Arnold Palmer Invitational 2024

[TiScape]

I’m enjoying the golf and the course. But I’m easy like Sunday morning 😊

[Lahamm]

Rory showed a bit of emotion and seems to be making a little comeback? Am I speaking too soon on this?

[Peak]

1 minute ago, Peak said:

What the hell is Tommy up to? 😄 +10 through 11 is my territory.

3 approach shots in a row into water on the 6th for a 10 😄

 

That’s the type of stuff that keeps me awake at night.

[CircleC29]

Nm

Edited March 8 by CircleC29

[ac6]

1 hour ago, Peak said:

3 approach shots in a row into water on the 6th for a 10 😄

 

That’s the type of stuff that keeps me awake at night.

 

Following all that up with two fantastic shots for an eagle is usually not what happens for most of us who are +10 through 11 though, lol 

[bobfoster]

1 hour ago, Peak said:

3 approach shots in a row into water on the 6th for a 10 😄

 

That’s the type of stuff that keeps me awake at night.

Golf is hard.

[jimecherry]

26 minutes ago, ac6 said:

 

Following all that up with two fantastic shots for an eagle is usually not what happens for most of us who are +10 through 11 though, lol 

when i'm that score i dont even get the chance to hit 2 more shots due to the fact i've run out of golf balls :{

[Rearviewmirror]

Fleetwood taking a 10 on 18. 

 

[Dave230]

Projected cut currently knocking 6 players out of 69 from the tournament, what's that about? Between this and the odd numbers leading to Dunlap playing on his own, the running of this tournament has been odd.

[dmbolp]

Back from walking the course backwards; it's in great shape. 

[bscinstnct]

Step aside TF

 

The real golf Jesus 

 

 

[Peak]

2 hours ago, Peak said:

Great start for Välimäki but remains to be seen if he can string together a good full round. Yesterday was not worth remembering.

-4 through 14, +1 through 18.

 

[jimecherry]

23 minutes ago, Dave230 said:

Projected cut currently knocking 6 players out of 69 from the tournament, what's that about? Between this and the odd numbers leading to Dunlap playing on his own, the running of this tournament has been odd.

dont worry alot of bogeys out there still to be collected

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 hours ago, Pops99 said:

69 guys in the field is too small. I like the Shotgun Start (podcast) suggestion of 100. Also, the cut seems pretty useless, I think overnight it was like 4 guys who would miss the cut if it had been yesterday. 

 

Yeah, I was looking at that this morning. 65 were within the cut line. I said 4 players out of 69 isn't a cut, it's a damn mercy rule! We got rid of those after little league!

 

But then I checked and saw it's top 50 + ties, and anyone within 10 strokes. I think there's a halfway decent chance that by the end of the day, 50+ties will include everyone within 10. 

 

Still hate limited field events and no cut events. I'd much rather this was a full field, or at least full-er field, i.e. 100 as you suggest. 

[CircleC29]

EAGLE!

 

 

[One Putter]

Oh yeah. You can hear it by how the greens sound when a ball hits them. They did Arnie proud this year.

[subrew]

28 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Yeah, I was looking at that this morning. 65 were within the cut line. I said 4 players out of 69 isn't a cut, it's a damn mercy rule! We got rid of those after little league!

 

But then I checked and saw it's top 50 + ties, and anyone within 10 strokes. I think there's a halfway decent chance that by the end of the day, 50+ties will include everyone within 10. 

 

Still hate limited field events and no cut events. I'd much rather this was a full field, or at least full-er field, i.e. 100 as you suggest. 

 

I think a solution for limited field events is to not have a cut with regard to scores, finishing order, prize money etc.  If the title sponsor wants to pay 69 players, go for it.  Let all of them play four days.  It really doesn't make much difference to how the event is run, organized, or shown on tv.  Cutting 10 people does nothing.

 

But the cut for receiving points should be much higher up, say a cut at 50% of the field, whether that is Fedex Cup or OWGR.  The OWGR acknowledged that the bottom like 10 or so players in these events won't get OWGR points, but I think they still get Fedex points, and at a much higher rate than normal events.  But that cutoff shouldn't be top 60 of a 69 man field.  It should be top 35 or a 69 man field.  A person finishing 59th this weekend shouldn't get double the points of someone finishing 59th in a 140 person field.

 

There are many advantages to playing good enough, or accepting a sponsor invite to these elevated events in terms of guaranteed prize money.  Guaranteed (almost) OWGR and Fedex cup points shouldn't be one of them, imo.  These elevated events, to me, smell of the Tour trying to make sure the top 70 or so are kept happy, given prime event status and guaranteed money and points.  

[Lahamm]

Been a big Willy Z guy, love that he has seemingly figured out his putter. Really hope he continues to be in the mix and win a couple this year. 

[stinger_gc]

agreed with this take!

[betarhoalphadelta]

6 minutes ago, subrew said:

 

I think a solution for limited field events is to not have a cut with regard to scores, finishing order, prize money etc.  If the title sponsor wants to pay 69 players, go for it.  Let all of them play four days.  It really doesn't make much difference to how the event is run, organized, or shown on tv.  Cutting 10 people does nothing.

 

But the cut for receiving points should be much higher up, say a cut at 50% of the field, whether that is Fedex Cup or OWGR.  The OWGR acknowledged that the bottom like 10 or so players in these events won't get OWGR points, but I think they still get Fedex points, and at a much higher rate than normal events.  But that cutoff shouldn't be top 60 of a 69 man field.  It should be top 35 or a 69 man field.  A person finishing 59th this weekend shouldn't get double the points of someone finishing 59th in a 140 person field.

 

There are many advantages to playing good enough, or accepting a sponsor invite to these elevated events in terms of guaranteed prize money.  Guaranteed (almost) OWGR and Fedex cup points shouldn't be one of them, imo.  These elevated events, to me, smell of the Tour trying to make sure the top 70 or so are kept happy, given prime event status and guaranteed money and points.  

 

I still don't like limited field, no cut events. I don't like limited field, cut events. It's actually not about the cut, it's about the small field. 

 

IMHO the PGAT should be supporting the interests of all of its members. If you want to attract the top 50 to your "signature" events, shouldn't the purse and increased FEC points be enough to lure them? If the players ranked 75-120 aren't likely to win, then what's the harm in letting them into the field. If you're FEC top 20, should you really be scared of them? 

 

I hate the two-tier Tour nature of the limited field events. I'd rather see FEC #112 come out of nowhere and take down all the big boys. Good for them. 

 

Per OWGR, I would be firmly in favor of an OWGR rule that basically says that only the top 50% of the original field, cut or no cut, is eligible for OWGR points. If it's a cut event and less than 50% of the field make the cut, then it will only be the players who make the cut who are eligible. I'd be in favor of applying the same rule to FEC points. 

[jimecherry]

7 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I still don't like limited field, no cut events. I don't like limited field, cut events. It's actually not about the cut, it's about the small field. 

 

IMHO the PGAT should be supporting the interests of all of its members. If you want to attract the top 50 to your "signature" events, shouldn't the purse and increased FEC points be enough to lure them? If the players ranked 75-120 aren't likely to win, then what's the harm in letting them into the field. If you're FEC top 20, should you really be scared of them? 

 

I hate the two-tier Tour nature of the limited field events. I'd rather see FEC #112 come out of nowhere and take down all the big boys. Good for them. 

 

Per OWGR, I would be firmly in favor of an OWGR rule that basically says that only the top 50% of the original field, cut or no cut, is eligible for OWGR points. If it's a cut event and less than 50% of the field make the cut, then it will only be the players who make the cut who are eligible. I'd be in favor of applying the same rule to FEC points. 

the owgr is more likely to boost points of everyone in the field than it is to take points away. ie api last year had a field rating of almost 400, 70 points higher than the smaller field this year. but it will award the winner this year the same amount of points.

[betarhoalphadelta]

8 minutes ago, jimecherry said:

the owgr is more likely to boost points of everyone in the field than it is to take points away. ie api last year had a field rating of almost 400, 70 points higher than the smaller field this year. but it will award the winner this year the same amount of points.

 

That may be true. I'm don't spend time delving into the OWGR formulas. 

 

I can agree with elevated points for those who win and finish highly in the event due to how strong the field is. I don't agree with giving the bottom half of the field elevated points just because they showed up and played worse than mediocre, just because there were a lot of good players there. 

 

IMHO how many points are awarded = determined by strength and depth of field

Who is awarded those points = only those who finish in the top half of the field (or those who make the cut if <50% of the field)

 

[jimecherry]

3 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

That may be true. I'm don't spend time delving into the OWGR formulas. 

 

I can agree with elevated points for those who win and finish highly in the event due to how strong the field is. I don't agree with giving the bottom half of the field elevated points just because they showed up and played worse than mediocre, just because there were a lot of good players there. 

 

IMHO how many points are awarded = determined by strength and depth of field

Who is awarded those points = only those who finish in the top half of the field (or those who make the cut if <50% of the field)

 

the only issue with that is there are other tournaments with weaker fields that players are required to miss in order to play here see puerto rico those making the cut here but outside the top 35 would get no points versus making the cut at puerto rico who are in the top 40% of that field.

the hole thing is a cluster imho

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 minute ago, jimecherry said:

the only issue with that is there are other tournaments with weaker fields that players are required to miss in order to play here see puerto rico those making the cut here but outside the top 35 would get no points versus making the cut at puerto rico who are in the top 40% of that field.

the hole thing is a cluster imho

 

Signature events are no longer required. If a player would rather go to Puerto Rico and "guarantee" themselves points instead of taking on the best of the PGAT, they're more than welcome to. It'll open up a slot for a true competitor. 

 

Let me put it another way: 

 

You shouldn't be awarded points based on the quality of the player you played against. You should be awarded points based on the quality of player you beat. If you were below the midpoint of the field, it by definition means more players beat you than you beat. Ergo you don't deserve points.

 

In golf, do we reward performance, or do we reward showing up? We reward performance. You shouldn't be rewarded for non-performance just because you took on a stronger field. 

[jimecherry]

16 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Signature events are no longer required. If a player would rather go to Puerto Rico and "guarantee" themselves points instead of taking on the best of the PGAT, they're more than welcome to. It'll open up a slot for a true competitor. 

 

Let me put it another way: 

 

You shouldn't be awarded points based on the quality of the player you played against. You should be awarded points based on the quality of player you beat. If you were below the midpoint of the field, it by definition means more players beat you than you beat. Ergo you don't deserve points.

 

In golf, do we reward performance, or do we reward showing up? We reward performance. You shouldn't be rewarded for non-performance just because you took on a stronger field. 

thats actually wrong you cant go to puerto rico if your eligible to play api if you dont want to play the api you have to take the week off.

[betarhoalphadelta]

11 minutes ago, jimecherry said:

thats actually wrong you cant go to puerto rico if your eligible to play api if you dont want to play the api you have to take the week off.

Ahh. I wasn't aware of that. Took a quick look at the PGAT handbook (could be out of date as the only one online is 2022-23) but I had no clue that someone in the field for a Signature event was barred from entry into an alternate field event. Thanks. 

 

That said, you're still not required to play the API. Why should you be guaranteed FEC points, which apparently is in the 2022-23 handbook as the top players up to 85, and doesn't appear to reflect even getting zero points if you miss the cut? 

 

Adam Svensson (+15) is apparently going to get FEC points for his 69th-place finish... Why? 

[PedronNiall]

I believe the reduced field is due to the guaranteed money? Keep the big purse, increase the field size, and those who finish poorly simply go home with nothing. If you're good enough to make the sigs then you've already been making money prior to that week & likely from sponsors, so not like you're ending up homeless if you play like garbage and don't get anything for your time. 

 

All the whining so many did actively or passively about not getting enough money? Earn it. You shouldn't get a check just for showing up. Field is way too small. 

 

Agreed as well that points shouldn't be handed out for trash play or just showing up. 

[grm24]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Adam Svensson (+15) is apparently going to get FEC points for his 69th-place finish... Why? 

Actually Svensson or any other player missing the cut at the API is not receiving any FEC points. Same as those missing the cut at The Genesis and The Memorial.

 

Where did you hear or get the notion that if you miss a cut at a PGA Tour event, signature event or not, you get FEC points? 

 

As an example Chris Kirk M/C at The Genesis. You can see from his yearly results he did not receive any FEC points for that event.

 

 

Edited March 8 by grm24

[bcjim]

4 hours ago, stinger_gc said:

agreed with this take!

Dumbest idea I've ever heard. 

[ac6]

11 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

Step aside TF

 

The real golf Jesus 

 

 

When Hideki plays well it always somehow looks worse than when he's playing bad

Edited March 9 by ac6