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

[Holy Moses]

23 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. 

 

They needed immediate name recognition, even if those players were past their prime

[HomaComa]

The LIV guys should be pretty fresh for the final 2 majors of the year. Next event isn't til June 30 and the London event is a couple weeks before the Open. If they play well again in the final 2 majors, maybe there's something to the LIV schedule. 

[2bGood]

12 hours ago, Shilgy said:

 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?

 

Even this change was a half measure at best - as they will only relegate four players they dont want to keep. It is not based on performance. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by 2bGood

[King_Slender]

16 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)

 

I think this is the right direction and maybe we are overlooking the obvious since Sagarin is already basically doing it: 

 

1. Track a modified actual handicap of pro golfers in their tournament rounds (all rounds count, not just best 8 of last 20) for the last two years to determine a field strength. 
2. 1 point for each player you beat in a given round. 
3. After 1 year, devalue those points by half, so the most recent year is weighted more heavily - assuming there is agreement to make the world ranking a reflection of the last 2 years of play.

 

This would take care of many issues:

 

1. It values larger field, 4 round tournaments over 3 round tournaments, as you'd earn points in 4 rounds if you made the cut.
2. It values larger fields - the best round in a full PGA tournament would be 143 points, the best round in a LIV tournament would be 47 points. 
3. The advantage of LIV would be you are guaranteed 3 rounds of points in any given week. 
4. You can add in a strength of field multiplier

 

What if the majors and Ryder Cup came out tomorrow and said: "We are switching from the OWGR as a qualifier to the Sagarin Rankings."  

 

If I was the PGA, I would do that and undercut the LIV argument.  

[King_Slender]

10 hours ago, Shilgy said:

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?

 

Take a look at the Sagarin Rankings - I think it's a pretty accurate reflection, but could use some tweaking. 

 

It looks like it accurately ranks the LIV players (still some muddy data, since we really need to flush out all of their PGA Tour scores).  Once the data is clean, I think they could come up with an appropriate factor to apply to LIV tournaments, but the order seems pretty spot on.

[jdl]

On 5/29/2023 at 7:19 AM, 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. 

 

 

They got SI to come up with a new ranking system not long ago:

 

https://www.si.com/golf/rankings

 

20 hours ago, 2bGood said:

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....

 

I wouldn't suggest anything as my comment was tongue in cheek as indicated by the 😬 at the end. But it's really just to appease those that think the OWGR should be some kind of "independent" system.

 

18 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)

 

Doesn't include LIV events though:

 

EVENTS PLAYED:

• MEN -- 10 needed to qualify on nine worldwide tours: PGA Tour, PGA European Tour, Nationwide Tour, Japan Golf Tour, Southern Africa Tour, PGA Tour of AustralAsia, Asian PGA Tour, European Challenge Tour and the Canadian Tour.

Edited May 30, 2023 by jdl

[jls667]

12 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

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.

 

Agreed. They knew what the consequences were for leaving but yet they were so blinded by greed that they felt it was worth it and didn't care what happened in their wake. Included in the consequences were points and Ryder Cup eligibility. Contrast that with other top players who you know had the opportunities to leave but didn't because when they weighed the pros and cons, the consequences weren't worth it to them for the money. 

 

That said, I wouldn't lose my mind if Brooks and DJ play in the Ryder Cup. They're two of the very select few I miss seeing. The rest can continue their horse back ride into oblivion. However, I do think it's grossly unfair to the players who had the option to leave but they respected tradition, history, and competition more than money. It's a reward for that decision and to let any LIV player, no matter how good or well liked they are, have those rules bent for them so they can have their cake and eat it too is unacceptable.

 

My question to everyone else in this tiny world of ours who argue that they should get points and play in the Ryder Cup is why do you care more about this than the actual LIV players do? DJ, Brooks, Bryson, Reed, and HVIII all made their choices and obviously didn't care enough about those things to stay on the PGAT so why do you care for them? Imagine leaving your job for a higher paying job with a competitor, then your former coworkers demanding your former boss keep giving you bonuses even though you no longer work there. It's lunacy. They made their choice based on greed. Sometimes people you like make greedy and selfish choices. It doesn't mean you ex-communicate them from your life or treat them poorly but you have to let them live with the consequences of those choices. You don't enable them and bend rules or move the needle to accommodate their greed.

[CDM]

On 5/28/2023 at 8:28 AM, bscinstnct said:

 

“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. 
 

 

Ummmm you know that CAM finished 9th at the PGA Championship right?  I would assume you did since you follow golf so much so find it odd you would make the "less work" comment given he was top 10???

Edited May 30, 2023 by CDM

[CDM]

3 hours ago, jdl said:

 

They got SI to come up with a new ranking system not long ago:

 

https://www.si.com/golf/rankings

 

 

Never looked at SI's rankings or how it works but just looking at the list it seems pretty accurate on how the players are currently playing.   *Regardless of tour

[smashdn]

16 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

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.

 

Would you have cared if either or both came to the same conclusion as you and just quit playing.  "I have more money in my 20's than most will have in their entire lives.  It is enough.  I am just going to quit playing golf for money."

 

Seems you are trying to dictate how much money is ok to play for and how much is just greed.  Where is the line exactly and have any PGAT players crossed that line?  Phil and Tiger and Rory all had piles of money, much more than compared to some of the players who have chosen to play on the LIV Tour.

 

 

2 hours ago, jls667 said:

 

Agreed. They knew what the consequences were for leaving but yet they were so blinded by greed that they felt it was worth it and didn't care what happened in their wake. Included in the consequences were points and Ryder Cup eligibility. Contrast that with other top players who you know had the opportunities to leave but didn't because when they weighed the pros and cons, the consequences weren't worth it to them for the money. 

 

That said, I wouldn't lose my mind if Brooks and DJ play in the Ryder Cup. They're two of the very select few I miss seeing. The rest can continue their horse back ride into oblivion. However, I do think it's grossly unfair to the players who had the option to leave but they respected tradition, history, and competition more than money. It's a reward for that decision and to let any LIV player, no matter how good or well liked they are, have those rules bent for them so they can have their cake and eat it too is unacceptable.

 

So if you objectively weigh the pros and cons and come to one decision you are blinded by greed, do the same and come to another conclusion you have made the correct decision?

 

2 hours ago, jls667 said:

 

My question to everyone else in this tiny world of ours who argue that they should get points and play in the Ryder Cup is why do you care more about this than the actual LIV players do? DJ, Brooks, Bryson, Reed, and HVIII all made their choices and obviously didn't care enough about those things to stay on the PGAT so why do you care for them? Imagine leaving your job for a higher paying job with a competitor, then your former coworkers demanding your former boss keep giving you bonuses even though you no longer work there. It's lunacy. They made their choice based on greed. Sometimes people you like make greedy and selfish choices. It doesn't mean you ex-communicate them from your life or treat them poorly but you have to let them live with the consequences of those choices. You don't enable them and bend rules or move the needle to accommodate their greed.

 

I personally think the hypocrisy is cute and fun to point out.  Some people here don't really know why they believe what they do other than they think they are supposed to believe a certain way.  When you start to really get to the root of some of the issues you often find there are way more similarities than differences.

 

Specifically regarding the Ryder Cup, it is not operated by the PGAT but rather the PGA of A.  It has just been co-opted by the PGAT.  More hypocrisy in that the "wheels are greased" for the PGAT to be the only org that gets players in, as in the majors as well.  The "norms" are so established to only have one or two (if you count Euro/DPWT) top level pro-tours it has really upset the apple-cart having LIV.  All the methods and criteria never really entertained having a third tour with the talent level sufficient to warrant consideration for the majors.  Same deal with OWGR and some of the criteria there.  Some makes perfect sense.  Some seems like they copy-pasted the "established" golf tournament protocol and didn't bother to even consider there might be another way to get to the end.  Ham-bone effect.

 

Do you know for a fact any of these player's decision making criteria to determine that what they have decided is based upon greed and also selfish?  Seems rather bold to paint with that broad brush unless you too sat at the kitchen table when it was discussed with the player's wife, and caddy, coaches, sponsors, agents, etc.  I highly, highly doubt any of this was entered into without vetting.

Edited May 30, 2023 by smashdn

[billyspan]

3 hours ago, jdl said:

 

They got SI to come up with a new ranking system not long ago:

 

https://www.si.com/golf/rankings

 

 

I wouldn't suggest anything as my comment was tongue in cheek as indicated by the 😬 at the end. But it's really just to appease those that think the OWGR should be some kind of "independent" system.

 

 

Doesn't include LIV events though:

 

EVENTS PLAYED:

• MEN -- 10 needed to qualify on nine worldwide tours: PGA Tour, PGA European Tour, Nationwide Tour, Japan Golf Tour, Southern Africa Tour, PGA Tour of AustralAsia, Asian PGA Tour, European Challenge Tour and the Canadian Tour.

Golfweek/Sagarin Ranking DO include LIV events:  https://rankings.golfweek.com/rankings/default.asp?T=worldt

[billyspan]

5 hours ago, King_Slender said:

 

Take a look at the Sagarin Rankings - I think it's a pretty accurate reflection, but could use some tweaking. 

 

It looks like it accurately ranks the LIV players (still some muddy data, since we really need to flush out all of their PGA Tour scores).  Once the data is clean, I think they could come up with an appropriate factor to apply to LIV tournaments, but the order seems pretty spot on.

Sagarin has Koepka ranked at 55. I know he played poorly for months (years?) prior to April 2023, but that is awfully low!

[bladehunter]

16 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

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.

Agree there. Those two are my picks for most interesting as well .  Bubba I almost get.  Retirement funds and all. Bryson I don’t get.  Retiring that young is a recipe for a life of regret.  

[MaineMariner]

No Laying Up pointing out that Matthew Wolff has apparently been dropped from Smash GC's Twitter and Instagram bios. He also doesn't list LIV golf in his own bio, though I don't know if that's new.

 

 

 

If Wolff is off the team due to an injury or something, that's a very weird way to handle it. If he's out of LIV, that's a pretty sad outcome for Wolff. I hope the dude's okay.

[TiScape]

17 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

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.

I miss Cam the most. He was one of my favs on the PGAT. As much as I can’t stand Bryson the guy, I did enjoy watching him play. 
As it’s comes out, it seems Brooks leaped mainly bcs of the knee injury. Now that it has healed and he’s playing so well, I’d bet he’d rather be back on the tour if he was being honest. 

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, CDM said:

 

Ummmm you know the CAM finished 9th at the PGA Championship right?  I would assume you did since you follow golf so much so find it odd you would make the "less work" comment given he was top 10???

 

I’ll give props for a win, BK scoring a major, taking out the whole pga tour, is big for LIV. 

 

But a top-10? 
 

Meaningless.
 

Rory is getting abused for “another” top-10 and no win. 
 

Major wins are needed in a big way for LIV. I know they have a core following of fans but an equal number (or more) golf fans thing their events are exhibitions. 
 

Major wins are the only way they can get credibility. 

[CDM]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Agree there. Those two are my picks for most interesting as well .  Bubba I almost get.  Retirement funds and all. Bryson I don’t get.  Retiring that young is a recipe for a life of regret.  

 

IF you have the money and are smart with it......... I would of loved to do it  😃 

[bekgolf]

3 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Would you have cared if either or both came to the same conclusion as you and just quit playing.  "I have more money in my 20's than most will have in their entire lives.  It is enough.  I am just going to quit playing golf for money."

 

Seems you are trying to dictate how much money is ok to play for and how much is just greed.  Where is the line exactly and have any PGAT players crossed that line?  Phil and Tiger and Rory all had piles of money, much more than compared to some of the players who have chosen to play on the LIV Tour.

 

 

 

So if you objectively weigh the pros and cons and come to one decision you are blinded by greed, do the same and come to another conclusion you have made the correct decision?

 

 

I personally think the hypocrisy is cute and fun to point out.  Some people here don't really know why they believe what they do other than they think they are supposed to believe a certain way.  When you start to really get to the root of some of the issues you often find there are way more similarities than differences.

 

Specifically regarding the Ryder Cup, it is not operated by the PGAT but rather the PGA of A.  It has just been co-opted by the PGAT.  More hypocrisy in that the "wheels are greased" for the PGAT to be the only org that gets players in, as in the majors as well.  The "norms" are so established to only have one or two (if you count Euro/DPWT) top level pro-tours it has really upset the apple-cart having LIV.  All the methods and criteria never really entertained having a third tour with the talent level sufficient to warrant consideration for the majors.  Same deal with OWGR and some of the criteria there.  Some makes perfect sense.  Some seems like they copy-pasted the "established" golf tournament protocol and didn't bother to even consider there might be another way to get to the end.  Ham-bone effect.

 

Do you know for a fact any of these player's decision making criteria to determine that what they have decided is based upon greed and also selfish?  Seems rather bold to paint with that broad brush unless you too sat at the kitchen table when it was discussed with the player's wife, and caddy, coaches, sponsors, agents, etc.  I highly, highly doubt any of this was entered into without vetting.

 

I'm a golf fan, I chose who I like and why.  Golf fans are why advertisers pay what they do for airtime during a tournament.  Fans are what make professional sports possible, a player abandoning a fan is going to change their fan base.

 

They got more money good for them.  It's what was most important for them.

 

 

[jimecherry]

2 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I’ll give props for a win, BK scoring a major, taking out the whole pga tour, is big for LIV. 

 

But a top-10? 
 

Meaningless.
 

Rory is getting abused for “another” top-10 and no win. 
 

Major wins are needed in a big way for LIV. I know they have a core following of fans but an equal number (or more) golf fans thing their events are exhibitions. 
 

Major wins are the only way they can get credibility. 

if one major isnt changing anyones mind 4-5 wont either unless its by guys that dont already have them.

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, CDM said:

 

IF you have the money and are smart with it......... I would of loved to do it  😃 

I think it depends on the personality.  I am not the type who can just lounge and do nothing.   So if I hit the mother load today ….. I’d be buying more property and equipment tomorrow.  I’d have enough land that it would take days to see it all.  That way I never ran out of things to do.  Build a course ….etc. so I never had to leave.  
 

the thing is though.  A man with no purpose… is a dead man walking.  Bubba has a family.  Purpose enough.  But Bryson just has his bros.  All the money on earth with no aim  is going to equal regret later. Chasing greatness is a young man’s game.  I just see it as wasting his time and talent.  

[Golferpaul]

6 hours ago, bladehunter said:

 Bryson I don’t get.  Retiring that young is a recipe for a life of regret.  

Strange comment.  I retired at 61 and love it.  I have a friend who retired at 45 and loves it.  What is there to regret?

[Golferpaul]

Rohm and Scotty said it best;

 

Following the PGA Championship, where Brooks Koepka became the first LIV golfer to win a major, Scheffler noted that he does “not care about tours or anything like that.”

 

Rohm: “It’s a little sad that politics have gotten in the way of such a beautiful event,” Rahm admitted. “Again, it’s the best Europeans against the best Americans, period. And whatever is going on, who is playing LIV and who is not playing LIV to me, shouldn’t matter. It’s whoever is best suited to represent the European side.”

[pingbling23]

5 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I’ll give props for a win, BK scoring a major, taking out the whole pga tour, is big for LIV. 

 

But a top-10? 
 

Meaningless.
 

Rory is getting abused for “another” top-10 and no win. 
 

Major wins are needed in a big way for LIV. I know they have a core following of fans but an equal number (or more) golf fans thing their events are exhibitions. 
 

Major wins are the only way they can get credibility. 

If that’s the measuring stick for anti LIVers then they have great odds.  So far LIV players have surprisingly done well.

[Noles]

7 hours ago, CDM said:

 

Ummmm you know that CAM finished 9th at the PGA Championship right?  I would assume you did since you follow golf so much so find it odd you would make the "less work" comment given he was top 10???

He was never in contention...65 on Sunday is golf's version of a backdoor cover.  For some that would be considered a success but if you are at the level that Cam is supposed to be at, that isn't really a successful week.

[Babydaddy]

8 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Would you have cared if either or both came to the same conclusion as you and just quit playing.  "I have more money in my 20's than most will have in their entire lives.  It is enough.  I am just going to quit playing golf for money."

 

Seems you are trying to dictate how much money is ok to play for and how much is just greed.  Where is the line exactly and have any PGAT players crossed that line?  Phil and Tiger and Rory all had piles of money, much more than compared to some of the players who have chosen to play on the LIV Tour.

 

 

 

So if you objectively weigh the pros and cons and come to one decision you are blinded by greed, do the same and come to another conclusion you have made the correct decision?

 

 

I personally think the hypocrisy is cute and fun to point out.  Some people here don't really know why they believe what they do other than they think they are supposed to believe a certain way.  When you start to really get to the root of some of the issues you often find there are way more similarities than differences.

 

Specifically regarding the Ryder Cup, it is not operated by the PGAT but rather the PGA of A.  It has just been co-opted by the PGAT.  More hypocrisy in that the "wheels are greased" for the PGAT to be the only org that gets players in, as in the majors as well.  The "norms" are so established to only have one or two (if you count Euro/DPWT) top level pro-tours it has really upset the apple-cart having LIV.  All the methods and criteria never really entertained having a third tour with the talent level sufficient to warrant consideration for the majors.  Same deal with OWGR and some of the criteria there.  Some makes perfect sense.  Some seems like they copy-pasted the "established" golf tournament protocol and didn't bother to even consider there might be another way to get to the end.  Ham-bone effect.

 

Do you know for a fact any of these player's decision making criteria to determine that what they have decided is based upon greed and also selfish?  Seems rather bold to paint with that broad brush unless you too sat at the kitchen table when it was discussed with the player's wife, and caddy, coaches, sponsors, agents, etc.  I highly, highly doubt any of this was entered into without vetting.

I would humbly submit regarding the Ryder Cup- The Ryder cup as we know it, really started after 1979- and while it may not be openly discussed, it got compelling because it became the Euro tour vs the PGA tour. The emergence of players like Seve, Langer, Woosnam, Faldo, Montgomerie, etc.. spurred that fire. The chip on the Euro's shoulder was more about "hey, we can play golf over here too" and with the tendency toward a more collectivist mindset in European countries "we travel, room and eat together and are a real team because of our tour". This as opposed to the Americans which were seen as individuals that reluctantly got grouped as a "team" for no pay in an "exhibition". The European tour was really the opposing side in the Ryder cup- I don't sense that it was about "country" as much for those that played in Europe. Sure, you had the Spanish Armada etc.., but it really seemed to me that it always wrapped in giving the business to the cocky Americans and their "country club" tour. 

I believe that things started to change when guys like Westwood and Poulter came to the States to play full time. It seemed like that started the every man for himself thing and a focus more on money (PGA Tour). Which, they were popular players that had some American sponsors. You can't blame them for wanting to maximize their earning potential.

It appears to me that this LIV thing is a different animal for those on the DP/European tour than it is for the PGA and it is possibly because of this backstory of being united on the Euro tour. The I can see how Euro players see the move to LIV as a direct betrayal of the thing that made the Ryder Cup so compelling in the first place. I think this is what has made that tour so hardline about keeping LIV players out of the proceedings. 

I think the discussion about what the Ryder Cup actually is has changed because of that, but with Stenson relinquishing his captaincy for money, that seems like it was a real line in the sand. We have the Olympics, the Dunhill cup to play "for country". The tragedy of all of this (I can imagine) in the minds of the Euro tour players is the death of that spirit that made their tour and the Ryder cup so compelling. 

In the end, the debate is rooted in the question "what is the Ryder Cup now in the face of all this?" 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Babydaddy

[Rob G 89]

With all the injuries you think we might see some mid season pga deflections?or they gonna use Asian tour replacements like they have been doing?

[idrive]

9 hours ago, Rob G 89 said:

With all the injuries you think we might see some mid season pga deflections?or they gonna use Asian tour replacements like they have been doing?

 

IF there are some PGA guys wanting to join liv they're most likely the guys GN isn't interested in.

 

He doesn't want the average PGA player. He wants the top 50.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of the bottom feeders that would join liv for no other reason than they will never be relevant on the PGAT. The others that GN would take aren't interested. Obviously, or they would be gone already.

[bscinstnct]

15 hours ago, jimecherry said:

if one major isnt changing anyones mind 4-5 wont either unless its by guys that dont already have them.

 

You may be right.

 

But if BK wins another major this year, there’s no question which tour the best player in the world plays on.

 

That will definitely bring more liv viewers.

 

Not to mention the top pga tour pros will be fielding some pretty embarrassing questions at press conferences lol

[bladehunter]

14 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

Strange comment.  I retired at 61 and love it.  I have a friend who retired at 45 and loves it.  What is there to regret?

What’s your purpose ?   Some of us aren’t wired for consuming.  
 

bryson may be finding purpose outside of golf in his retirement.  For sure it’s doable. But I haven’t read or seen him mention it.  The regret won’t come until he’s too old to reverse it.     Guys at that level of competition aren’t guys who can just sit around.  That drive is part of their dna.  See Arnold , jack , player for easy low hanging examples.  Plenty of people don’t have that.  So I get not understanding that perspective.  . But for those who do , quitting and cashing out with No forward plan , aim or purpose is hard to imagine.  

[aus10KC]

25 minutes ago, idrive said:

 

IF there are some PGA guys wanting to join liv they're most likely the guys GN isn't interested in.

 

He doesn't want the average PGA player. He wants the top 50.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of the bottom feeders that would join liv for no other reason than they will never be relevant on the PGAT. The others that GN would take aren't interested. Obviously, or they would be gone already.

 

 

Guys with PGAT cards are not going to risk suspension to be a fill in, they need guaranteed money to offset and a regular spot. The better the player the more money LIV will need to pony up. And that right there is a huge problem for the Saudi Tour, they have set the precedent and until they become accepted in the ecosystem they will have to continue to pay for talent. This is probably why they are so hell bent on OWGR, gives them acceptance in the ecosystem.