[Peter Pallotta]

I'll take the opposite stance, just because.

Would anyone on this board tell a friend or family member who wanted/needed to keep working NOT to take advantage of any benefits/loopholes offered by their employer?

Would anyone actually say to their friend, "Hey, you're having a hard time, but listen pal, in my books that loophole you're hanging your hat on stinks, it sucks, and you should do the right thing and just get the hell out of the way, you know, to make some room for a better man."

I don't think there's anyone here who'd say that. (Well, maybe one or two )

It's just people, gents, trying to hang their hats on whatever they can so as to keep doing what they want/need to do. Just like it's always been and, if we're really lucky, how it'll always be. Yeah, principles are important; often very important. But the "principles" of the PGA Tour? Nah.

Peter    

[Gib_Papazian]

Barny,

"btw..When did the pro tour ever look like the game played by 47 yr old club members?"

30 years ago, the PGA Tour was a different game. Even 20 years. Corey Pavin is the prime example of what happens when the power game dominates the Tour 95% of the time - the courses are set up against the artist, the thinker, the shotmaker who does not depend on 325 yard drives, followed by a wedge to a tucked pin that Corey Pavin could only reach with a five-iron in his hand.

Watching professional golf is boring and repetitious because every shot is just more playing darts - and that does not resemble anything I do - or ever did - on the golf course.

When I grew up, the game was played with finesse and panache. Cutting a four iron over a bunker and having it wander next to the pin was art in motion.

So, in answer to the original question, the joy of watching cunning approach play is gone and thus most of my interest because those were things I could emulate and identify with.

Tennis died because of the power game. Nobody cares anymore. Once they eliminated that connection with average decent golfer, and the money became obscene, I quit caring which monkey or clown performs when the circus comes to town.
 

[John Kavanaugh]

You can't pull the Pavin card and forget about what Fred Funk has done in the last 10 years.

I think a ton of people are arrogant revisionists of their own talent when they think just because they could hit the ball as far as the shortest hitter on tour their game resembled Nicklaus, Love or Couples.

There are more amateurs today that hit the ball as far as Tiger as ever hit the ball as far as Nicklaus back in the 70's.

[Rich Goodale]

Gib

Your tennis card is also overworn and marked (probably from being handled too often by Tom Paul's tobacco stained fingers...)

Assuming that the "golden age" of tennis was in the early Open  era (~1968-1990), almost all of the biggest names (Laver, Newcombe, Smith, Ashe, Connors, Borg, Lendl and Becker, Edberg, Sampras) were power players.  The only really good finesse players I can think of were Rosewall and McEnroe, but both could hit the crap out of the ball when they wanted to.  There were of course Michael Chang and Harold ("moonball") Solomon but not too many people paid good money to watch those guys play.

And, as to the issue at hand, I think Finchem is right on this one.   I have sympathy for the two guys that might be screwed out of a few tournaments a year by effectively being relegated to #s 126 and 127, but if they are really any good and have any gumption they make it anyway.  Let's be honest, who other than their mothers and their high school buddies really cares about the guys who are only good enough to swim in the Ty Webb Memorial Pond of Mediocrity on the tour?  Finchem isn't running an annual spelling bee, he's an impressario (although probably the least charismatic one in memory).  Duval will sell far more tickets and satisfy more sponsors over his lifetime than 95% of the players on the tour.  And, by adding Dudley to the extension list, he shows (as Peter P has said above) he's got heart.

Rich

[Sean_A]

Gib

Your tennis card is also overworn and marked (probably from being handled too often by Tom Paul's tobacco stained fingers...)

Assuming that the "golden age" of tennis was in the early Open  era (~1968-1990), almost all of the biggest names (Laver, Newcombe, Smith, Ashe, Connors, Borg, Lendl and Becker, Edberg, Sampras) were power players.  The only really good finesse players I can think of were Rosewall and McEnroe, but both could hit the crap out of the ball when they wanted to.  There were of course Michael Chang and Harold ("moonball") Solomon but not too many people paid good money to watch those guys play.

And, as to the issue at hand, I think Finchem is right on this one.   I have sympathy for the two guys that might be screwed out of a few tournaments a year by effectively being relegated to #s 126 and 127, but if they are really any good and have any gumption they make it anyway.  Let's be honest, who other than their mothers and their high school buddies really cares about the guys who are only good enough to swim in the Ty Webb Memorial Pond of Mediocrity on the tour?  Finchem isn't running an annual spelling bee, he's an impressario (although probably the least charismatic one in memory).  Duval will sell far more tickets and satisfy more sponsors over his lifetime than 95% of the players on the tour.  And, by adding Dudley to the extension list, he shows (as Peter P has said above) he's got heart.

Rich

Rich

Folks always go on about the ole days and how power golf wasn't where it was at.  Looking at my list of all time great players, of the ten, only Player and Sarazen stand out as possibly shortish hitters.  Mind you, Player was always looking to hit the ball further so he certainly understood the importance of length.  I really don't know about Sarazen.  I haven't read much about him being long so I assumed he was not.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

You gotta give Sarazen some long love for that 2 on 15 at ANGC.

[Rich Goodale]

Right on, Mr. Ciao

Just as the man with a hammer sees everything as a nail, short hitters with tremendous golfing abilities (like Gib and Tom Paul) see any architect who caters to their abilities and predilections (e.g. Macdonald, Mackenzie, Behr) as superior to those who do not.  And, of course, predilections usually are based on abilities.  I'm sure one of the reasons I like links golf so much is that it caters to my abilities, the sum of which is: being able to hit the ball relatively long, but not straight; often great recovery skills (tied closely to the "not straight" bit of the above clause); and seeing the humour and humanity of taking big numbers from seemingly impregnable positions.

I don't know much about Sarazen's length, but he can't have been too short (golf wise) if he could make 2 on a 500 yard hold in the 1930's.

Mr. Slainte

[Rich Goodale]

You gotta give Sarazen some long love for that 2 on 15 at ANGC.

Snap!

[Doug Sobieski]

Believe it or not, the Top 125 on the previous year's money list is #20 on the priority list for all-exempt status. Yes, there are 19 categories with a better status.

This new criteria is NOT taking away the exempt status of anyone else.

[George Pazin]

A leave of absence is not unheard of in the corporate world, especially for long-term employees. If every person that ever needed to take extended time off lost their job, corporate America would seem heartless. This is effectively a leave of absence.

The PGA Tour is an organization set up for the players benefit. I doubt that many players would begrudge one of their own taking a leave due to a serious family problem. They'd most likely appreciate the same consideration if they were in the same boat.

People who earn over a million a year in the corporate world do not take off a year to help a wife with a pregnancy and come back to the same job.  Not unless they are the actual woman of course under threat of lawsuit.

They can if they're self-employed, or independent contractors, in the case of the players.

[Rich Goodale]

Tooshay, George.

[George Pazin]

Believe it or not, the Top 125 on the previous year's money list is #20 on the priority list for all-exempt status. Yes, there are 19 categories with a better status.

This new criteria is NOT taking away the exempt status of anyone else.

Nice point, Doug.

General rule on the site: You will rarely get yourself in trouble agreeing with someone named Doug.

Now George or Rich, on the other hand....

[Doug Sobieski]

General rule on the site: You will rarely get yourself in trouble agreeing with someone named Doug.

Now George or Rich, on the other hand....

I'm definitely in your corner on that one, George   But wait, then I'd be agreeing with you  

[Phil McDade]

But allowing Duval and Hart exemptions based on issues related in no way to their golf game (as opposed to, say, a one-time injury thing), surely takes spots away from some golfer(s) in some tournaments.

I'm largely with Kavanaugh and Shivas on this one, similar to my views on Casey Martin and the cart (shouldn't have been allowed to use it). Tournament golf, although I still enjoy watching it, suffers from several problems these days, not the least of which is the lack of substantive, prolonged competition (of the sort provided by Player, Trevino, Watson et al to Jack) for Tiger. Somewhere out there is a young gun with enough cojones to take on Tiger; why delay his rise to the Tour with exemptions for the likes of Duval and Hart?  (OK, if someone's good enough to play at Tiger's level, he'll get there eventually -- but why delay it or make it harder through these exemptions?)

Quick question to befuddle the argument -- how did Tiger get into all of those end-of-the-season tournaments in '96? He played his first pro tournament (as a pro) here in Wisconsin on a very savvy sponsor's exemption.

John -- if I ran a corporation, and had some executive making $1 million who oversaw a division responsible for X-(large)-percent of my profit for several years, I sure as heck would let him/her take off a year for children/pregnancy. Businesses are beholden to their owners/shareholders, and if some folks are critical to the financial return of the owner's investment, I'd find a way to keep them around.

[John Kavanaugh]

A leave of absence is not unheard of in the corporate world, especially for long-term employees. If every person that ever needed to take extended time off lost their job, corporate America would seem heartless. This is effectively a leave of absence.

The PGA Tour is an organization set up for the players benefit. I doubt that many players would begrudge one of their own taking a leave due to a serious family problem. They'd most likely appreciate the same consideration if they were in the same boat.

People who earn over a million a year in the corporate world do not take off a year to help a wife with a pregnancy and come back to the same job.  Not unless they are the actual woman of course under threat of lawsuit.

They can if they're self-employed, or independent contractors, in the case of the players.

George,

If this is true, as you so smuggly suggest, why then did Duval need a special exemption?  I know of nothing in the independent contractor code that allows one to take a year off and get his job back...I think it is quite the opposite for independent contractors.  As an independent contractor you get your job back through low bid (scores) or superior performance.  Duval would have these opportunities to earn his card without the exemption.

[George Pazin]

Phil, the Casey Martin issue was about a governing body being allowed to make its own rules, imho, not whether or not he had a right to a cart.

And, again, these guys are independent contractors, and the Tour has a responsibility to them as well (it's a 2 way relationship), in addition to trying to put out the most attractive entertainment option possible. They are NOT employees of the PGA Tour.

All the PGA Tour is saying is that some guys may have been exempt, but haven't been able to take advantage of that exemption due to personal reasons. If you want to argue they are taking someone else's spot, then they are most definitely GIVING someone a spot this year (or the year of their personal crisis).

To argue that the PGA Tour is not allowed to work in what it believes are its own best interest here is to directly contradict your stance on the Casey Martin issue, imho.

[George Pazin]

I know of nothing in the independent contractor code that allows one to take a year off and get his job back...I think it is quite the opposite for independent contractors.  As an independent contractor you get your job back through low bid (scores) or superior performance.  Duval would have these opportunities to earn his card without the exemption.

Give me a break - the whole essence of an independent contractor is that he is free to make whatever contractual agreements he can negotiate with the other party. If the other ICs - players, that is - are unhappy, they can try to persuade the Tour that it has made a mistake.

Your opinion doesn't amount to a whole lot in this agreement - neither does mine.

I admire someone taking a principled stance, but you're wrong on this one.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that if you had a really good independent asphalt salesman working with you and he had to take a year off FOR ANY REASON, you wouldn't give him a second chance when he chose to come back? That makes no business sense whatsoever. That's tantamount to turning down work from a client that chose to use someone else for awhile, then realized he made a mistake using that person.

[John Kavanaugh]

I am not only right about this issue, I will be proven right in a court of law.  I am sure a player who was not of Duval's stature has been or will be denied a like exemption and will sue the Tour for damages.  As in most all things I say it only takes patience to prove me correct.

This is a huge can of worms that will eventually destroy the exempt status system currently being used by the Tour...I will even give Finchem credit enough to say that he already knows that and it is what he wants.  The Tour needs pay for play if it is going to continue to survive the next TV contract negotiations or attrack new sponsors.

[John Kavanaugh]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that if you had a really good independent asphalt salesman working with you and he had to take a year off FOR ANY REASON, you wouldn't give him a second chance when he chose to come back? That makes no business sense whatsoever. That's tantamount to turning down work from a client that chose to use someone else for awhile, then realized he made a mistake using that person.

People in my game are not such financially secure puss bombs that they take a year off because of a sick kid or wife.  Sure, maybe a month but not a year.  Your question is moot.

[George Pazin]

I am not only right about this issue, I will be proven right in a court of law.  I am sure a player who was not of Duval's stature has been or will be denied a like exemption and will sue the Tour for damages.  As in most all things I say it only takes patience to prove me correct.

I'm not a lawyer, but it's hard for me to imagine they could lose a case like this - that's like saying they can never change their mind about anything.

Has anyone who finished in the top 25 on the Nike Tour ever successfully sued because they used to only take 15, and now they take 25?

[George Pazin]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that if you had a really good independent asphalt salesman working with you and he had to take a year off FOR ANY REASON, you wouldn't give him a second chance when he chose to come back? That makes no business sense whatsoever. That's tantamount to turning down work from a client that chose to use someone else for awhile, then realized he made a mistake using that person.

People in my game are not such financially secure puss bombs that they take a year off because of a sick kid or wife.  Sure, maybe a month but not a year.  Your question is moot.

And your response is really weak.

[John Kavanaugh]

I am not only right about this issue, I will be proven right in a court of law.  I am sure a player who was not of Duval's stature has been or will be denied a like exemption and will sue the Tour for damages.  As in most all things I say it only takes patience to prove me correct.

I'm not a lawyer, but it's hard for me to imagine they could lose a case like this - that's like saying they can never change their mind about anything.

Has anyone who finished in the top 25 on the Nike Tour ever successfully sued because they used to only take 15, and now they take 25?

George,

You can not descriminate against one employee over another in a case like this because they are more valuable to you.  You have to give a secretary the same maternity leave you give a vice president.  How are you going to prove that one wife needs more care than another?

[Rich Goodale]

You gotta raise your game, John.  George is stomping all over you.

[John Kavanaugh]

My response is not weak.  Duval would have never taken this year off if he wasn't already financially secure.  It does not happen this way for your average working man.

[George Pazin]

DUVAL IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()