OWGR and LIV golfers

[A.G._Crockett]

Ben,
You are incorrect, and you are welcome to go the OWGR website and read it for yourself.  Neither I nor anybody else has ever asserted that 72 holes with a 36 hole cut is the ONLY way that tournament golf is played, and the only format for which ranking points are awarded.
But if you are claiming that 72/36 is NOT the standard you are just wrong, and if you are claiming that somehow 54/0 is comparable, you are more than wrong.  Sorry.

A.G.
I feel like this point is worth reiterating:

There is a significant amount of "they can't do that because that's not the way it's been done" mentality around the format, which simply isn't true.

This seems to be where you're head is living these days. Especially when reading your reply to Peter's 90 holes question.

My participation in this thread was started on this notion that how things are done today are not the only way they could be done.  While the current structure of the OWGR does not mesh with what LIV has started with, I don't see where either is set in stone, especially since LIV is operating in its infancy and the OWGR very recently changed how it operates.

You could not be more wrong about my position.  I have absolutely NO ties to ANY ranking system, and I would have no problem with the OWGR rules being changed.  But just as with the lawsuit claiming restraint of trade by guys who left for millions of dollars, these guys HAD to know that they were going to a tour that simply does not meet the current criteria for ranking points. 

There are currently 23 tours worldwide that are approved for OWGR points, and all 23 follow the same basic format.  Variations happen, but must be approved by the Technical Committee.  None of the 23 play 54 holes as their basic format.  None of the 23 have a no cut format.  None of the 23 use shotgun starts.  None of the 23 have a situation in which many of the players are apparently NOT playing for "real" prize money, but rather for money that counts against their guarantee until they reach the guarantee amount.
I don't have a problem with changing the way things are done, and I do NOT have a problem with the guys that went to the LIV Tour taking the money and going elsewhere to play their competitive golf. None of this matters to me in the least.

But I DO have a problem with people that ask for special treatment when they have chosen not to comply with rules and procedures that were known in advance.  Take the money and go, and good on you.  But suck it up and take the consequences like big boys and get on with it.

[Ken Moum]

To my surprise, LIV's five tournaments so far have had a better ranking than the five PGA Tour tournaments they have gone up against. The LIV tournament ranking has also improved from week to week as more players have been signed.


Make of it what you will.

I've always been a fan of Sagarin's methodology, especially for amateur golf.


One thing about this list is that adding a player like Smith to LIV really affects the tour's standing. After all, in the last 12 months he beat almost all of the top guys at The Players and The Open.


Moving forward the defectors will have fewer and fewer chances to play against big, deep fields. Regardless of what else occurs,  they're contracted to play in 14 events next year with 48-player fields made up of a significant number of players who haven't done much in the last 52 weeks.


Jeff's system pays dividends for beating player A who has also beaten players B, D, R, T and Y.


Unless I completely misunderstand, playing mostly against the same 47 other guys isn't a path to a high rank.

[James Reader]

Isn’t a fundamental issue with LIV that players are getting access to limited field, no cut events for reasons other than golfing merit - and may continue to do so for years even if they play terribly? 


If OWGR points were to be available, a contracted player could come last by 10 shots every week for a couple of years and still earn considerably more points, and a higher ranking, than someone who was beating half the field every week on the PGA or European Tours.


The ranking system is designed for a golfing landscape where there is movement between the tours on the basis of merit and where places on those limited field events that do attract points are earned by the quality of a golfer’s recent play.  LIV would have to fundamentally change its model (and, it would seem, breach a number of its players’ contracts) to fit into that world.

[JLahrman]

Isn’t a fundamental issue with LIV that players are getting access to limited field, no cut events for reasons other than golfing merit - and may continue to do so for years even if they play terribly? 

If OWGR points were to be available, a contracted player could come last by 10 shots every week for a couple of years and still earn considerably more points, and a higher ranking, than someone who was beating half the field every week on the PGA or European Tours.

That is a feasible scenario. And that player could be me. There is no way I could ever qualify for the PGA Tour. But LIV could invite me. I'd sign for a lot cheaper than most of these guys. There's nothing stopping Greg Norman from calling me up, I could be teeing it up in the next LIV event.


I once attended a Super Bowl party with Jeff Sagarin. It was the Patriots-Rams SB during Brady's rookie year. When the clock was winding down and the score was tied I noted that no Super Bowl had ever gone to overtime. Jeff Sagarin was pretty sure one had gone to OT. Unfortunately I had to correct him. The broadcast eventually confirmed that I was right. As far as claims to fame go it's not much, but it's something.

[Kalen Braley]

i think in the aggregate LIV golf suffers from a case of too many Bs, and the OWGR has sniffed it out

Bogus Tour Backing
Bogus Business Plan
Bogus Team Structures
Bogus Strength of field
Bogus Qualifying System & Signing structure
Bogus Tourney setups with 54 hole, no cut, shotgun starts
Bogus Incentive to perform with prize money counting against signing bonuses
Bogus Tournament coverage
Bogus Lawsuits
Bogus Premises that other Tours must accept them with open arms


P.S.  I would use Wrestling as an analogy.  There are plenty of legitimate forms to watch, Freestyle, Greco-Roman, etc in various competitions at the high school, college, and Olympic levels.

But if you wanna watch "Wrastlin" then turn on WWE ...and no doubt those guys certainly get paid much better to boot.

LIV is effectively the WWE of golf.

[Mike Wagner]

i think in the aggregate LIV golf suffers from a case of too many Bs, and the OWGR has sniffed it out

Bogus Tour Backing
Bogus Business Plan
Bogus Team Structures
Bogus Strength of field
Bogus Qualifying System & Signing structure
Bogus Tourney setups with 54 hole, no cut, shotgun starts
Bogus Incentive to perform with prize money counting against signing bonuses
Bogus Tournament coverage
Bogus Lawsuits
Bogus Premises that other Tours must accept them with open arms


P.S.  I would use Wrestling as an analogy.  There are plenty of legitimate forms to watch, Freestyle, Greco-Roman, etc in various competitions at the high school, college, and Olympic levels.

But if you wanna watch "Wrastlin" then turn on WWE ...and no doubt those guys certainly get paid much better to boot.

LIV is effectively the WWE of golf.

Which event did you go to?

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Has anyone in this thread actually seen the criteria or is everyone just parroting what their preferred media source is saying?

Someone posted a list to twitter yesterday.  I can't vouch for its veracity or exclusivity, but the criteria are all things that have been discussed in media reports:


1. An embrace of inclusion and promoting non-discriminatory practices.


2. Competitions contested over 72 holes, except for developmental tours (like the Abema TV Tour, the Alps Golf Tour, or the Europro Tour, among others) which are permitted to be 54 hole events.


3. An open annual qualifying school held before the start of each season.


4. A field size on average of 75 players over the course of the season.


5. a 36-hole cut, whether playing 54 or 72 holes.


6. A clear opportunity to progress to a full member tour, that is, to one of the six members of the International Federation of PGA Tours.


7. Reasonable access for local and regional players (i.e. Monday qualifiers) at each of its tournaments.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/05/liv-claims-breakaway-rebels-can-earn-world-ranking-points-in-mena-deal

I'm curious to know how an alliance with the Mena Tour will allow LIV Golf players to earn OWGR points, when the format of their tournaments are STILL at odds with the criteria listed above.

[Joe_Tucholski]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/05/liv-claims-breakaway-rebels-can-earn-world-ranking-points-in-mena-deal

I'm curious to know how an alliance with the Mena Tour will allow LIV Golf players to earn OWGR points, when the format of their tournaments are STILL at odds with the criteria listed above.

I'm assuming LIV events will be unofficial events for the MENA tour just like the PGA Tour, DP Tour and I assume other tours have unofficial events that do not meet the OWGR criteria but earn points.


A noted difference is most of the unofficial PGA Tour events are composed of individuals who play on the PGA Tour.  Can't believe many LIV golfers will play in a MENA event.

[Rob Marshall]

How can you get points for an affiliation with a tour that hasn’t had a tournament in 2 and a half years? This just gets better by the minute.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r76LpZd-E5A

• They misspelled Koepka's last name in the description. (I understand it's autocorrect, but…)
• The first thing Brooks says is "I just hate when you sit on the fence. Pick a side." Ummmm, huh? What are they being told that he'd say that? Seems pretty clear to me the OWGR has "picked a side." They said "no."
• Bryson "We've hit every mark in their criteria." Ummmm, name them? And what marks have you hit? You've been around for a year? No. You have cuts? No. Clear path to qualification? No. So what marks have you hit?

I lost interest when the translator had to speak for two minutes straight after that.

It seems somewhat clear that the players were told OWGR points would be there for them pretty soon. Did they believe the Asian Tour stuff was their immediate way in, and now that it seems to be failing, or the Asian Tour isn't playing ball, that this MENA play was going to work?

I also think the likelihood of OWGR points being assigned retroactively are slimmer than they seem to think, though I suppose since they're *points* it would only really affect the LIV player *points*. Doing it after any tournaments that awards player entry based on their ranking (top 50, top 100, whatever) though feels… funny. That affects players outside of LIV.

[Kalen Braley]

How can you get points for an affiliation with a tour that hasn’t had a tournament in 2 and a half years? This just gets better by the minute.

Exactly Rob,

It wreaks of desperation to be leeching on to a Tour like that.  And then to hear high profile players like Phil try to justify it?  Just pathetic....

[William_G]

How can you get points for an affiliation with a tour that hasn’t had a tournament in 2 and a half years? This just gets better by the minute.

Exactly Rob,

It wreaks of desperation to be leeching on to a Tour like that.  And then to hear high profile players like Phil try to justify it?  Just pathetic....

exactly, Greg trying deliver undeliverable goods

[Stewart Abramson]

Links to Eamon Lynch's Golfweek article on point.


https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2022/10/08/lynch-liv-golf-news-bryson-dechambeau-owgr/?itm_source=parsely-api&fbclid=IwAR3aEZbiR7wDtjcr2hOpWi2WI6nkVkBm75quO2sTCS2JG8FDergEMRVk3iw


https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2022/10/08/lynch-liv-golf-news-bryson-dechambeau-owgr/

[Tim Leahy]

If LIV tour players are given OWGR points then shouldn't the PGA Champions Tour players also earn these points. Biggest complaints against LIV are the same as Champions tour.
54 hole events. Check
Limited season events. Check
Limited fields. Check
LIV limited by contract membership, Champions by age.
Champions really has even more of a claim because they are not paid appearance fees as LIV players are per their contracts.
 

[Niall C]

So the MENA Tour which hasn't held a tournament for two years and was previously recognised by OWGR has been dropped by OWGR now that they are looking to do a deal with LIV. Is it not about time that we all acknowledged that the OWGR opposition to LIV has nothing to do with limited fields and all that and everything to do with some, if not all, of the members of the OWGR trying to protect their businesses ?


Niall

[Rob Marshall]

So the MENA Tour which hasn't held a tournament for two years and was previously recognised by OWGR has been dropped by OWGR now that they are looking to do a deal with LIV. Is it not about time that we all acknowledged that the OWGR opposition to LIV has nothing to do with limited fields and all that and everything to do with some, if not all, of the members of the OWGR trying to protect their businesses ?


Niall

Why would a tour which hasn't played in over two years get points? Can MENA members, if there are any, play in the LIV events..............Pretty sure the answer is no.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So the MENA Tour which hasn't held a tournament for two years and was previously recognised by OWGR has been dropped by OWGR now that they are looking to do a deal with LIV. Is it not about time that we all acknowledged that the OWGR opposition to LIV has nothing to do with limited fields and all that and everything to do with some, if not all, of the members of the OWGR trying to protect their businesses ?

Really missing a "ha ha ha ha ha ha" emoji here.

[Joe_Tucholski]

shouldn't the PGA Champions Tour players also earn these points.

If the purpose of the OWGR was to rank order the best players in the world, the Champions tour events should get world rankings points.  Unfortunately, identifying the best players in the world is not the purpose of the OWGR.


This only matters because 4 events (some might also care about WGC events and the Players) use the OWGR as an entry qualifier.  OWGR was used by those events because it claimed to identify the best players in the world, the OWGR clearly doesn't do that now.  I'd be quite happy if some programmer wrote a new program to better attempt to identify the best players in the world and the Open, US Open, Masters and PGA moved to that system.

[Sean_A]

shouldn't the PGA Champions Tour players also earn these points.

If the purpose of the OWGR was to rank order the best players in the world, the Champions tour events should get world rankings points.  Unfortunately, identifying the best players in the world is not the purpose of the OWGR.


This only matters because 4 events (some might also care about WGC events and the Players) use the OWGR as an entry qualifier.  OWGR was used by those events because it claimed to identify the best players in the world, the OWGR clearly doesn't do that now.  I'd be quite happy if some programmer wrote a new program to better attempt to identify the best players in the world and the Open, US Open, Masters and PGA moved to that system.

I agree. OWGR is meant to identify the best players. Not the best players which play on a tour which meets their requirements. The OWGR should alter requirements to match the landscape of professional golf. Otherwise it isn't doing its job. In which case, what is the point?

Ciao

[ward peyronnin]

If the LIV players are among the best players in the world then they have the opportunity to demonstrate that by playing on a QUALIFYING event and proving it.
Them being granted points for a tour that is apples to oranges to the original tour does not no matter what the algorithm

[A.G._Crockett]

shouldn't the PGA Champions Tour players also earn these points.

If the purpose of the OWGR was to rank order the best players in the world, the Champions tour events should get world rankings points.  Unfortunately, identifying the best players in the world is not the purpose of the OWGR.


This only matters because 4 events (some might also care about WGC events and the Players) use the OWGR as an entry qualifier.  OWGR was used by those events because it claimed to identify the best players in the world, the OWGR clearly doesn't do that now.  I'd be quite happy if some programmer wrote a new program to better attempt to identify the best players in the world and the Open, US Open, Masters and PGA moved to that system.

I agree. OWGR is meant to identify the best players. Not the best players which play on a tour which meets their requirements. The OWGR should alter requirements to match the landscape of professional golf. Otherwise it isn't doing its job. In which case, what is the point?

Ciao

Well, actually the OWGR website says that the ranking system measures “relative performance” on “eligibile golf tours”.   Nowhere do they claim to be identifying the “best” players, and the word “eligible” seems important.  You are advocating that the OWGR change the standards, rather than that the LIV comply with standards that were already long since in place.


Which simply brings us back to the original problem.  Knowing that the LIV format was radically different in multiple respects from “eligible” tours worldwide, players went there, as is/was their right. So live with that choice instead of asking others to then accommodate.  It’s what grown ups do.


It really isn’t very complicated.

[Sean_A]

shouldn't the PGA Champions Tour players also earn these points.

If the purpose of the OWGR was to rank order the best players in the world, the Champions tour events should get world rankings points.  Unfortunately, identifying the best players in the world is not the purpose of the OWGR.


This only matters because 4 events (some might also care about WGC events and the Players) use the OWGR as an entry qualifier.  OWGR was used by those events because it claimed to identify the best players in the world, the OWGR clearly doesn't do that now.  I'd be quite happy if some programmer wrote a new program to better attempt to identify the best players in the world and the Open, US Open, Masters and PGA moved to that system.

I agree. OWGR is meant to identify the best players. Not the best players which play on a tour which meets their requirements. The OWGR should alter requirements to match the landscape of professional golf. Otherwise it isn't doing its job. In which case, what is the point?

Ciao

Well, actually the OWGR website says that the ranking system measures “relative performance” on “eligibile golf tours”.   Nowhere do they claim to be identifying the “best” players, and the word “eligible” seems important.  You are advocating that the OWGR change the standards, rather than that the LIV comply with standards that were already long since in place.


Which simply brings us back to the original problem.  Knowing that the LIV format was radically different in multiple respects from “eligible” tours worldwide, players went there, as is/was their right. So live with that choice instead of asking others to then accommodate.  It’s what grown ups do.


It really isn’t very complicated.

Measures relative performance for what reason? There should be no illusions as to why OWGR exists. And if it exists, why not do the job properly?

Ciao

[Niall C]

Well, actually the OWGR website says that the ranking system measures “relative performance” on “eligibile golf tours”.   Nowhere do they claim to be identifying the “best” players, and the word “eligible” seems important.  You are advocating that the OWGR change the standards, rather than that the LIV comply with standards that were already long since in place.


Which simply brings us back to the original problem.  Knowing that the LIV format was radically different in multiple respects from “eligible” tours worldwide, players went there, as is/was their right. So live with that choice instead of asking others to then accommodate.  It’s what grown ups do.


It really isn’t very complicated.

I can't say I have been keeping track of the OWGR over the years but if the wikipedia page on the OWGR is anything to go by, the idea behind it was from the R&A who found that there existing system of deciding qualification for the Open was failing to deal with the problem of players playing on different tours, which ironically is the situation that now exists.


Also to quote the wiki page "the method of calculation of the rankings has changed considerably over the years", which kind of begs the question of why they wouldn't change it again to take into account the LIV Tour if they were still trying to rank the best players ? (the Official World Golf Rankings title is fairly self-explanatory and to suggest that they aren't trying to identify and rank the best golfers is really quite silly)


Niall

[Kalen Braley]

I still like the idea of LIV golf creating its own majors, sounds like a terrific idea! 

"“If the majors decide not to have our players play? I will celebrate. I will create my own majors for my players.’’

[Ben Hollerbach]

Knowing that the LIV format was radically different in multiple respects from “eligible” tours worldwide

Clearly this must have been written in jest, right?


I could see, maybe, if LIV events were only conducted in Matchplay, or event Stableford, calling the format radically different. But if the OWGR awards points to stroke play events, 54 hole events, limited field events, no cut events, and invitational events; it’s hard to see how what LIV is doing as truly radical.