 

 

 

 

Tours with 54-hole events get OWGR points because they meet all OWGR requirements. PGA Tour events with small fields and no-cut get OWGR points because the PGA Tour, as a whole, meets all OWGR requirements. 

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

I agree with that.  Why I cringe when anyone wears those joggers, on any tour save for the ladies tours.  The golf course is these guys' office so to speak.  When you go to the office you should (imo) abide by a certain decorum.  

 

I am also careful of the "product" viewpoint though.  You build a product for your customer.  The old cliche the customer is always right comes to mind.  And then the quote attributed to PT Barnum regarding the ignorance of the American public.  Be a nice thought to keep your "product" true and pure from a golf and challenge standpoint, but lots of sports here lately have bent to the shortened attention span and lack of understanding of and appreciation for nuance.

 

Why bother to master the golf swing to be able to make use of and appreciate the understated beauty and wonderful feel of a set of forged blades when this new titanium and urethane impregnated cavity muscle iron allows me to hit the ball 6 yards further per iron and auto corrects ball flight so the side to side deviation is less than 2 yards?  The best persimmon woods were sanded, weighted, balanced and finished by craftsmen.  Now we mass produce drivers and woods with some automated equipment housed in China.  The consumer doesn't appreciate the process nor have time or desire to savor what should not be instant gratification.

Yep.  It’s just another 30 yards down the slippery slope to losing the game entirely to the “ bro “ mob.    Golf in the 90s when I worked at a private course was a game that required YOU to bend to the decorum’s stated and unstated.  With those came a few things that were unfair and unjust.  One of which I was also a victim of.  Which is why I never played the game until adulthood much later.  But I wanted to play then.  My love for the game started then. 20 years before I ever played. 
 

thise two major barriers of entry came down in those 20 years.  And it’s absolutely a great thing.  But….. somewhere in that we also slid past those goals and hit the slippery slope.   Breaking down barriers to entry doesn’t mean throwing away decorum and tradition.  Folks who want in should conform to a degree.  Otherwise you end up proving the original snobs correct.  No ?  If the game is changed completely, it becomes very hard to retain the moral high ground.     And I say that - again - as a guy who was on the outside looking in.  I’m not a fortunate son.  So to speak.  

Edited May 25, 2023 by bladehunter

[HomaComa]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

And isn't a "team" competition with shotgun starts.

The team aspect isn’t that big of a hurdle for OWGR points. That’s just an additional competition. It’s the lack of cuts and limited fields. LIV should restructure to have 72 man fields (18 teams of 4), and have a 54 hole cut where the top 48 guys move on. For the team competition at least 3 guys on the same team need to make the cut.

[Tpfol]

11 hours ago, hook_or_slice said:

 

It actually would be unreasonable to expect Majors to accept LIV Players without some type of reciprocity. 

 

If a players wins the Masters he qualities for the PGA, the Open Championship and the US Open

 

If the Masters were to accept LIV Players based on their play on that tour, would it not be reasonable for the Masters winner to be allowed to play in any LIV event he wanted to?

I think LIV would gladly accept major winners to participate in their events, however the PGA tour has made it quite clear that they are not able to do so.

The lack of reciprocity falls at the feet of the PGA tour, not LIV

[Bye]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

A) I didn't say it should be equitable.  I only pointed out that someone's response failed to address the issue of equitability in their reply.

B) Math is one way to make it equitable.  You got 400 some-odd card carrying members of the PGAT and the majors (different among them so just going to grab a generality for example's sake) say that the top 40 players on the PGAT (playoff qualifiers IIRC) are automatically qualified.  What does that come out to for LIV, one or two?  So say the top finisher on the season in LIV is automatically qualified for the field if not already exempt in.  Easy and equitable.

 I am sure they are fine with that, the issues of equitability is irrelevant in this circumstance.  

 

All sounds great, but again for every 1 spot they give to a LIV player it means someone who has taken the traditional route else misses out. 

 

There probably will be some sort of minor concession at some point. However I'm not a big fan of giving people what they want just because they are making a lot of noise. The guys with no standing had to understand that it was a strong possibility they would be having the week off during the majors for the foreseeable. 

 

[smashdn]

51 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Yep.  It’s just another 30 yards down the slippery slope to losing the game entirely to the “ bro “ mob.  

 

I was a part of interesting conversation last week regarding appearances and expectations, rightly and wrongly, based upon those appearances.  It had zero to do with golf so I think it even more pointed here in this part of the discussion.

 

Someone brought up the differences and how one person presented themselves.  Shirt untucked, long wispy beard, a little overweight.  This compared to another in a similar role who was a little more "put-together" looking.  Immediately there was a tendency to be deferential to the person who was a little more "authoritative looking" than the other even though the other was actually more knowledgeable.

 

I am a believer that "looks matter."  I try my best to not let it cloud my judgment but it can very often start to mold that first impression.

 

As it relates to golf, I have found it far easier to dress down and adapt to a more casual atmosphere than to dress up if needed when I am unsure as to what level is appropriate at a club or setting.  Meaning, (unless pants are specifically required) you can't really go wrong with a solid or small print collared golf shirt tucked into a pair of tan or navy flat front shorts.  Saving for the pants requirement or tall socks (which is rare if even a thing in the US) you are good to go in all but the most stodgy clubs and courses, on the course itself.  If you find yourself a bit overdressed compared to your host or for the course, untuck your shirt.

 

Some people point to that as "barriers of entry" into the game.  I don't see wearing the "right" clothes as one.  I don't see needing to understand there are varying dress codes or norms from course to course as much of a barrier either.  Those that are insistent on getting golf to the level of a pick-up basketball game will cling to that barriers of entry point as it is convenient for them to justify their desires and wishes.

 

Full circle as it relates to LIV specifically and keep it on-topic for the thread, I am not enamored with the shorts deal for them from the optics standpoint.  But it fits what they are (I think) trying to do and be more broadly appealing (read: hip or "cool" in the eyes of the younger folks).  It certainly must have some appeal to the players as well and so much has been said by LIV about their org being about giving the players more of what they want.

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, ahenderX said:

Tours with 54-hole events get OWGR points because they meet all OWGR requirements. PGA Tour events with small fields and no-cut get OWGR points because the PGA Tour, as a whole, meets all OWGR requirements. 

 

Not only that but all of those other events have defined qualifying criteria. You can play your way on or off of any of those tournaments. Not so much with LIV. If LIV got OWGR points with its current structure, it would essentially just be a loophole because they would essentially never lose points outside of the 2 year fall-off. Since some players are under long-term contract, they cannot be kicked off the tour through poor play. They get chances for points in a situation in which they wouldn't otherwise be able to.

 

Think about Rickie Fowler, his play fell off and he no longer qualified for some major tournaments. He had to grind his way back up the OWGR in lesser tournaments with lower strength of field. But say Ian Poulter is playing poorly, all he needs to do is play decently one tournament to get points. He has no risk, and doesn't have to grind out against lower fields. 

 

OWGR does not work in a closed loop system without open qualifying criteria. 

[RobS]

All markets correct themselves over time.  The pro golf market will correct over time and I don't think it's going to be a positive outcome.  LIV, as a business concept, is irrational.  They swung for the fences paying players well above market.  It will take a miracle to ever justify what they are paying players.  While the PIF can burn the cash, if the venture doesn't produce whatever outcome they are looking for, it will eventually get killed off. 

 

While I believe the PGA Tour did the right in trying to suppress the competition, I think the dramatic increase in PGA Tour prize money may be difficult to sustain.  I get that some players felt like the Tour wasn't allocating enough of the revenue to tournament purses but that requires the Tour to operate their finances on the razors edge.  There's a fair degree of economic uncertainty.  What happens if sponsors and 'partners drop?   It doesn't matter how good the Tour product is if a corporate partner's stock is underperforming and the board mandates cost cutting.  Sponsorships are low hanging fruit.  TV viewing is changing rapidly and no one knows what that's going to mean when the Tour has to negotiate new contracts in 6 years.

 

The PGA Tour and LIV are fighting over the pieces of a small pie and both are counting on substantial growth of that pie.  There's a distinct possibility that the pie may not grow and could even shrink.  At some point, pro golfers may be asking where all the money is that they once played for.

[Golferpaul]

23 hours ago, jdl said:

Nothing about the system changed to make it less accurate. 

Hmmm..... so excluding several top five finishers (and a winner) at the Masters and PGA isn't making it less accurate?  I'm confused by how you define accurate.

[Cactus Jack]

19 hours ago, One Putter said:

Lots being made about Brooks, but if liv had their way you would never hear about a guy like Michael Block because he wouldn't be given an opportunity. Block is honestly more of a story than Brooks.

Funny.
 

One of the main reason people hate on LIV for is because they provide opportunities to players exactly like Block. If Block were a LIV player folks wouldn’t hesitate to burn him at the stake as a never was irrelevant bum. 
 

LIV is damned if they do, damned if they don’t in the eyes of this thread. 

[Golferpaul]

21 hours ago, HomaComa said:

It’s called the OWGR. 

I wish that were true.  

[Golferpaul]

14 hours ago, golfheaven69 said:

Yep, he has enough money. Destroyed his legacy but that’s Phil. All about him. 

He still has millions of fans...... including me.

[HackerDad78]

17 hours ago, subrew said:

 

I know it is popular to say they should get points, but then deduct a % for things like no cut, smaller field, only 54 holes etc., but the OWGR already awards points to plenty of 54 hole event.  And non-cut events.  And events with limited fields.  Those events don't get hit with an arbitrary "deduct 25% because of this" thing.  The points tends to be reduced because of things like strength of field ratings.  Having only 48 players already reduces points.  

 

-The week of LIV's inaugural event in London last year, nine events received OWGR points.  Four of them were 54 hole events.

 

-Plenty of no cut events receive OWGR, including PGAT events.  Prime example, Jon Rahm won the Sentry Tournament of Champions in Week 1.  It only had 37 players, and was no cut.  He earned 37.67 points for the win.  That was more than Jason Day earned winning at the Byron Nelson (36.14 points)  That was more than T4 got at the PGA Championships this past weekend.  

 

-Speaking of limited fields, Tiger's Hero World challenge hit and giggle was won by Viktor Hovland the past two years.  Only 20 players, invited by Tiger.  Viktor earned 29.8 points.  More than what Tony Finau won at the Mexico Open (29.77) which was a full-field, with cut event.

 

 

Someone calc'd out what the strength of field would be for a LIV event mid-way through last season.  It was the equivalent of like a off-weekend PGAT event without many top players.  So they (LIV) would already be taking a points hit because their strength of field rating wouldn't be high.  

 

 

 

 

But I think the difference is that all of the examples you cite, which are totally valid, are spread across multiple other events which follow more traditional guidelines.  EVERY LIV event is 54 hole, no cut, limited field.  To me that's a massive difference.  The examples you cite are, generally speaking, the exceptions - not the rule so to speak. 

 

[HomaComa]

10 minutes ago, RobS said:

All markets correct themselves over time.  The pro golf market will correct over time and I don't think it's going to be a positive outcome.  LIV, as a business concept, is irrational.  They swung for the fences paying players well above market.  It will take a miracle to ever justify what they are paying players.  While the PIF can burn the cash, if the venture doesn't produce whatever outcome they are looking for, it will eventually get killed off. 

 

While I believe the PGA Tour did the right in trying to suppress the competition, I think the dramatic increase in PGA Tour prize money may be difficult to sustain.  I get that some players felt like the Tour wasn't allocating enough of the revenue to tournament purses but that requires the Tour to operate their finances on the razors edge.  There's a fair degree of economic uncertainty.  What happens if sponsors and 'partners drop?   It doesn't matter how good the Tour product is if a corporate partner's stock is underperforming and the board mandates cost cutting.  Sponsorships are low hanging fruit.  TV viewing is changing rapidly and no one knows what that's going to mean when the Tour has to negotiate new contracts in 6 years.

 

The PGA Tour and LIV are fighting over the pieces of a small pie and both are counting on substantial growth of that pie.  There's a distinct possibility that the pie may not grow and could even shrink.  At some point, pro golfers may be asking where all the money is that they once played for.

The tour’s gonna win this fight in the long run. The PGA tour is the easiest way to qualify for majors and the only way to play in PC/RC. 

[Ghost of Snead]

2 hours ago, Tpfol said:

I think LIV would gladly accept major winners to participate in their events, however the PGA tour has made it quite clear that they are not able to do so.

The lack of reciprocity falls at the feet of the PGA tour, not LIV

 

Really ? I don't recall reading that Jon Rahm was offered a spot in the LIV Adelaide event. 

 

[bscinstnct]

I don’t recall seeing this last year  but it’s worth keeping in mind.

 

If PIF is looking to recoup 2+ Billion 💰 by selling the franchises, I’d say it’s a long shot. 

For example, NFL teams are worth about  8-10x revenue, LIV will need to be doing 200MM a year to be worth 2 billion. I’d be shocked if LIV did more than 20-30MM in revenue this year but who knows. 

 

 

https://golficity.com/report-saudis-plan-funding-for-liv-golf-only-through-2025/

 

“Sorour said that the PIF has committed to funding LIV through 2025. That is in line with the information divulged in a press release announcing the series in May.
 

After that, Sorour said he envisioned the group would recoup its investment by selling off ownership of the 12 teams to the players. The major question moving forward, however, is what these franchises would be worth.”
 

 

[Purple Toupee]

15 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Cmon pb. The ONLY reason any of the top guys went to LIVis for the guaranteed 150MM + payoff. And that’s the only reason any would go in the future. But who knows if they’re still cutting those checks given how bad it’s doing commercially. 

 

Or are you suggesting BK, DJ, BD, or even Phil himself went because it’s a great way to win majors?!

 

How about the “future stars” you mention?

 

David Puig? Turk Pettit? James Piot?

How they gonna ever win a major if they don’t even play 4 rounds or have to make a cut.

 

Brooks ate crackers and shlepped around in trains all over Europe to make a cut and win 10k so he can buy a shepherds pie for dinner. 
 

That’s how he got to where he is.
 

Not flying private jets, attending pre event galas, sucking down cocktail shrimp, and playing 3 rounds with music blasting  ; )

 

 

You’re completely missing his point.  Phil isn’t trying to recruit college seniors, he’s trying to get players like Rahm and Scheffler to cross over.  After players work their way through the minors and get on the PGAT, and have established themselves, if at that point their legacy is winning majors, then he’s saying LIV is the best way to do it.  You may not agree with that, but you can’t argue with the results so far.

 

It has nothing to do with getting players who haven’t paid their dues.  Phil knows he needs big names to make it work, not a bunch of recent amateurs.  He doesn’t want LIV full newbies, they just really didn’t have much choice in the beginning.

[pingbling23]

lets be honest about cuts.  it isnt for eliminating the weaker players.  if you want the best over the course of 3 or 4 rounds to win then they should get to play all the rounds.  someone, especially at this level of golf, that misses the cut could go 60-60 on the weekend and possibly win.  cuts are so those players dont have to be paid.

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, Tpfol said:

I think LIV would gladly accept major winners to participate in their events, however the PGA tour has made it quite clear that they are not able to do so.

The lack of reciprocity falls at the feet of the PGA tour, not LIV

LIV would welcome participants if they sign contracts and join, lol.  Can't play if you aren't on a "team".

 

There is no "lack of reciprocity" because reciprocity isn't a "thing" to begin with.  

[2bGood]

14 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Some people point to that as "barriers of entry" into the game.  I don't see wearing the "right" clothes as one.  I don't see needing to understand there are varying dress codes or norms from course to course as much of a barrier either.  Those that are insistent on getting golf to the level of a pick-up basketball game will cling to that barriers of entry point as it is convenient for them to justify their desires and wishes.

 

Agreed.  A decent collared golf shirts costs less than a box of Pro-V1's and should last much longer. The idea that tucking in your shirt is a barrier to anything is pretty silly. But the world is pretty silly at times. 

Edited May 26, 2023 by 2bGood

[golfortennis]

3 hours ago, RobS said:

All markets correct themselves over time.  The pro golf market will correct over time and I don't think it's going to be a positive outcome.  LIV, as a business concept, is irrational.  They swung for the fences paying players well above market.  It will take a miracle to ever justify what they are paying players.  While the PIF can burn the cash, if the venture doesn't produce whatever outcome they are looking for, it will eventually get killed off. 

 

While I believe the PGA Tour did the right in trying to suppress the competition, I think the dramatic increase in PGA Tour prize money may be difficult to sustain.  I get that some players felt like the Tour wasn't allocating enough of the revenue to tournament purses but that requires the Tour to operate their finances on the razors edge.  There's a fair degree of economic uncertainty.  What happens if sponsors and 'partners drop?   It doesn't matter how good the Tour product is if a corporate partner's stock is underperforming and the board mandates cost cutting.  Sponsorships are low hanging fruit.  TV viewing is changing rapidly and no one knows what that's going to mean when the Tour has to negotiate new contracts in 6 years.

 

The PGA Tour and LIV are fighting over the pieces of a small pie and both are counting on substantial growth of that pie.  There's a distinct possibility that the pie may not grow and could even shrink.  At some point, pro golfers may be asking where all the money is that they once played for.

 

The PGA tour's purpose, as stated in the 501(c) paperwork is to advance professional golf.  I don't see "as long as we are the ones who do it" in there.  How on earth is players playing for more money in line with that?   "Did the right thing trying to suppress competition"?  

 

I don't disagree with your point about LIV's method being irrational economically.  But LIV's arrival, whatever one thinks of all the attached baggage, advanced professional golf.  More money is what advances professional golf.  Otherwise it's just amateur golf.  Every action and statement the PGA tour has made in response to this has been in direct opposition to their purpose.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

20 hours ago, subrew said:

 

I know it is popular to say they should get points, but then deduct a % for things like no cut, smaller field, only 54 holes etc., but the OWGR already awards points to plenty of 54 hole event.  And non-cut events.  And events with limited fields.  Those events don't get hit with an arbitrary "deduct 25% because of this" thing.  The points tends to be reduced because of things like strength of field ratings.  Having only 48 players already reduces points.  

 

-The week of LIV's inaugural event in London last year, nine events received OWGR points.  Four of them were 54 hole events.

 

-Plenty of no cut events receive OWGR, including PGAT events.  Prime example, Jon Rahm won the Sentry Tournament of Champions in Week 1.  It only had 37 players, and was no cut.  He earned 37.67 points for the win.  That was more than Jason Day earned winning at the Byron Nelson (36.14 points)  That was more than T4 got at the PGA Championships this past weekend.  

 

-Speaking of limited fields, Tiger's Hero World challenge hit and giggle was won by Viktor Hovland the past two years.  Only 20 players, invited by Tiger.  Viktor earned 29.8 points.  More than what Tony Finau won at the Mexico Open (29.77) which was a full-field, with cut event.

 

 

Someone calc'd out what the strength of field would be for a LIV event mid-way through last season.  It was the equivalent of like a off-weekend PGAT event without many top players.  So they (LIV) would already be taking a points hit because their strength of field rating wouldn't be high.  

 

 

As @Simpsonia pointed out, it's a math problem. But it's a hard math problem due to limited fields, lack of a robust qualification / losing your status system, etc. 

 

Part of the way that the various tours help level-set OWGR is that there's some fluidity between events. A lot of PGAT members also play DPWT events. There's some limited movement back and forth between PGAT and PGA Tour Latinoamerica. When someone from the PGAT goes home to play the Australian Open it gives some ability to benchmark tours and strength of schedule against each other. All this folds into OWGR.

 

This is what LIV lacks. Without a clear way to play yourself onto or off the LIV tour you get stagnation. With only 48 players, if you just lock in their OWGR at the time they left for LIV, you have no way to know if they're actually as good as they were then, or if their game starts falling off. Unless they're playing a lot of Asia Tour or International Series events against other players who are ranked, which for them means "more golf" when "less golf / more money" was a selling point of LIV, you lose those benchmarks. About all you get for comparison is majors, which only a small number of LIV golfers qualify for. 

 

I'm not saying that OWGR shouldn't find a way to give LIV points. However I think it's a LOT harder due to their format, field size, lack of robust qualification/relegation system, emphasis on team play, etc. to make sure that you're giving them fairly. Which is why new golf tours tend to take some time for OWGR to process their applications--even IF they meet all the OWGR criteria, which LIV does not. LIV has made things harder for themselves because they aren't following the criteria OWGR sets out, but they're crying because OWGR isn't falling all over themselves to award points. 

 

7 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Last bolded part, I haven't heard or read of them asking for full points as the PGAT.  That one is new to me and for the mathematical reasons above does not hold water.  

 

 

Obviously this is speculation, but the first thing I'd expect Norman to do if LIV was awarded points but they're not as many as he thinks his tour is worth is to whine about how unfair it is that they don't get more points. 

 

Obviously it's hard to argue something that hasn't happened yet... But would you honestly say you disagree with that assertion?

 

5 hours ago, HomaComa said:

The team aspect isn’t that big of a hurdle for OWGR points. That’s just an additional competition. It’s the lack of cuts and limited fields. LIV should restructure to have 72 man fields (18 teams of 4), and have a 54 hole cut where the top 48 guys move on. For the team competition at least 3 guys on the same team need to make the cut.

 

I'm not sure how big the team aspect is... However as discussed upthread, there was an instance of a LIV player admitting he was playing strategically on a putt specifically to protect his team's score. That IMHO makes it harder to award points, because OWGR is used as an entry criteria to majors which are individual events. It's one reason why they don't award points to the Ryder Cup, the President's Cup, or the Zurich. 

 

Now, since it IS primarily an individual stroke play format, with team only aligned on top, I'm not sure how much it matters. But it's yet another thing that OWGR has to consider where the format deviates from other tours that are awarded points.