US Olympics Golf Team

[Dutch1008]

20 minutes ago, Opie Taylor said:

Isn't the PGAT commissioner on the OWGR board? Can you see how some might question the integrity and genuineness of the OWGR?

 

Why do the PIF women's Aramco Series 54-hole individual and team events get Rolex World Rankings but the PIF Men's LIV Golf 54-hole individual and team events don't get OWGR?

 

Is it because the DPWT/PGAT rejected them and formed a strategic alliance that was handled opposite to the LET/LPGA that embraced the Aramco Series?

 

Had the DPWT accepted LIV from the beginning do you think they would be getting OWGR?

 

It seems to me that OWGR made some decisions while emotions were still running high and dug themselves a hole they couldn't climb out of.

 

Remember the OWGR makes the criteria and has changed those criteria many times to suit the PGAT.

 

(My apologies if this isn't the proper discussion for this thread, I'm still learning the ropes)

 

Cheers.

 

 

OWGR is a collaborative effort founded by the USGA, R&A, PGAT, DPWT, Int Federation of PGA Tours (Aussie, Asia, Latam, etc), and Augusta National. These groups collectively built a qualification criteria. Their biggest mistake was in calling it a "Ranking", it's not. Its a qualification system used by various events and tours to put together a mathematical framework for gaining access to events. 

 

This was created long before LIV. Agreed to by multiple parties with conflicting agendas. It's not just setting the field for the majors. All of these tours use this model. Why in the world should they change their hard fought and negotiated framework simply to appease a start up poised to overthrow golf? LIV knew the rules before hand. They could have built the league to fit w/in the framework. Instead they choose to willfully ignore it and cry foul. 

 

As for the Olympics. Nobody forced them to use OWGR. Monahan didn't give the IOC an ultimatum. They likely choose to use OWGR simply for convenience. Why go through the hassle of setting your own Olympic standards when you can piggyback on existing infrastructure. Nobody cared in 2016 or 2020 because OWGR was considered universally fair across all of professional golf.      

Edited June 18 by Dutch1008

[GoGoErky]

42 minutes ago, Opie Taylor said:

Isn't the PGAT commissioner on the OWGR board? Can you see how some might question the integrity and genuineness of the OWGR?

 

Why do the PIF women's Aramco Series 54-hole individual and team events get Rolex World Rankings but the PIF Men's LIV Golf 54-hole individual and team events don't get OWGR?

 

Is it because the DPWT/PGAT rejected them and formed a strategic alliance that was handled opposite to the LET/LPGA that embraced the Aramco Series?

 

Had the DPWT accepted LIV from the beginning do you think they would be getting OWGR?

 

It seems to me that OWGR made some decisions while emotions were still running high and dug themselves a hole they couldn't climb out of.

 

Remember the OWGR makes the criteria and has changed those criteria many times to suit the PGAT.

 

(My apologies if this isn't the proper discussion for this thread, I'm still learning the ropes)

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

Actually the owgr don’t require much from LIV to get points. Their biggest thing was the closed door policy to play on the tour. If they were trying to prevent liv from getting points or acting on emotions they would have made it more difficult to get points. 

LIV leadership said no thanks and then pulled their application. If they cared about their members they would have compiled with the simple requests from OWGR. Blaming anyone other than LIV leadership is blatantly big ignoring the culprits which is liv and Norman who tried to give the middle finger to the golfing world 

[RSinSG]

2 hours ago, Duct Tape said:

Hell of a first post. Welcome. Cheers. 

You beat me to it. He still only has the one post and he could retire and be kind of a legend around here.

[LimaSierra]

6 hours ago, SheriffBooth said:

It was based on OWGR.  Even with the win Bryson only got up to #10 in the world.  Cantlay would've actually been next in line.  It's not like Bryson got snubbed or USOC passed him over, it was purely based on IGF qualification criteria.  Maybe they'll do it differently for 2028 because it certainly hurts the prestige of the event to not have Bryson in the field.  US gets favorable treatment anyway with 4 slots in the field.

Sheriff booth don’t you think OWGR under ranks LIV events. I understand Bryson is only #10, but it’s tough for me believe he isn’t a top 4 us golfer in world. Cantlay make be ranked higher, but he isn’t better imo

[Dutch1008]

3 minutes ago, LimaSierra said:

Sheriff booth don’t you think OWGR under ranks LIV events. I understand Bryson is only #10, but it’s tough for me believe he isn’t a top 4 us golfer in world. Cantlay make be ranked higher, but he isn’t better imo

 

OWGR doesn't include LIV events at all so yeah, they're under ranked. 

 

If we were to go by datagolf, the US team would be Scottie, Xander, Morikawa, and Bryson. That sounds right to me. 

 

Problem is, the International Olympic Committee decided to use OWGR as its qualifying criteria over 12 years ago. LIV, in its infinite wisdom, chose to ignore OWGR's published guidelines. Their arrogance has cost their players both major championship starts and now an Olympic appearance. If you want to blame someone, blame Thomas Bach at the IOC for not adjusting the Olympic criteria or blame Greg Norman for refusing to follow simple guidelines. It's not the OWGRs problem to solve.        

[MtlJeff]

And yet another US team passes on Caitlin Clark. Ridiculous. 

[GoGoErky]

10 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

OWGR doesn't include LIV events at all so yeah, they're under ranked. 

 

If we were to go by datagolf, the US team would be Scottie, Xander, Morikawa, and Bryson. That sounds right to me. 

 

Problem is, the International Olympic Committee decided to use OWGR as its qualifying criteria over 12 years ago. LIV, in its infinite wisdom, chose to ignore OWGR's published guidelines. Their arrogance has cost their players both major championship starts and now an Olympic appearance. If you want to blame someone, blame Thomas Bach at the IOC for not adjusting the Olympic criteria or blame Greg Norman for refusing to follow simple guidelines. It's not the OWGRs problem to solve.        

Didn’t data golf admit that the owgr is bette than their formula and there should be no reason to change?

why would anyone use a system that the people behind it stated it wasn’t the best.  owgr is the standard whether people like it or not.

 

Everything that’s happens to those who went to LIV is their own doing and that of the leadership. The leadership has no intentions of trying to get owgr acceptance. Norman and crew thought they were going to win the game of chicken with the tours. Once they lost that and the outcry from the players and public started they caved and applied then said thanks but no thanks to the offer.

 
The players took the chance on Norman and got screwed. The players who left after all the others were suspended it’s their own fault they are losing ranking points, they knew the consequences of their actions and still chose to jump ship.

 

 

Edited June 18 by GoGoErky

[Pnwpingi210]

5 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Didn’t data golf admit that the owgr is bette than their formula and there should be no reason to change?

why would anyone use a system that the people behind it stated it wasn’t the best.  owgr is the standard whether people like it or not.

 

Everything that’s happens to those who went to LIV is their own doing and that of the leadership. The leadership has no intentions of trying to get owgr acceptance. Norman and crew thought they were going to win the game of chicken with the tours. Once they lost that and the outcry from the players and public started they caved and applied then said thanks but no thanks to the offer.

 
The players took the chance on Norman and got screwed. The players who left after all the others were suspended it’s their own fault they are losing ranking points, they knew the consequences of their actions and still chose to jump ship.

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

OWGR doesn't include LIV events at all so yeah, they're under ranked. 

 

If we were to go by datagolf, the US team would be Scottie, Xander, Morikawa, and Bryson. That sounds right to me. 

 

Problem is, the International Olympic Committee decided to use OWGR as its qualifying criteria over 12 years ago. LIV, in its infinite wisdom, chose to ignore OWGR's published guidelines. Their arrogance has cost their players both major championship starts and now an Olympic appearance. If you want to blame someone, blame Thomas Bach at the IOC for not adjusting the Olympic criteria or blame Greg Norman for refusing to follow simple guidelines. It's not the OWGRs problem to solve.        

Data golf has Russell Hennelly  ranked 7 in the world and 0.01 points behind dechambeu and ahead of cantley.

 

i don’t know the formula, but something seems off with it.  Sounds like the owner of data golf agrees.

 

 

[MtlJeff]

If they chose the team via OGWR fine.....After 3 years of LIV now i don't get why we still have to do the mental gymnastics. You either hate it or tolerate it (no one really loves it) and we've heard all of the arguments 100x by now

 

But these are still golfers playing golf according to the rules of golf. And no rational person thinks that right now Bryson isn't better than Wyndam Clark after going 6,2,1 in the majors this year. If you want him out of the Olympics it's not because you think Clark is better. And that is perfectly fine. 

 

If you want a weaker team to hold up some high ground, OK. But it's a weaker team. It just is what it is

 

 

[Poor Mans Ty Webb]

Let’s also not forget in this whole OWGR/LIV discussion that many of the PGAT players who left for LIV received buckets of money for doing so, including Bryson. They aren’t victims of anything. They chose their own destiny and were rewarded for it, handsomely. It’s Bryson’s own fault that he’s not on the team, potentially because he doesn’t care quite as much about the USA winning gold in golf as he cares about his own self.

 

And so, for USA golf, it’s next man up. 

Edited June 18 by Poor Mans Ty Webb

[geauxt]

1 minute ago, MtlJeff said:

If they chose the team via OGWR fine.....After 3 years of LIV now i don't get why we still have to do the mental gymnastics. You either hate it or tolerate it (no one really loves it) and we've heard all of the arguments 100x by now

 

But these are still golfers playing golf according to the rules of golf. And no rational person thinks that right now Bryson isn't better than Wyndam Clark after going 6,2,1 in the majors this year. If you want him out of the Olympics it's not because you think Clark is better. And that is perfectly fine. 

 

If you want a weaker team to hold up some high ground, OK. But it's a weaker team. It just is what it is

 

 

I don’t think anyone would really argue Clark over Bryson but the issue is how you make that determination. 
 

They have to use something to decide who makes the team and who doesn’t. Right now, that something is OWGR and there doesn’t appear to be a better alternative available. 

[Pnwpingi210]

5 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

If they chose the team via OGWR fine.....After 3 years of LIV now i don't get why we still have to do the mental gymnastics. You either hate it or tolerate it (no one really loves it) and we've heard all of the arguments 100x by now

 

But these are still golfers playing golf according to the rules of golf. And no rational person thinks that right now Bryson isn't better than Wyndam Clark after going 6,2,1 in the majors this year. If you want him out of the Olympics it's not because you think Clark is better. And that is perfectly fine. 

 

If you want a weaker team to hold up some high ground, OK. But it's a weaker team. It just is what it is

 

 

you are not wrong
 

I think the challenge becomes when you start to make exceptions for those who dont qualify via owgr, how do you do it in an equitable way?

Edited June 18 by Pnwpingi210

[MtlJeff]

5 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

you are not wrong
 

I think the challenge becomes when you start to make exceptions for those who dont qualify via owgr, how do you do it in an equitable way?

 

I joked about Caitlin Clark earlier but it's somewhat applicable. The hockey, basketball, soccer teams etc are picked by people and not subject to qualifying criteria. 

 

This wouldn't be perfect either (see , Ryder Cup captains picks last go-round).....however they could do it that way. I'm not necessarily advocating for this however

 

I'm just saying.....everyone knows Bryson is better than Wyndham Clark right now

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, MtlJeff said:

 

I joked about Caitlin Clark earlier but it's somewhat applicable. The hockey, basketball, soccer teams etc are picked by people and not subject to qualifying criteria. 

 

This wouldn't be perfect either (see , Ryder Cup captains picks last go-round).....however they could do it that way. I'm not necessarily advocating for this however

 

I'm just saying.....everyone knows Bryson is better than Wyndham Clark right now

I’d argue cantlay should be in the conversation as wel if we are opening it up to subjectivity.

 

Those other examples are slightly different in your picking individuals from teams sports.  I would say they have less control over their own destiny and performance.  It makes more sense to tell golfers play well by this criteria and you make it in.

 

nothing is perfect.

 

[Dutch1008]

2 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Didn’t data golf admit that the owgr is bette than their formula and there should be no reason to change?

 

I have no idea what datagolf thinks about OWGR but saying something is better or worse can only be defined in its relation to its goal. Data golf's goal is to truly rank golfers based on past performance. It's a very simple model. It's simply strokes gained but adjusted for field strength. OWGR is not all that different except they artificially boost the points for the Majors and the Players Championship. 

 

I think it's fine to boost points for the majors or Players when you're talking about things like the FedEx Cup points list. I don't think that manipulation is warranted when simply ranking players. 

 

For example, TPC Sawgrass is a major championship venue. Maybe you love it or hate it, but it certainly a more demanding and exacting test than a place like Valahalla. Further, prior to the LIV split, The Players was universally considered to be the strongest field in golf. No amateur exemptions or past their prime champs like the Masters. No collection of club pros like the PGA, no batch of open qualifiers like the USO or Open Championship. The Players was the top 150 humans walking the planet and competing on a major caliber course. With that backdrop, why would it garner fewer OWGR points than a major championship? It's statistically harder to win. 

 

That type of manipulation is fine, when it's used for qualification criteria and agreed to by the other professional tours and ruling bodies as part of OWGR. They've made a conscious decision to give extra rewards to players for their performance in majors. But I don't think it's fine when we're simply talking about who's the best golfer? Is X better than Y. Random manipulations in the data simply muddy that discussion.  

[Titleist99]

18 minutes ago, Poor Mans Ty Webb said:

Let’s also not forget in this whole OWGR/LIV discussion that many of the PGAT players who left for LIV received buckets of money for doing so, including Bryson. They aren’t victims of anything. They chose their own destiny and were rewarded for it, handsomely. It’s Bryson’s own fault that he’s not on the team, potentially because he doesn’t care quite as much about the USA winning gold in golf as he cares about his own self.

 

And so, for USA golf, it’s next man up. 

100%. LIV and its fans love playing the victim. It's a matter of them wanting their cake and eating it too. That's what rubs people the wrong way.      IMO

[Dutch1008]

14 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

I joked about Caitlin Clark earlier but it's somewhat applicable. The hockey, basketball, soccer teams etc are picked by people and not subject to qualifying criteria. 

 

This wouldn't be perfect either (see , Ryder Cup captains picks last go-round).....however they could do it that way. I'm not necessarily advocating for this however

 

I'm just saying.....everyone knows Bryson is better than Wyndham Clark right now

 

You answered your own question. Just look at the Ryder Cup. Who'd be picking team USA? How do you know he'd want Bryson? OWGR isn't perfect but I'll take it over a dude like Zach Johnson making subjective decisions. 

[MtlJeff]

3 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

You answered your own question. Just look at the Ryder Cup. Who'd be picking team USA? How do you know he'd want Bryson? OWGR isn't perfect but I'll take it over a dude like Zach Johnson making subjective decisions. 

 

Right and I did say I understand neither way is perfect. It's just a bit silly given what we've seen here last couple of months. Like obviously Bryson is better right now

 

Maybe 3 auto qualifiers and a captains pick I don't know. 

 

If I was trying to just put the best team out here, I'd want Bryson on it.

 

But not many people really care about the Olympics either. 

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

You answered your own question. Just look at the Ryder Cup. Who'd be picking team USA? How do you know he'd want Bryson? OWGR isn't perfect but I'll take it over a dude like Zach Johnson making subjective decisions. 

I can just hear the call.  “Hey b-dwizzle, how would you like to play in the Olympics?”

[Dutch1008]

3 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I can just hear the call.  “Hey b-dwizzle, how would you like to play in the Olympics?”

 

ZB - "I thought about Bryson. I thought about Bryson really hard. But you can't leave JT at home. The guy was built for this"

[GoGoErky]

34 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

I think it's fine to boost points for the majors or Players when you're talking about things like the FedEx Cup points list. I don't think that manipulation is warranted when simply ranking players. 

 

They are bigger events usually with better fields. So they get more points. Nothing wrong with that logic. 
 

35 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

For example, TPC Sawgrass is a major championship venue. Maybe you love it or hate it, but it certainly a more demanding and exacting test than a place like Valahalla. Further, prior to the LIV split, The Players was universally considered to be the strongest field in golf.

It was determined that based on the rankings of the players in the field not the names. It’s that people looked at the names involved and saw it as a stronger field. The rankings of the players in the field hasn’t really changed, it’s the names of the players that have and there perceived to be weaker than years past.

 

37 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

That type of manipulation is fine, when it's used for qualification criteria and agreed to by the other professional tours and ruling bodies as part of OWGR. They've made a conscious decision to give extra rewards to players for their performance in majors. But I don't think it's fine when we're simply talking about who's the best golfer? Is X better than Y. Random manipulations in the data simply muddy that discussion.

Well if the LIV leadership chose to adopt the recommendations their members would be getting points and we would know where they ranked.  But they said FU to OWGR. The only people at fault are LIV leadership the LIV members who chased money. Then we can add it these guys are playing resort courses rather than tour caliber courses and the supposedly better golfers aren’t doing all that well against the same golfers week in and week out. 

[Dutch1008]

 

4 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

They are bigger events usually with better fields. So they get more points. Nothing wrong with that logic. 

 

Both datagolf and OWGR already take field strength into account. OWGR adds an additional layer above and beyond the field strength for both Majors and The Players (although less so). It's an unnecessary manipulation justified by the "intangible" qualities of majors. A stats and data guy like Mark Brodie would never do such a thing to his data analysis. It's an artificial manipulation that doesn't need to be there.    

 

16 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

It was determined that based on the rankings of the players in the field not the names. It’s that people looked at the names involved and saw it as a stronger field. The rankings of the players in the field hasn’t really changed, it’s the names of the players that have and there perceived to be weaker than years past.

 

I have no idea what you are getting at here. The Players was considered the toughest field in golf because it had the top 150 players. Period, full stop. The majors have never had that. The Players Field was always deeper than the major fields. And no, The Players today is not what it once was. LIV took a bite. I've been pretty critical of the LIV roster. It's massively overrated. But I'm not going to act like they don't have a dozen or so absolute sticks that are comfortable top 50 guys. The Players Championship is weaker when Bryson, Brooks, Cam, Rahm, Nieman, Hatton etc aren't playing. That's just a fact. Today, the only thing that really separate the Players from a signature event, is that the players still has a full 150 man field and a cut. 

 

As we stand now, it's hard to argue that The Players is a stronger field than the majors because the majors does include those few LIV dudes that do matter. I don't like the situation, but it is what it is. 

 

26 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Well if the LIV leadership chose to adopt the recommendations their members would be getting points and we would know where they ranked.  But they said FU to OWGR. The only people at fault are LIV leadership the LIV members who chased money. Then we can add it these guys are playing resort courses rather than tour caliber courses and the supposedly better golfers aren’t doing all that well against the same golfers week in and week out.

 

Look LIV can suck a lemon as far as I'm concerned. They made their bed and can sleep in it. I have no sympathy for any of them. That doesn't mean I can't honestly debate the shortcomings of using OWGR as a ranking tool when compared to datagolf. Pointing out those shortcomings is not the same as asking for OWGR to change. I don't think they should.  

[widow-maker]

When the rules were established for playing golf in the Olympics, LIV wasn't even in the embryo stage.  After this Olympics, they very well may change the qualification criteria.  But there's no sense in crying over spilt milk.  Everyone knew the criteria.  If you chose to go play on a tour that doesn't receive OWGR points then you obviously preferred what they were offering over the possibility of playing in the Olympics.  

[Llortamaisey]

He’s got a 6th, 2nd, and 1st in this years majors. Can’t he just identify as a top ten player? Isn’t that a thing now?

[ronsc1985]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

you are not wrong
 

I think the challenge becomes when you start to make exceptions for those who dont qualify via owgr, how do you do it in an equitable way?

Simple, just have a qualifying tournament similar to the track and field events. Using a system that heavily  weighs past performance in events far removed from the  present time is silly and does not produce the current best performers.

[Pnwpingi210]

1 hour ago, ronsc1985 said:

Simple, just have a qualifying tournament similar to the track and field events. Using a system that heavily  weighs past performance in events far removed from the  present time is silly and does not produce the current best performers.

Why not just use the us open then?

[Archimedes65]

Is the TGL gonna get OWGR points?

 

Is the LIV crowd ever gonna stop whining about their exhibition circus not getting points?

 

When will Talor Gooch win his first major?

 

These are important questions folks.

 

 

Edited June 19 by Archimedes65

[Archimedes65]

9 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Why not just use the us open then?

 

You can’t use a single event for golf.  We all know that.

 

I expect there will be a compromise on this in future Olympics, given all that’s transpired.  

[ronsc1985]

35 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

You can’t use a single event for golf.  We all know that.

 

I expect there will be a compromise on this in future Olympics, given all that’s transpired.  

Why not? Many olympic events are qualified for with a single event commonly called  Olympic Trials.  In fact most if not all individual events are.  Olympic golf is just individual play as are most all golf tournaments at the elite level.

[MountainKing]

Don't really feel like anybody had any major issues with owgr until about 3 years ago.   These guys do have the choice go play events that offer up points, or figure out how to perform in all 4 majors yearly. If it's that important to them, not sure why they aren't.