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

[bcjim]

1 hour ago, redfirebird08 said:

What’s tough with this Houston event is the timing. It’s brutally hot and humid from May to September in Houston. You really want to have a tournament around March to provide decent weather for the players and fans.
 

That said, there are 7 million people in the Houston region and plenty of them will be willing to put up with the scorching weather to watch players like Bryson & Koepka. 

I'm guessing attendance will be poor especially when adjusted for the 7M locals. And then if those days are particularly unpleasant...could be a ghost town.

 

What LIV has not understood is that something has to be on the line besides money won by already pre- and over-paid guys playing against a handful of other pre- and over-paid guys.

 

The PGA  tour has the advantage of history. Winning the Houston Open (against 155 other golfers, half of whom will leave the city in the red) means something.

 

Look at it this way: Would you pay to go watch Rahm or DJ or Richard Bland (lol) hit trick shots? Probably not, right? Well, these events are on about the same on the level. There is no meaning, no history. Is it entertaining? Not to me, maybe to some.

 

 

[Archimedes65]

1 hour ago, redfirebird08 said:

What’s tough with this Houston event is the timing. It’s brutally hot and humid from May to September in Houston. You really want to have a tournament around March to provide decent weather for the players and fans.
 

That said, there are 7 million people in the Houston region and plenty of them will be willing to put up with the scorching weather to watch players like Bryson & Koepka. 

 

Define plenty…😂  LIV isn’t getting big crowds anywhere except for golf starved Australia, and even there total attendance was half that of a big PGA Tour event.  Convincing people to sit out in 100 degree sun and 95% humidity to watch a handful of stars, but mostly has-beens, play a glorified member-member tournament in their shorts is probably going to be a tough sell to the masses.  Without a real broadcast contract though, it’s all moot.

 

I lived in Houston for seven years.  You couldn’t pay me to go watch a golf tournament there in the summer.

[tomjas]

11 minutes ago, bcjim said:

I'm guessing attendance will be poor especially when adjusted for the 7M locals. And then if those days are particularly unpleasant...could be a ghost town.

 

What LIV has not understood is that something has to be on the line besides money won by already pre- and over-paid guys playing against a handful of other pre- and over-paid guys.

 

The PGA  tour has the advantage of history. Winning the Houston Open (against 155 other golfers, half of whom will leave the city in the red) means something.

 

Look at it this way: Would you pay to go watch Rahm or DJ or Richard Bland (lol) hit trick shots? Probably not, right? Well, these events are on about the same on the level. There is no meaning, no history. Is it entertaining? Not to me, maybe to some.

 

 

Other than die hard fans, very few people care about the Houston Open or the majority of tour events either 

 

Unlike others here, I am not opposed to LIV as it’s all golf to me but they need to be logical 

 

There’s a reason why Adelaide has been successful and other events aren’t & Houston simply doesn’t meet the criteria 

[Archimedes65]

32 minutes ago, tomjas said:

Other than die hard fans, very few people care about the Houston Open or the majority of tour events either 

 

Unlike others here, I am not opposed to LIV as it’s all golf to me but they need to be logical 

 

There’s a reason why Adelaide has been successful and other events aren’t & Houston simply doesn’t meet the criteria 

 

You do know that they sold more tickets for this year’s pedestrian Houston Open than LIV did for its ‘bonanza’ in Adelaide, right?  All LIV has to do is find more golf starved countries where they can be the only game in town and they’ll be able to host some tournaments that match the attendance at an off-week PGA Tour event.  Of course, nobody will see it because it’ll be streaming on MySpace at 2 in the morning here in the States.

[tomjas]

27 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

You do know that they sold more tickets for this year’s pedestrian Houston Open than LIV did for its ‘bonanza’ in Adelaide, right?  All LIV has to do is find more golf starved countries where they can be the only game in town and they’ll be able to host some tournaments that match the attendance at an off-week PGA Tour event.  Of course, nobody will see it because it’ll be streaming on MySpace at 2 in the morning here in the States.

Adelaide tickets are limited by local authorities as the course is in a residential area 

 

However, it’s still a much bigger event than the Presidents Cup

 

What’s more a large proportion of attendees were from out of town so the economic benefits to the state are significant 

 

https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/adelaide-hotel-occupancy-ranks-number-one-in-australia-and-new-zealand

 

If it was my money, I would be making LIV a true global tour (e.g. events in Canada, Central/South America, Ireland, Japan, etc) with only a couple in the US as it’s an oversupplied and mature market 

Edited May 29 by tomjas

[ThinkingPlus]

32 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

You do know that they sold more tickets for this year’s pedestrian Houston Open than LIV did for its ‘bonanza’ in Adelaide, right?  All LIV has to do is find more golf starved countries where they can be the only game in town and they’ll be able to host some tournaments that match the attendance at an off-week PGA Tour event.  Of course, nobody will see it because it’ll be streaming on MySpace at 2 in the morning here in the States.

I hear Maylasia is nice this time of year...

[bekgolf]

54 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

You do know that they sold more tickets for this year’s pedestrian Houston Open than LIV did for its ‘bonanza’ in Adelaide, right?  All LIV has to do is find more golf starved countries where they can be the only game in town and they’ll be able to host some tournaments that match the attendance at an off-week PGA Tour event.  Of course, nobody will see it because it’ll be streaming on MySpace at 2 in the morning here in the States.

 

I've been echoing that sentiment for quite awhile.  Liv could have built a tour in Oceania over a few decades, done community charity projects, build courses/training centers with sims and sponsor youth and adult leagues, things like that.

 

If they had started out by being a good neighbor and building their own talent things could be different right now.  Fans might even want to see a PGA Tour vs Liv if Liv had grown it's own talent.  There is no chance of that happening now.

[smashdn]

The Crushers GC account posted a reel or something or other on Facebooks where DJ swung BDC's driver on the range.  It must be markedly different than anything anyone else is swinging.  DJ was not a fan of it.

 

I don't know how nor want to try to link it, but it is out there in the innerwebs if you are interested in finding it.  Only a swing and a response from DJ so it is only about 10 seconds long.

[doc52]

16 hours ago, redfirebird08 said:

What’s tough with this Houston event is the timing. It’s brutally hot and humid from May to September in Houston. You really want to have a tournament around March to provide decent weather for the players and fans.
 

That said, there are 7 million people in the Houston region and plenty of them will be willing to put up with the scorching weather to watch players like Bryson & Koepka. 

It's unfortunate that Escalante didn't choose to bring LIV back to Pumpkin Ridge. The conditions would have been optimal and the PNW community would have surely turned out for another event.

[Danielson]

15 hours ago, tomjas said:

Other than die hard fans, very few people care about the Houston Open or the majority of tour events either 

 

Unlike others here, I am not opposed to LIV as it’s all golf to me but they need to be logical 

 

There’s a reason why Adelaide has been successful and other events aren’t & Houston simply doesn’t meet the criteria 

 

It's a shame that they have some sort of exclusivity agreement with Adelaide, because a 2nd Aussie event would do a lot for them. It seems like they get way more buzz for that than anything else, even their championships.

 

Unfortunately this also seems like a bit of a unique event. I'm not sure how many other golf crazed countries there are that used to have a PGA Tour event and now don't. Manufacturing grassroots support in a country that currently isn't huge on golf will be very hard, and the USA is already pretty dead set on following the PGA Tour it seems.

[CDM]

17 hours ago, bcjim said:

I'm guessing attendance will be poor especially when adjusted for the 7M locals. And then if those days are particularly unpleasant...could be a ghost town.

 

What LIV has not understood is that something has to be on the line besides money won by already pre- and over-paid guys playing against a handful of other pre- and over-paid guys.

 

The PGA  tour has the advantage of history. Winning the Houston Open (against 155 other golfers, half of whom will leave the city in the red) means something.

 

Look at it this way: Would you pay to go watch Rahm or DJ or Richard Bland (lol) hit trick shots? Probably not, right? Well, these events are on about the same on the level. There is no meaning, no history. Is it entertaining? Not to me, maybe to some.

 

 

 

While playing this weekend we had the same conversation.  ( I think it started because Bland winning)    It was a good debate. 

 

All of us fully agree hisotry plays a huge factor in sports. Especially as you get older, younger not so much as they only see the highlights, they did not live in the moment.   People can reflect back.  That is part of what makes it in all sports.  Franco catch, Jordan, Cal Ripkin, Etc.  Time plays a huge factor for sure as it builds incredible moments we all reflect on, but it seems that is generational, or as we viewed it. 

 

All us had different views if LIV is exhibition golf.  Two things that came up "solid" is players being paid and 54 holes.  

 

Money was up first but after 4-5 holes of discussion it went out the door.  Mainly as the PGAT is now paying players now and paying players a ton of money for past performance and will be paying future players. So it somewhat came off as hypocrisy to use that now.  Prior not at all, but now yes.  So basically became a mute point since it will be pretty much the same across the board if there is a deal or not. 

 

54 holes vs 72 holes was the main topic.  Playing less.  They are not motivated now playing less and being paid but that got countered by a few that they still do care to play well and WIN. The big example was that 70% of the LIV players made the cut at the PGA Championship.  That if they did not care one would expect them to not even try, miss the cut and move on.  

 

The one that really was the counter discusson on 54 holes more was, given college, seniors and womens pro golf all play 54 and no one calls those exhibition or trick shot golf.   Ie:  Its not like what Tiger is trying to do indoors. Entertainment, more then  golf. 

 

Team golf, yea no one that that would really catch on, but who knows.  The younger generation seems to lilke it, where the older / traditional golf person does not.

 

*By the way keep in mind people are going to pay to see Tiger/Rory's trick shot golf and Rahm was part of it until he left.  That got tossed out there and I never thought about that....mainly as I have zero interest in what the Tiger league is about. 

 

[Archimedes65]

18 hours ago, tomjas said:

Adelaide tickets are limited by local authorities as the course is in a residential area 

 

However, it’s still a much bigger event than the Presidents Cup

 

What’s more a large proportion of attendees were from out of town so the economic benefits to the state are significant 

 

https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/adelaide-hotel-occupancy-ranks-number-one-in-australia-and-new-zealand

 

If it was my money, I would be making LIV a true global tour (e.g. events in Canada, Central/South America, Ireland, Japan, etc) with only a couple in the US as it’s an oversupplied and mature market 

 

How are you going to build a fan base when half the tournaments are outside of a given time zone?  Why do you think there isn’t a single sports league in the entire world that has a worldwide schedule?  There is no money in it.

 

The U.S. is the biggest golf market in the world, by far.  If LIV can’t get a profitable foothold in the U.S. they have no chance of ever making any money whatsoever.  Not to mention, there is no way you would get top U.S. golfers to play primarily international events.

[jdl]

17 hours ago, CDM said:

 

 

The one that really was the counter discusson on 54 holes more was, given college, seniors and womens pro golf all play 54 and no one calls those exhibition or trick shot golf.   Ie:  Its not like what Tiger is trying to do indoors. Entertainment, more then  golf. 

 

 

When the NCAA changed the finals format to use match play, at first they had 54 holes to decide who got into match play as well as the individual champion, but after a couple of years decided it wasn't enough and added another round. Yes they do only play 54 holes during their regular season but for the national champ, it's 72 holes.

 

It's really about determining the best golfer, right? If you were playing Scheffler, would you want to play 1 hole or 18? You'd pick 1 of course because you'd have some kind of chance to maybe knock in a birdie putt and hope Scottie only got par. Over 18 holes? No chance. So more holes, the more likely the better golfer wins. Obviously there is some point where a minimum threshold is passed as to what is "enough", maybe it's 54, maybe 72. Logistically, can't really go more than 72 if you want to have an event every week. 54 might be enough but since 72 is clearly feasible it's undeniably a better way to see who's best.

[Golferpaul]

44 minutes ago, jdl said:

When the NCAA changed the finals format to use match play, at first they had 54 holes to decide who got into match play as well as the individual champion, but after a couple of years decided it wasn't enough and added another round. Yes they do only play 54 holes during their regular season but for the national champ, it's 72 holes.

 

It's really about determining the best golfer, right? If you were playing Scheffler, would you want to play 1 hole or 18? You'd pick 1 of course because you'd have some kind of chance to maybe knock in a birdie putt and hope Scottie only got par. Over 18 holes? No chance. So more holes, the more likely the better golfer wins. Obviously there is some point where a minimum threshold is passed as to what is "enough", maybe it's 54, maybe 72. Logistically, can't really go more than 72 if you want to have an event every week. 54 might be enough but since 72 is clearly feasible it's undeniably a better way to see who's best.

There is no doubt that 72 holes is better than 54.  But I don't understand why people call 54 holes "exhibition".   Almost every year a PGAT event will be shortened to 54 holes and nobody calls it an exhibition.  

 

And this: The OWGR is adding a new tour in 2023 that hosts 54-hole tournaments—and it’s not LIV Golf | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

[Shilgy]

21 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

There is no doubt that 72 holes is better than 54.  But I don't understand why people call 54 holes "exhibition".   Almost every year a PGAT event will be shortened to 54 holes and nobody calls it an exhibition.  

 

And this: The OWGR is adding a new tour in 2023 that hosts 54-hole tournaments—and it’s not LIV Golf | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

Is anyone on that new tour approved by the rankings getting paid big bucks up front just to show up?  Might be the difference.

 

Some wonder why others call LIV an exhibition tour and that difference sums it up.  You don’t pay signing bonuses to “names” that for all practical purposes have aged out and not get called an exhibition….even if some players are still elite.  
 In the long run perhaps signing the likes of Stenson, Phil, Poulter, McDowell, Westwood and company was counterproductive.

[subrew]

Lee Westwood was on Peter Finch's Rough Cut Podcast, and said he wished the team aspect was a bigger part of the event.  Like maybe an actual day dedicated to team scoring, in groups.  Not just part of the overall event running in the background.  

 

As they expanded their series to 14 events, I wish they would have made say 4-6 of them team only events, like their final year-end team event.  8-10 individual events, then 4-6 spread out across the season.  

[smashdn]

42 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

There is no doubt that 72 holes is better than 54.  But I don't understand why people call 54 holes "exhibition".   Almost every year a PGAT event will be shortened to 54 holes and nobody calls it an exhibition.  

 

And this: The OWGR is adding a new tour in 2023 that hosts 54-hole tournaments—and it’s not LIV Golf | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

 

There are whole tours (professional men's tours at that) that hold 54 hole events regularly.  The Sunshine Tour (admittedly small but still professional men) has 36, 54 and 72 hole events.

 

The PGA Championship back in the day was seven days long if you made it to the final.  I want to say it was 36 hole stroke play then two rounds of 18 hole match play (plus extra holes if needed) then 36 hole match play (plus extra holes).  That was grueling but I bet by gosh nobody was arguing the guy left standing at the end didn't shore enough earn it.

 

54 hole events were never a problem regarding the OWGR side of things.  They had provisions well before LIV how to mathematically allocate points in 54 hole events.

 

There are 36 hole events with a cut* that I think is kind of silly.  From the OWGR standpoint I get they do not want someone to get OWGR points just for signing up for a tournament, that is understandable.  What I don't understand, is why they don't just word their rule in such a way that prevents the bottom half of the field, after where there would have been a cut made, from being eligible for points.

 

 I seem to recall some of our state golf association professional tournaments would have a field of like 48 people and then cut the field to 40 after 18 holes.  That seems screwy to me.  A guy pays his money, and these are typically monday-tuesday tournaments, and he and seven other people get cut and can't play the next day?

 

 

[jls667]

57 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

There is no doubt that 72 holes is better than 54.  But I don't understand why people call 54 holes "exhibition".   Almost every year a PGAT event will be shortened to 54 holes and nobody calls it an exhibition.  

 

And this: The OWGR is adding a new tour in 2023 that hosts 54-hole tournaments—and it’s not LIV Golf | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

 

I don't think most people who call it an exhibition are saying that because it's 54 holes. They use the term exhibition because it's closed tour, with the same players facing off each time for no tangible prize or benefit other than money. Sure many guys play just for money but there's way more layers and dynamics on the PGAT. Guys like Rory chasing history. Other guys fighting to stay on tour or to have the chance to play in majors. Look at how excited Nick Taylor and his fellow Canadian's were last year when he won the RBC. That's genuine, intrinsic motivation and passion which LIV can't manufacture. 

 

The only thing LIV can do is change who within their closed group is getting a fat check each time. Hence why that's considered an exhibition.

[jdl]

1 hour ago, Golferpaul said:

There is no doubt that 72 holes is better than 54.  But I don't understand why people call 54 holes "exhibition".   Almost every year a PGAT event will be shortened to 54 holes and nobody calls it an exhibition.  

 

And this: The OWGR is adding a new tour in 2023 that hosts 54-hole tournaments—and it’s not LIV Golf | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

Just IMO, but the 54 holes isn't the main reason for the "exhibition" remarks, it's because the guys playing have already been paid big $$ to be there. As well as a significant number of guys that won't lose their access to events no matter how poorly they do.

 

And yes, now the PGA Tour is doing that, too. Because it's what the players want so they're going to get it. And I'm someone soon will make a terrible and invalid comparison to pro team sports for the 100th time in this thread.

 

And yes the OWGR has long had points for 54 hole tours, I believe most/all of them are developmental tours. The same points being dredged up again over and over and over....

Edited May 30 by jdl

[johnseg]

1 hour ago, Golferpaul said:

There is no doubt that 72 holes is better than 54.  But I don't understand why people call 54 holes "exhibition".   Almost every year a PGAT event will be shortened to 54 holes and nobody calls it an exhibition.  

 

And this: The OWGR is adding a new tour in 2023 that hosts 54-hole tournaments—and it’s not LIV Golf | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

Don't you find exceptions to be different from the rule? If you don't see a weather shortened tournament as being different from an entire season of 54 holes I don't know what to say to you. LIV isn't even really trying to get OWGR points. They are making noise demanding them. They are trying to make OWGR system look bad. If they worked with them they would have OWGR points by now.

 

I really think the whole goal of LIV was to take the A-Players for several weeks a year and make them the event. They didn't anticipate the PGA tour not allowing that to happen which was crazy short-sighted by LIV. They thought that CBS/NBC would be broadcasting those events and making a big deal about it. IT was a swing and a miss and everything we see now is a Plan B that was not that well thought out.

[bscinstnct]

lol LIV would have been 100x more successful if they had done what

 

Tigers TGL is doing

 

Have Bryson and DJ, BK, Rahm, competing in a loud, indoor, type event where fans can go all crazy, pump up the mumble rap, have smoke and light shows!

 

Have Bryson and BK acting all WWF 

 

 

Now that would have caught on with their target “demographic” 🤣

[SnowbirdTom]

1 hour ago, Golferpaul said:

There is no doubt that 72 holes is better than 54.  But I don't understand why people call 54 holes "exhibition".   Almost every year a PGAT event will be shortened to 54 holes and nobody calls it an exhibition.  

 

And this: The OWGR is adding a new tour in 2023 that hosts 54-hole tournaments—and it’s not LIV Golf | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

It’s called an exhibition because there’s NO outside qualifying. It’s a closed circuit and no outsiders allowed.  Got it now?  The clowns are paid to perform on a stage.

[dalehead]

2 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

There is no doubt that 72 holes is better than 54.  But I don't understand why people call 54 holes "exhibition".   Almost every year a PGAT event will be shortened to 54 holes and nobody calls it an exhibition.  

 

And this: The OWGR is adding a new tour in 2023 that hosts 54-hole tournaments—and it’s not LIV Golf | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

It’s not 54 holes that make it exhibition golf. It’s the fact that players have been paid many millions just for showing up. And they are guaranteed $250,000 per tournament even if they finish DFL <cough> Anthony Kim.

[bekgolf]

2 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

There is no doubt that 72 holes is better than 54.  But I don't understand why people call 54 holes "exhibition".   Almost every year a PGAT event will be shortened to 54 holes and nobody calls it an exhibition.  

 

And this: The OWGR is adding a new tour in 2023 that hosts 54-hole tournaments—and it’s not LIV Golf | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

 

It's not just the fact that it's 54 holes, imo that has little to do with it.  What makes it exhibition is that the players have already been paid to show up, it doesn't matter if they win or not. 

 

I don't speak for anyone else but for me the pre payment and no consequences for doing poorly make it an exhibition.  In the same vein as the Shell Wide World of Golf was an exhibition.

[CDM]

3 hours ago, jdl said:

When the NCAA changed the finals format to use match play, at first they had 54 holes to decide who got into match play as well as the individual champion, but after a couple of years decided it wasn't enough and added another round. Yes they do only play 54 holes during their regular season but for the national champ, it's 72 holes.

 

It's really about determining the best golfer, right? If you were playing Scheffler, would you want to play 1 hole or 18? You'd pick 1 of course because you'd have some kind of chance to maybe knock in a birdie putt and hope Scottie only got par. Over 18 holes? No chance. So more holes, the more likely the better golfer wins. Obviously there is some point where a minimum threshold is passed as to what is "enough", maybe it's 54, maybe 72. Logistically, can't really go more than 72 if you want to have an event every week. 54 might be enough but since 72 is clearly feasible it's undeniably a better way to see who's best.

 

Aware of the Final for college but it was a one off event they do that for just that event.   

 

That noted, 72 vs 54 is for sure a better test in our debate, but a few noted that could be said 90 holes vs 72 holes is a better test for the same merit.  Where is the line drawn was what we came up with.   We all agreed that eveyrone holds to 72 holes as that it what has been in pro golf for the last 50+ years.  Yet before it was not looing back on history... it was 36 holes, moved ot 54 and sellted at 72. 

 

The one that was brought up, why is match play only 18 holes per match?  US Am final is 36 holes all others 18 holes.  Same of the prior PGAT event at 36 hole final and 18 hole matches..  So is that a true test, 18 holes only?  If so why are events not just 18 or 36 holes and playoffs abound...?   *As we know there would be ton of playoffs.   

 

Its interesting discussion and not disagreeing with you at all. 

 

All of us in our debate noted how many times we see someone get hot on the last 18 to win  OR play bad (Greg was noted LOL) on the last 18 to lose...!    The more holes played we all agree actually creates more "vairable".  In 54 holes that last day you can see the leaders game going and just hang to win, yet you see a player "found it" and chasing him down and run out of holes.  If they played one more day they could probably win.    Goes the same at 72 holes....    

 

NOW Scotty.... heck no.... one hole and make it a par 3 to eleminate more chances for him ..!  🤣  That man is a machine.  Scary good right now........!  The more holes you give him 110% he is going to take you down...!     

[MrDC]

Because LIV is not just about the 54 holes, that's actually the least criteria issue IMO, the small field and lack of a cut are much bigger problems, but with that and no qualifier, 54 holes, make it an exhibition.

Developmental tours like Gira are given exceptions because they're developing golf in countries that need the help, we want to see those areas get their best players into the big events to grow the game.

Edited May 30 by MrDC

[Archimedes65]

7 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

There is no doubt that 72 holes is better than 54.  But I don't understand why people call 54 holes "exhibition".   Almost every year a PGAT event will be shortened to 54 holes and nobody calls it an exhibition.  

 

 

People don’t call LIV an exhibition tournament based on the 54 hole thing.  It’s because a) the tournaments have no history or identity at all, and, more importantly, b) because the players have all been guaranteed big up front payments AND an additional big check just for showing up.  It’s a prepaid dog and pony show.  The 54 holes thing is goofy in my opinion, but less goofy than shotgun starts (seriously?) and having fat guys playing golf in shorts.  If I wanted to see that, I could just head over to my club.

[drn92]

I’m not totally sold on a golf tournament needing to be 72 holes to be considered legit. It has been that way forever, but nothing is wrong with a 54 hole tournament. 
 

drn92

Edited May 31 by drn92
typo

[smashdn]

23 hours ago, jls667 said:

 

I don't think most people who call it an exhibition are saying that because it's 54 holes. They use the term exhibition because it's closed tour, with the same players facing off each time for no tangible prize or benefit other than money. Sure many guys play just for money but there's way more layers and dynamics on the PGAT. Guys like Rory chasing history. Other guys fighting to stay on tour or to have the chance to play in majors. Look at how excited Nick Taylor and his fellow Canadian's were last year when he won the RBC. That's genuine, intrinsic motivation and passion which LIV can't manufacture. 

 

The only thing LIV can do is change who within their closed group is getting a fat check each time. Hence why that's considered an exhibition.

 

I think you bring up fair points.  I think it is also fair to mention that the PGAT is an organization that is officially more than 55 years old and LIV is like 3-4 years.

 

LIV doesn't currently have that mechanism to qualify their winners for majors.

 

To get those layers and dynamics you speak of takes time.  To your point, something that LIV cannot manufacture.  

 

Is LIV closed because they want it to be, or is it closed because it was made to be? 

 

What if instead of how it is currently constructed, it was initially the top 20 finishing PGAT players, the top 10 DPWT players, the top 5 Australasia (or whatever that tour is called) and the top 5 Japan Tour players, etc. with the same 54 hole format?  Those qualifying players automatically got 5 mil checks just for qualifying for LIV and for the next year they played only the LIV events and majors.  At the end of the season the top 20 players stayed on LIV and the bottom whatever number was relegated back to their respective tours and new players promoted.

[dalehead]

How would you describe a golf exhibition? The organizers would select the players they wanted. They would sign them to contracts requiring them to play at a certain course on certain dates in return for a guaranteed remuneration. The organizers would be the sole decision makers in who could play in their exhibition. Sounds like LIV to me.