2024 HSBC Women's World Championship (Feb 29 - Mar 03)

[jt2gt]

16 hours ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Probably not going to have any luck finding the full broadcast, but the final round highlights on YouTube sum it up nicely. 

 

 

Thanks...watched it.  HG was pumped on the 18th tee shot and that putt was sick.  Lots of ladies draining putts.  Those greens  must have been fantastic.

[Lobby]

The nonsense that PGA tour events like the Waste Management Phoenix Open, the drunkenness, the loudmouths are exactly the reason why I don't watch men's events.

Don't tell me that to be one of the "cool kids" I have to act like one of them.   I actually like what the LPGA is about

[PedronNiall]

3 hours ago, GolfMoose said:

Wow. Yeah. Kind of like in music when the initial fans drop a band once they get too popular, or at least, consider some of their obscure least popular music their best.

 

Seeing someone win the Aeon thing and go "now I can buy a house" is pretty relatable. And while on tournament grounds, not unusual to find yourself walking by or beside a player.  In the summer, the lady standing beside me in the onsite store checking out some clothes was Lee6...guessing that doesn't happen in the mens.  It's the reason why I am hoping to get to the CPKC again but haven't give much thought to the Presidents Cup, which I imagine will be crowded and distant.

 

Still, it would be nice if the lowest end tournament purse was $3M instead of sub-$2M.  You can rack up six or seven top 10's in those lower events and presumably barely have a break even year. Not sure how that increase happens...supposedly the money even in the mens game no longer makes fiscal sense, isn't sensibly tied to  current revenue.

 

 

If golf went to the Tennis/F1/etc. format of fewer events per year then purses would increase for everyone, but like those other sports it would become even more of a closed shop. The men's game likely has the funding & expertise to increase purses going forward at the cost of now taking a big step closer to becoming like the NFL, et al, rather than staying its own thing. The women's game could do the same, but they will pay the same price.

 

What's unfortunate is that PIF has already begun trying to sink their hands into the LET, and if they pull that off the big purses will happen. Those big purses will continue to come with massive strings attached and the ladies involved will find out how true more money, more problems is.

 

The oddity of what's to come is that PIF may be successful in taking over LET, but with the likely failed PGA/LIV merger I doubt if it will ever manage a foothold with the LPGA. Women's golf is going to be a very strange place if there is suddenly a massive divide in how the two main tours are run and in the size of purses. It may work, though. The largest percentage of players are from outside the US and everyone involved seems to accept the travel required, so maybe women's golf just becomes its own thing and gets the worldwide audience sustaining it that men's golf never has. Given three of the women's Majors remain tied to the US that would still be odd, but we'll see.

 

Regardless, if you have a model where the purses are paid from a bottomless well that doesn't care about returns it's not hard to expect more money. As it stands, the women's game just doesn't drive the views and related ad revenue the men's does, and until that changes there's no sustainable way to keep growing their payouts. If it does change there will be other changes the players involved likely had not foreseen.

 

Sorry for the walls of text. Often when these discussions come up it's based on the idea that the pro women are somehow unfairly compensated or that there's an easy fix to garner them more money while getting to enjoy the women's game as it is. That's simply not the case.

 

Anything that grows the payouts is going to come with an equally hefty set of strings someone will need to dance to. That will either be in the form of lots of new fans who demand entertainment their way or in the form of performing for the business or other entities who bring in said money. There are no free lunches. There's no job in the world where employees get to say they want more money for the same and that becomes a thing. If the money comes the women will find themselves doing more press events, doing more fan events, doing more for sponsors, performing more for social media, and so on. They'll also find themselves having to be even more careful about anything they say on the mic or online.

 

The 50th player on the money list last year made $500,000--not accounting for any sponsor dollars--while playing 24 events. Number 100 made almost $200,000 while playing 21 events. I'd happily take that, the sponsor money, every week of my year out in the fresh air with relative obscurity while in public over what they're going to face if they get their wish for more, but that's just me.

[ChronicSlicer]

17 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

 

Quoting this for its truthiness. This forum is mostly frequented by a decent sized but consistent group of usual suspects, so it's a little strange that surprise about the popularity of women's golf comes up so often. Women's golf is sooooooooo different than any other sport that it's simply not going to draw eyes the way many others do.

 

Let's discuss how the product is presented. On average, you have relatively subdued players making relatively subdued strikes at the ball--in comparison to the energy showcased in other sports--then making relatively subdued celebrations when they pull off even amazing shots in many cases, highlighted by results called by subdued commentators who wouldn't set off the whisper alarms guarding a museum treasure if a viper found its way into the booth. "Would you look at that? A Boomslang seems to be coming towards us. Well, we'll get back to you all once we're out of the hospital. Do enjoy the rest of the broadcast."

 

The intro music and announcer read help to hype PGA events from the start, and women's golf is at a disadvantage there when their events either aren't featured on CBS/NBC or they don't use the main announcers for those network's events to handle the lead in and recaps. Listen to the tempo, cadence, and other differences and ask which you think is more likely to get the attention of the average person or avid sports fan used to watching other things. It comes across as though they're trying to cater to very different demographics, which is likely the case.

 

Now, if they focused on more highlights showing the crowd responses for bigger events and players like Hull who are more animated and interviews with players like Patty Tavatankit who are personable and honest, heck, the numbers would probably grow quite nicely. One thing to consider, though. Do those of you who want women's golf to be more popular actually want that? Do you want idiots yelling "mashed potatoes" and "show me your butthole" and making moans after shots the way they are at men's events? Do you want drunks in banana sling wrap around swimwear dancing in the background? Do you want venues were the fans can't be right up along the ropes interacting with the ladies regularly because the women no longer feel safe? Do you want full police presence to be a must as it is at all PGA events now? If you all get your wish and the women's tours suddenly become the place to be seen like some of the men's PGA stops things will be very, very different than they are now.

 

I often wonder as well if the women who say they want bigger purses realize what having the eyeballs required to do that will actually mean for the sport. I don't think most of the ladies out there are built to deal with an influx of mainstream sports fans. I don't think most tuning in to women's golf want the smoke that comes with being the hotness.

 

 

Good points right there. I don't mind the occasional "mashed potatoes" guy, but the "show me you're butthole" guy can stay at home 😂

 

[ChronicSlicer]

3 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

 

The oddity of what's to come is that PIF may be successful in taking over LET, but with the likely failed PGA/LIV merger I doubt if it will ever manage a foothold with the LPGA. Women's golf is going to be a very strange place if there is suddenly a massive divide in how the two main tours are run and in the size of purses. It may work, though. The largest percentage of players are from outside the US and everyone involved seems to accept the travel required, so maybe women's golf just becomes its own thing and gets the worldwide audience sustaining it that men's golf never has. Given three of the women's Majors remain tied to the US that would still be odd, but we'll see.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, if the PIF ever took over the LET and raised purses dramatically, I could easily see a flood of non LET members, suddenly wanting a membership. As I pointed out previously, these ladies want paid, Nelly, Lexi, Lydia...they could clearly care less about "blood money" or whatever people want to call it. 

[PedronNiall]

9 minutes ago, ChronicSlicer said:

Unfortunately, if the PIF ever took over the LET and raised purses dramatically, I could easily see a flood of non LET members, suddenly wanting a membership. As I pointed out previously, these ladies want paid, Nelly, Lexi, Lydia...they could clearly care less about "blood money" or whatever people want to call it. 

It may happen sooner than later. PIF blocked the LET/LPGA talks to merge at the end of last year. With their control of some of the biggest paydays in women's golf right now they might get exactly what they're after in terms of legitimizing their presence by buying up stakes in every sport they can. The money is there if that's all that matters to the top players.

[ChronicSlicer]

22 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

It may happen sooner than later. PIF blocked the LET/LPGA talks to merge at the end of last year. With their control of some of the biggest paydays in women's golf right now they might get exactly what they're after in terms of legitimizing their presence by buying up stakes in every sport they can. The money is there if that's all that matters to the top players.

Not much us peasants can do about it if it does happen. I'll be happy if it gets televised.

[Seamus_McDuff]

26 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

It may happen sooner than later. PIF blocked the LET/LPGA talks to merge at the end of last year. With their control of some of the biggest paydays in women's golf right now they might get exactly what they're after in terms of legitimizing their presence by buying up stakes in every sport they can. The money is there if that's all that matters to the top players.

They have control over the 7th largest purse in women’s golf. Their other tournaments are less than every LPGA tournament. 

[PedronNiall]

45 minutes ago, Seamus_McDuff said:

They have control over the 7th largest purse in women’s golf. Their other tournaments are less than every LPGA tournament. 

I stand corrected. They'll certainly bring the money if it becomes clear that's all they need to do to take over women's golf, though. They got tons of press when they first announced the purses for both men and women in the main event would be the same.

[Raving Shanker]

On 3/1/2024 at 4:51 PM, bobfoster said:

Odd thing I (may) have noticed. Seen several of the women starting to tee up the ball on their drives slightly back in their stance. Instead of right at the front heel, an inch, even two inches more towards center stance.

 

Am I just seeing things, or is a slightly new sort of thing starting to develop on tour?

I've started doing this, and it was suggested by my golf mentor. Must be the latest "thing" in golf, and it works. It blocks out extreme left misses, and distance increases. But if you need height, move it a bit forward.

[bobfoster]

15 minutes ago, Raving Shanker said:

I've started doing this, and it was suggested by my golf mentor. Must be the latest "thing" in golf, and it works. It blocks out extreme left misses, and distance increases. But if you need height, move it a bit forward.

Interesting. Would you share your mentor's reasoning? Do you just play it back and slightly alter the grip (which I assume you'd need to do since you are making contact at an earlier point in the arc), or do you also adjust your swing plane (or something). 

 

Just curious. The GC was broadcasting women's collegiate golf earlier tonight (the next generation), and I noticed a number of them doing it. Apparently this really is becoming a thing - but I have yet to see it written about anywhere. I'm always intrigued when a long time "best practice" is challenged. 

 

Traditional wisdom is that you play the driver off the front heel with a neutral grip. To draw, you tee the ball a bit higher, drop the right foot back (close the stance), move the ball back in the stance, and strengthen the grip. To hit a cut you tee it a bit lower, move the ball forward in the stance, weaken the grip, and open the left foot (open the stance). 

 

This new trend kind of argues against that traditional wisdom. Just curious as to why. 

[Raving Shanker]

2 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

Interesting. Would you share your mentor's reasoning? Do you just play it back and slightly alter the grip (which I assume you'd need to do since you are making contact at an earlier point in the arc), or do you also adjust your swing plane (or something). 

 

Just curious. The GC was broadcasting women's collegiate golf earlier tonight (the next generation), and I noticed a number of them doing it. Apparently this really is becoming a thing - but I have yet to see it written about anywhere. I'm always intrigued when a long time "best practice" is challenged. 

 

Traditional wisdom is that you play the driver off the front heel with a neutral grip. To draw, you tee the ball a bit higher, drop the right foot back (close the stance), move the ball back in the stance, and strengthen the grip. To hit a cut you tee it a bit lower, move the ball forward in the stance, weaken the grip, and open the left foot (open the stance). 

 

This new trend kind of argues against that traditional wisdom. Just curious as to why. 

None of the above, really. He was trying to get me to fire my hips earlier. The first practice we did it he got me to take my normal driver set up, then slide forward (to my left) two-foot widths. I have wide feet, so this was a long way. It looked to me as if I was looking to my right to where the ball was! He then asked that I try to hit it as far left as I could. I thought it was ridiculous - like how can I get the ball for over there, to over there. To do it I really had to rotate my lower body hard. The results were incredible - low 235 m (260y) stinging draws, compared to my unreliable 200 m floating high balls - when I didn't snap hook. Worked, but it took a long time to get it synched.

[Titleist_PT23]

2 hours ago, bobfoster said:

Interesting. Would you share your mentor's reasoning? Do you just play it back and slightly alter the grip (which I assume you'd need to do since you are making contact at an earlier point in the arc), or do you also adjust your swing plane (or something). 

 

Just curious. The GC was broadcasting women's collegiate golf earlier tonight (the next generation), and I noticed a number of them doing it. Apparently this really is becoming a thing - but I have yet to see it written about anywhere. I'm always intrigued when a long time "best practice" is challenged. 

 

Traditional wisdom is that you play the driver off the front heel with a neutral grip. To draw, you tee the ball a bit higher, drop the right foot back (close the stance), move the ball back in the stance, and strengthen the grip. To hit a cut you tee it a bit lower, move the ball forward in the stance, weaken the grip, and open the left foot (open the stance). 

 

This new trend kind of argues against that traditional wisdom. Just curious as to why. 

I've played the same way for a while (no formal instruction, just try different things).  While there are certainly many/better players that play the ball off the front heel, I've found the following problems when try to do the same (obviously, my swing could be better):

-contact is often low(er) on the face

-path is sometimes going too far left at impact

-harder to keep your hands equal or slightly ahead of the ball at impact (often, I think hitting the ball with a positive angle of attack is also adding a lot of dynamic loft).

 

For me, I've got better results with one of the low spin heads, teeing it back a bit in my stance, and trying to swing pretty close to neutral.  If you can make contact above the centre line, the launch is still pretty high (more loft on this part of the head) and the gear effect tends to really kill spin.  I guess it may not maximize carry or whatever but for me it certainly maximizes the quality of the strike.