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

[Purple Toupee]

13 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

“The grind”?

 

LIV requires 14 events, add majors (for the guys who can get in). With 5 events in Europe or Asia/Australia 

 

Thats 18. If you’re only playing 14, you couldn’t get into any majors. 

 

PGA Tour is 20 and that includes all events including Majors, Fedex, and Players. Not sure if any are overseas besides the Open. 

 

Once again, Phil is self serving up smoke and mirrors ; )

 

 

 

 

Always omitting the fact that 14 LIV events is 2 weeks less work than 14 PGAT events.  Funny how you guys always seem to leave that part out.

[bladehunter]

12 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

Yes, I'm confused.  The OWGR clearly had several LIV players ranked way too low.  And yet you think it was accurate.  What is accurate about ranking the guy who almost won two major at position 52?  You think Brooks at 52 was accurate?  If so, I'm even more confused about your definition of accurate.

There is no accurate or inaccurate with the world rankings.  It’s only a tally of points earned.    The best player on earth could be in college or on a island somewhere undiscovered for all we know. The world rankings don’t bestow any talent , or even recognize any talent.  They’re just a tally of points earned.  The players who retired to go to LIV can’t earn these points except in a few places they have playing privileges or otherwise qualify for  .  That’s all.  

[AltC]

7 hours ago, bladehunter said:

There is no accurate or inaccurate with the world rankings.  It’s only a tally of points earned.    The best player on earth could be in college or on a island somewhere undiscovered for all we know. The world rankings don’t bestow any talent , or even recognize any talent.  They’re just a tally of points earned.  The players who retired to go to LIV can’t earn these points except in a few places they have playing privileges or otherwise qualify for  .  That’s all.  

Completely agree with your logic - however the issue is not accuracy but relevance. This is where the problem of “talent” becomes an issue - an “Official World Golf Ranking” system which only reflects some players talent versus the “whole” (excluding the guy on the yet to be discovered island) loses credibility over time as the outliers are still significant golfing talents. However the LIV guys knew this was an issue but ignored this “heritage” aspect due to incentives offered- so no sympathy there - but will golf end up like boxing - 4 different champions? I think not common sense will prevail - at least the Major hosting organisations have not lost perspective yet - but the time is coming - I guess they are hoping for a return to simplicity before hard choices have to be made to protect the integrity of their respective competitions - where talent absolutely is the criteria.

[jdl]

20 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

Yes, I'm confused.  The OWGR clearly had several LIV players ranked way too low.  And yet you think it was accurate.  What is accurate about ranking the guy who almost won two major at position 52?  You think Brooks at 52 was accurate?  If so, I'm even more confused about your definition of accurate.

 

Good, the first step in solving a problem is admitting there is a problem. Let me help try and alleviate your confusion. It seems the first issue is you have trouble following a conversation across multiple posts. Certainly the format of this board doesn't help things there as while there are references to the previous posts and a quote feature, not having a threaded format can cause the context to lose traction.

 

But this started when Cactus J said:

 

the OWGR results are not accurate. The system changed, and all everyone wants   Are accurate rankings. 

 

So we can accept they are "not accurate" (though I contend they may still be, given the OWGR's reason to exist but that will just confuse you more).

 

My response was that nothing has "changed" with the system, the cause of the "not accurate" part is the LIV players leaving the "system".

 

So again, not really commenting on the accuracy as much as what was this "change". 

 

That's when you jumped in and started down the "accuracy" path which really wasn't the gist of my point about the root cause of the "change".

 

So I'll ask again, what was the change here? OWGR did change to start using strokes gained to get the strength of field, but that really has nothing to do with any claimed "inaccuracies" and was in motion well before LIV existed. 

[bscinstnct]

13 hours ago, Purple Toupee said:

Always omitting the fact that 14 LIV events is 2 weeks less work than 14 PGAT events.  Funny how you guys always seem to leave that part out.

 

Ya, and awarded OWGR points accordingly.

 

“Funny” how Phil “left that part out” ; )

 

“Less work” is great for Brooks perhaps . Phil is all too eager to jump on the BK bandwagon. Let’s see how “less work” works in majors for Cam and the rest. 
 

Tiger, Jordan, Brady, the poor saps worked their butts off even after they “made it”.

 

 

 

Tom, don’t you realize you can step away from the “grind”, do “less work” and still win Super Bowls?

 

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by bscinstnct

[2bGood]

52 minutes ago, jdl said:

 

Good, the first step in solving a problem is admitting there is a problem. Let me help try and alleviate your confusion. It seems the first issue is you have trouble following a conversation across multiple posts. Certainly the format of this board doesn't help things there as while there are references to the previous posts and a quote feature, not having a threaded format can cause the context to lose traction.

 

But this started when Cactus J said:

 

the OWGR results are not accurate. The system changed, and all everyone wants   Are accurate rankings. 

 

So we can accept they are "not accurate" (though I contend they may still be, given the OWGR's reason to exist but that will just confuse you more).

 

My response was that nothing has "changed" with the system, the cause of the "not accurate" part is the LIV players leaving the "system".

 

So again, not really commenting on the accuracy as much as what was this "change". 

 

That's when you jumped in and started down the "accuracy" path which really wasn't the gist of my point about the root cause of the "change".

 

So I'll ask again, what was the change here? OWGR did change to start using strokes gained to get the strength of field, but that really has nothing to do with any claimed "inaccuracies" and was in motion well before LIV existed. 

Inaccurate is not really the right word to use in this discussion. OWGR is 100% accurate to my knowledge at doing what it set out to do and using it's methodology. The OWGR stated mission is:

 

The mission of the OWGR is to administer and publish, on a weekly basis, a transparent, credible, and accurate Ranking based on the relative performances of players participating in male Eligible Golf Tours worldwide.

 

They do this very well.

 

If their mission was to identify the best player in the world, regardless of where they play golf, they are not doing that (and not trying to do it or say they do it). 

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, AltC said:

Completely agree with your logic - however the issue is not accuracy but relevance. This is where the problem of “talent” becomes an issue - an “Official World Golf Ranking” system which only reflects some players talent versus the “whole” (excluding the guy on the yet to be discovered island) loses credibility over time as the outliers are still significant golfing talents. However the LIV guys knew this was an issue but ignored this “heritage” aspect due to incentives offered- so no sympathy there - but will golf end up like boxing - 4 different champions? I think not common sense will prevail - at least the Major hosting organisations have not lost perspective yet - but the time is coming - I guess they are hoping for a return to simplicity before hard choices have to be made to protect the integrity of their respective competitions - where talent absolutely is the criteria.

I understand what you’re saying.  But I think yes is the answer. It will end up as several different champions.  This was and is a major gripe of us who hate the idea of a competing tour.  It’s dilutes the product.  
 

as far as talent on the LIV.  It’s yet to be seen of it will remain or continue. Brooks is the only one who shows signs of keeping his edge.  
 

on the world golf rankings-  I’m one who never thought the system had much credibility to begin with.  We’ve had guys make it back to #1 because of what they did 2 years ago , in the past.  In my opinion it should be a season to season ranking , for pga tour players.  Like Major League Baseball or the NBA.  The pga tour is the top of the sport.  The rest are feeder tours.  So you can be the #1 LIV player.   But that wouldn’t  translate to a pga tour world ranking.  
 

the outliers maybe significant golf talents in some cases , but they’re not playing the big stage. So it’s a moot point.  Just like the guy on the island we don’t know yet.  Until we see him beat the best.  It’s just a fact with no practical meaning .   Brooks is good.  For sure. But he chose to hide it.  He will show up 4 times a year and contend. For that we will call him a “ great major champion “.  But he can’t be #1 in the world. He’s not playing against the best fields weekly.  

[mshills]

17 hours ago, ws6 said:

LIV will need new players to keep the tour going.  

 

I'm curious what LIV's plan is to bring in new players?  Is there another path other than bigger contracts and purses?  

This is a very good question and not one I’ve seen any information on. I’d love to know what the mechanism is to add players, qualify for LIV events, get on the tour, etc. 

[jimecherry]

2 hours ago, jdl said:

 

Good, the first step in solving a problem is admitting there is a problem. Let me help try and alleviate your confusion. It seems the first issue is you have trouble following a conversation across multiple posts. Certainly the format of this board doesn't help things there as while there are references to the previous posts and a quote feature, not having a threaded format can cause the context to lose traction.

 

But this started when Cactus J said:

 

the OWGR results are not accurate. The system changed, and all everyone wants   Are accurate rankings. 

 

So we can accept they are "not accurate" (though I contend they may still be, given the OWGR's reason to exist but that will just confuse you more).

 

My response was that nothing has "changed" with the system, the cause of the "not accurate" part is the LIV players leaving the "system".

 

So again, not really commenting on the accuracy as much as what was this "change". 

 

That's when you jumped in and started down the "accuracy" path which really wasn't the gist of my point about the root cause of the "change".

 

So I'll ask again, what was the change here? OWGR did change to start using strokes gained to get the strength of field, but that really has nothing to do with any claimed "inaccuracies" and was in motion well before LIV existed. 

there was a change last year independent of liv that allowed for tournaments to award points to players that had no owgr points prior. This change  effected tournaments with weaker fields cause those points came out of an unchanged total pool. of course i doubt golferpaul was referring to that change.

[Shilgy]

On 5/26/2023 at 6:10 PM, tiderider said:

lol ... bit of a reach there ... 

a bit?  Lol….when one of the “criteria” apparently was to be Brooks brother.🤣

 

When it comes to OWGR ranking points many of the suggestions, as others have noted, hav already been tried by Greg and his cronies. Like using the MENA tour.  The board was having none of that silliness.

 

But a bit of a question for the proponents like @CDM @Golferpaul @Cactus Jack and company.  Currently this tour being discussed “seems” to be worthy of having some points awarded.  They do have Brooks and Cam who would likely be top ten players if still on a real tour…..and DJ and Bryson below that level…..then Reed and ??  Anyone else in the next level?  Can you really be certain a Gooch or Varner would be top 60 today? Top 100? Guys like Westwood and Poulter certainly had their best days behind them and Sergio was pushing that.
 
Point being without bringing in or even developing new real talent how would you give them points as the current players age out?  Based on previous performance at LIV alone?  In an imaginary wold where in ten years LIV is still breathing and the same players are on teams how could they value events for points?  Th only influx they will be getting will be Asian tour guys that couldn’t cut it on bigger stages.

[Holy Moses]

18 hours ago, ws6 said:

LIV will need new players to keep the tour going.  

 

I'm curious what LIV's plan is to bring in new players?  Is there another path other than bigger contracts and purses?  

No other in-their-prime stars are leaving for LIV. There’s no reason to. LIV is tightening the purse strings and you can make just as much money on the PGA Tour and with sponsors. And get OWGR points and play in the majors and choose your own schedule. 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Holy Moses

[jdl]

3 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Inaccurate is not really the right word to use in this discussion. OWGR is 100% accurate to my knowledge at doing what it set out to do and using it's methodology. The OWGR stated mission is:

 

The mission of the OWGR is to administer and publish, on a weekly basis, a transparent, credible, and accurate Ranking based on the relative performances of players participating in male Eligible Golf Tours worldwide.

 

They do this very well.

 

If their mission was to identify the best player in the world, regardless of where they play golf, they are not doing that (and not trying to do it or say they do it). 

 

 

 

Yeah, that was what I was hinting at. They should probably just re-name them. 😁

[CCTxGolf]

I’ve gotten to where I truly feel a LIV event is MUCH more exciting then a regular or non-elevated PGA event. They are starting to find something in that space.

 

great win for HV3

[Dicka]

10 hours ago, mshills said:

This is a very good question and not one I’ve seen any information on. I’d love to know what the mechanism is to add players, qualify for LIV events, get on the tour, etc. 

 

There's no "mechanism". A name simply drops on Norman's desk...and he makes the decision. I'm guessing if a player sweet talks him, he's far more likely to be granted a spot.

[bscinstnct]

10 hours ago, Holy Moses said:

No other in-their-prime stars are leaving for LIV. There’s no reason to. LIV is tightening the purse strings and you can make just as much money on the PGA Tour and with sponsors. And get OWGR points and play in the majors and choose your own schedule. 

 

They made a huge mistake shelling out money for guys like

 

Poulter

Westwood

Sergio

Casey

Stenson

Na

Bubba

 

I think all these guys got like 30-50MM

 

They add nothing to liv being seen as a top tour and, for me, they are a reason I don’t watch. 
 

Also Perez Schwarzel Oost some others

 

LIV should have spent more money on younger guys. Big hitters, good personalities. 
 

A young dynamic with young teams built around just the top names they got. The kids would be fired up and there would be a more exciting vibe than with these old guys. 

 

[philly2kuk]

LIV must be losing traction as I didn’t even know there was a tournament this week until I saw the thread about it on here. Certainly seen nothing in the UK media nor does anyone at my club even discuss it anymore. If it wasn’t for WRX and the players appearing at the majors, I’d have thought they’d fallen off the face of the earth.

[King_Slender]

In regards to the OWGR I think Greg and team are taking the wrong approach by just whining about it and trying to shoehorn LIV into those rankings.  There are many reasonable arguments as to why LIV simply can't be judged under the same criteria as 144 player, 4 round cut tournaments.

 

What I think they should be doing is proposing a new ranking system.  ESPN did something similar for the NFL in coming up with their own QB ranking system that was more situational in rating versus the old QB rating system.  It's not perfect, but I think LIV need to take that first step.  

 

How would they go about that?  Not sure, but I'd try to make it a combination of something like a player's average strokes gained in a tournament combined with additional points for Top 10s or whatever. 

 

[bcjim]

How was attendance at the DC event? It's a local course for me and I was barely aware of it except,  also, for the other thread here. 

[jkumpire]

Please feel free to move this Mods...

 

Being left-handed I have always been a Phil fan. Then I saw and read how he treats people in public, especially kids and fans during tournaments, and my respect for him grew.

 

I was even able to be a fan as the nasty rumors and possible criminal things were revealed, because a lot of it (especially the gambling debts) seemed like smoke-and-mirrors to me, including lots of stuff in Shackford's book.

 

But this last t**-for-tat argument argument with Brandal Chamblee is it. Phil has needed just to play golf and stop all the controversy, but he couldn't. He had to know that the LIV Golf deal would be a huge controversy when he signed on, but instead of just playing golf he turned into a verbal arsonist, throwing gasoline on every controversy.

 

Whether he lives in a glass house or not, he should stop throwing stones at people who disagree with what he did, and what he says. He has played wonderfully in 2 majors this year, especially being a 53 year old guy with a very debilitating disease he has to deal with. But he couldn't stop with the stuff that only wrecks his reputation.

 

Instead of being a world class golfer he is acting like the first golfing Kardashian, getting lots of attention for what he says, not what he does. It gets him lots of attention, and ruins his reputation. Phil, please just retire and go away.    

Edited May 29, 2023 by jkumpire

[King_Slender]

2 hours ago, bcjim said:

How was attendance at the DC event? It's a local course for me and I was barely aware of it except,  also, for the other thread here. 

 

It was the most attended LIV event and on TV seemed to be good crowds around the course, for the most part.  

 

I think what people forget about crowds for PGA events is that they naturally get larger as the day goes on.  Once the leaders tee off and finish a hole, the course is empty behind them, so the crowds build and build to 18.  LIV doing a shotgun start mitigates that - someone who wants to watch Phil, DJ, or Brooks if they aren't in the to 2 groups could be anywhere on the course when the leaders finish.

 

I think this is a miss for LIV and they should do a traditional start on Sunday.

[fowlerscousin]

It was well attended, and had a heart pounding finish.

[bscinstnct]

Lotta info here.2 LIV execs interviewed in DC.
 

 At face value, says this is a multi decade plan, no mention of any profitability milestones. “Corporate sponsors” for the teams still part of the plan. And some big time optimism as far as working with the pga tour, at this point it seems delusional.   

 

 

 

“According to two LIV executives this week at LIV Golf Washington D.C., the business plan that was presented to the PIF before LIV Golf’s launch was a multi-decade plan, so there are no surprises internally if the investment takes a while to flourish.”

 

 

We're not going anywhere,” the executive said. “There's an opportunity for more teams, the opportunity to cross-pollinate from an all-star PGA Tour team that might have the top four FedEx players coming to compete in every event or our top four players playing in the Players Championship, whatever it might be.”

 

https://www.si.com/golf/.amp/news/one-year-in-business-liv-golf-execs-vow-improvement-were-not-going-anywhere

 

I guess it all depends on how long PIF is content with no time horizon on meaningful revenue much less profitability. 
 

If they are prepared to invest 20 Billion over the next 10 years, you’d think they can keep strengthening the field with good names. 

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by bscinstnct

[orr444]

16 hours ago, CCTxGolf said:

I’ve gotten to where I truly feel a LIV event is MUCH more exciting then a regular or non-elevated PGA event. They are starting to find something in that space.

 

great win for HV3

There is plenty of space at their events that's for sure!!

[bscinstnct]

LIV Golf is putting its events back on YouTube — but you're going to have to pay for it
 

“ after the first six events of the league's second season recorded subpar ratings, LIV has decided to put its broadcasts back on YouTube.

 

But it comes with a price.

Fans will have to pay $2.99 for each day of the coverage, however, "viewers in certain regions will have the ability to watch live coverage on the LIV Golf YouTube channel for free, depending on the third-party partnership in each global territory," according to LIVGolf.com.“

 

[2bGood]

22 hours ago, jdl said:

Yeah, that was what I was hinting at. They should probably just re-name them. 😁

What would you suggest? The nomenclature around sports is pretty easy to pick apart and not too precise in most instances. 

 

It ranks golfer from around the world, seems fine enough. The Eligible Tour Golf Rankings does not have the same ring....

[2bGood]

17 hours ago, King_Slender said:

In regards to the OWGR I think Greg and team are taking the wrong approach by just whining about it and trying to shoehorn LIV into those rankings.  There are many reasonable arguments as to why LIV simply can't be judged under the same criteria as 144 player, 4 round cut tournaments.

 

What I think they should be doing is proposing a new ranking system.  ESPN did something similar for the NFL in coming up with their own QB ranking system that was more situational in rating versus the old QB rating system.  It's not perfect, but I think LIV need to take that first step.  

 

How would they go about that?  Not sure, but I'd try to make it a combination of something like a player's average strokes gained in a tournament combined with additional points for Top 10s or whatever. 

 

In allot of ways this idea is consistent in how the OWGR got started. Before they existed the PGAT money leaderboard was the ranking, but the R&A thought that other events/golfers should be ranked and they spearheaded the new ranking system to meet their needs as a gateway to get into the Open. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by 2bGood

[Golferpaul]

On 5/28/2023 at 11:40 AM, Shilgy said:

a bit?  Lol….when one of the “criteria” apparently was to be Brooks brother.🤣

 

When it comes to OWGR ranking points many of the suggestions, as others have noted, hav already been tried by Greg and his cronies. Like using the MENA tour.  The board was having none of that silliness.

 

But a bit of a question for the proponents like @CDM @Golferpaul @Cactus Jack and company.  Currently this tour being discussed “seems” to be worthy of having some points awarded.  They do have Brooks and Cam who would likely be top ten players if still on a real tour…..and DJ and Bryson below that level…..then Reed and ??  Anyone else in the next level?  Can you really be certain a Gooch or Varner would be top 60 today? Top 100? Guys like Westwood and Poulter certainly had their best days behind them and Sergio was pushing that.
 
Point being without bringing in or even developing new real talent how would you give them points as the current players age out?  Based on previous performance at LIV alone?  In an imaginary wold where in ten years LIV is still breathing and the same players are on teams how could they value events for points?  Th only influx they will be getting will be Asian tour guys that couldn’t cut it on bigger stages.

I can't imagine LIV surviving ten years, so the process of developing new talent is not something I care about.

 

But the best way to measure players is to use head-to-head results.  If you beat 30 players in an event, your points should reflect that.  If you beat 150 players, the points should reflect that.  Then it doesn't matter if there is a cut or not.  And the size of the field will automatically produce less points for smaller fields.

 

Sagarin has been doing essentially that for years and includes pros, amateurs, and college players.

 

Men's Professional Rankings (golfweek.com)

[idrive]

10 hours ago, bcjim said:

How was attendance at the DC event? It's a local course for me and I was barely aware of it except,  also, for the other thread here. 

 

Considering they have not released viewing #'s (again) then I'd assume they weren't too spectacular.

 

The fact that they are back on YouTube (for an additional cost) I'd have to assume they are trying every avenue to increase their viewership, which isn't happening.

 

What very little interest there is, is slowly, continually declining.

 

If the #'s were worth talking about we would have certainly heard from GN.

[bekgolf]

20 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

They made a huge mistake shelling out money for guys like

 

Poulter

Westwood

Sergio

Casey

Stenson

Na

Bubba

 

I think all these guys got like 30-50MM

 

They add nothing to liv being seen as a top tour and, for me, they are a reason I don’t watch. 
 

Also Perez Schwarzel Oost some others

 

LIV should have spent more money on younger guys. Big hitters, good personalities. 
 

A young dynamic with young teams built around just the top names they got. The kids would be fired up and there would be a more exciting vibe than with these old guys. 

 

 

Bryson and Bubba are the only ones I miss.  What's really crazy is they had more money in their 20's than most will have in their entire lives but it just wasn't enough, they left the group that made it all possible for even more money.  I see it as a big fu to anyone who rooted for them when they played on the PGA Tour.

[Shilgy]

5 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

I can't imagine LIV surviving ten years, so the process of developing new talent is not something I care about.

 

But the best way to measure players is to use head-to-head results.  If you beat 30 players in an event, your points should reflect that.  If you beat 150 players, the points should reflect that.  Then it doesn't matter if there is a cut or not.  And the size of the field will automatically produce less points for smaller fields.

 

Sagarin has been doing essentially that for years and includes pros, amateurs, and college players.

 

Men's Professional Rankings (golfweek.com)

My point, which you passed on I guess is what exactly are they rated?  Certainly you agree that who you are beating-by ranking value not name value-comes into play as well as the size of the field?  So the question becomes who are you beating?  
 

  As I noted currently Brooks and Cam are still quality players capable of being top 10 in the rankings.  But the others have not proven much and even if they had the depth of the field, not just the number of players, comes into play.  
 

That is the now question that the OWGR board has…along with the team issue and the no cut issue and the 54 holes issue and the rest of the issues they have raised and LIV’s only response has been to announce they’ll relegate four players at seasons end.

 

So the boards issue is not only what ranking points could they get IF they met the necessary criteria but going forward matters.  You don’t care what happens in ten years but I’d bet the rankings board does.  
 

If they won’t have any turnover and only play their little closed shop why bother certifying them?