OWGR and LIV golfers

[Sean_A]

Its can't be difficult to come up with a formula suitable for LIV. Maybe points earned are worth 25% or whatever percentage of US Tour points. It makes it difficult for LIV guys to make the grade, but not impossible.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

You guys WANT the OWGR to be a ranking of the “best” players, but that is NOT a claim that the OWGR itself makes.  You could, of course, go directly to the OWGR website to read the mission statement for yourself, which uses the term “relative performance”, and makes no claim about “best”.

[A.G._Crockett]

Its can't be difficult to come up with a formula suitable for LIV. Maybe points earned are worth 25% or whatever percentage of US Tour points. It makes it difficult for LIV guys to make the grade, but not impossible.

Ciao

It can’t be difficult for the LIV Tour to come up with a format suitable for receiving ranking points.  72 holes, tee times, a 36 hole cut, ALL players competing for actual prize money instead of some playing for credits against their signing bonuses.


You know; kind of like EVERY pro Tour that gets OWGR points. 


Or you could look at the LIV guys as entitled to special treatment that no other Tour gets.  That would make good sense.

[Joe_Tucholski]

You are advocating that the OWGR change the standards, rather than that the LIV comply with standards that were already long since in place.

A.G. I'm advocating that the 4 tournaments people really care about use a system that identifies the best players in the world, not the current system that as stated ranks only those players playing on the tours the ranking system deems eligible. 

The USGA, R&A, Masters and PGA shouldn't care where the golfers in their championship play other than the week of their event.  They should want the best players in the field. 

On the second page Tim Cronin mentions the Sagarin Golf Rankings, something like that is what I want the majors to use as a qualifying method.

[Sean_A]

Its can't be difficult to come up with a formula suitable for LIV. Maybe points earned are worth 25% or whatever percentage of US Tour points. It makes it difficult for LIV guys to make the grade, but not impossible.

Ciao

It can’t be difficult for the LIV Tour to come up with a format suitable for receiving ranking points.  72 holes, tee times, a 36 hole cut, ALL players competing for actual prize money instead of some playing for credits against their signing bonuses.


You know; kind of like EVERY pro Tour that gets OWGR points. 


Or you could look at the LIV guys as entitled to special treatment that no other Tour gets.  That would make good sense.

A ranking system's job is to identify the best players. That's all that really needs saying. Otherwise there is no point. You could theoretically have loads of top 100 players not labelled as such because of their tour. Sorry, that makes no sense.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

Its can't be difficult to come up with a formula suitable for LIV. Maybe points earned are worth 25% or whatever percentage of US Tour points. It makes it difficult for LIV guys to make the grade, but not impossible.

Ciao

It can’t be difficult for the LIV Tour to come up with a format suitable for receiving ranking points.  72 holes, tee times, a 36 hole cut, ALL players competing for actual prize money instead of some playing for credits against their signing bonuses.


You know; kind of like EVERY pro Tour that gets OWGR points. 


Or you could look at the LIV guys as entitled to special treatment that no other Tour gets.  That would make good sense.

A ranking system's job is to identify the best players. That's all that really needs saying. Otherwise there is no point. You could theoretically have loads of top 100 players not labelled as such because of their tour. Sorry, that makes no sense.

Ciao

Michael Jordan was almost certainly the “best” basketball player in the world in 1994 and 1995, given that he had been the NBA MVP in 1993 and was again in 1996. 


But in 1994 and most of the 1995 basketball season, Jordan was playing minor league baseball.  (Minor league in a different sport; see what I did there?)  So Jordan didn’t win the MVP, o make the All-Star team, or win any awards,or get to play in the playoffs. Perhaps more to the point, I suspect Jordan knew all that before he left the NBA, and I don’t recall him bitching because he wasn’t getting recognition.


See, even though he was the “best”, his “relative performance” in basketball just wasn’t any good at all.

[Sean_A]

Its can't be difficult to come up with a formula suitable for LIV. Maybe points earned are worth 25% or whatever percentage of US Tour points. It makes it difficult for LIV guys to make the grade, but not impossible.

Ciao

It can’t be difficult for the LIV Tour to come up with a format suitable for receiving ranking points.  72 holes, tee times, a 36 hole cut, ALL players competing for actual prize money instead of some playing for credits against their signing bonuses.


You know; kind of like EVERY pro Tour that gets OWGR points. 


Or you could look at the LIV guys as entitled to special treatment that no other Tour gets.  That would make good sense.

A ranking system's job is to identify the best players. That's all that really needs saying. Otherwise there is no point. You could theoretically have loads of top 100 players not labelled as such because of their tour. Sorry, that makes no sense.

Ciao

Michael Jordan was almost certainly the “best” basketball player in the world in 1994 and 1995, given that he had been the NBA MVP in 1993 and was again in 1996. 


But in 1994 and most of the 1995 basketball season, Jordan was playing minor league baseball.  (Minor league in a different sport; see what I did there?)  So Jordan didn’t win the MVP, o make the All-Star team, or win any awards,or get to play in the playoffs. Perhaps more to the point, I suspect Jordan knew all that before he left the NBA, and I don’t recall him bitching because he wasn’t getting recognition.


See, even though he was the “best”, his “relative performance” in basketball just wasn’t any good at all.

What are you talking about? LIV golfers are playing golf. I maintain that rankings exist to rank players. To ignore certain players because of their tour discredits that ranking system because it is inherently non inclusive. Anyway, we ain't gonna agree...

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

Sean,


The OWGR works because players qualify to play on tours and qualify to play in events, therefor you can assume that a player who qualifies for a pga tour event and wins it is better than a player who has not qualified for the event.


When a player comes straight out of college and is invited to play on LIV and wins an event, there is no way of determining that he is a better golfer than his college teammate who was not invited to play on the LIV tour.  The OWGR system is based on players qualifying for tours and events on merit.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Michael Jordan was almost certainly the “best” basketball player in the world in 1994 and 1995, given that he had been the NBA MVP in 1993 and was again in 1996. 


But in 1994 and most of the 1995 basketball season, Jordan was playing minor league baseball.  (Minor league in a different sport; see what I did there?)  So Jordan didn’t win the MVP, o make the All-Star team, or win any awards,or get to play in the playoffs. Perhaps more to the point, I suspect Jordan knew all that before he left the NBA, and I don’t recall him bitching because he wasn’t getting recognition.


See, even though he was the “best”, his “relative performance” in basketball just wasn’t any good at all.

A.G. to continue a bad analogy...Jordan wasn't excluded from playing in the 1996 olympics because he missed out on earning ranking points that were only available to players in the NBA or their approved leagues, he chose not to play.  If Jordan was excluded from playing on the 1996 team because USA basketball selected players based on some official world basketball ranking based on how the players played in the NBA over the previous 2 years I'd have thought that was wrong.


Similarly, if Cam Smith isn't able to play in the 2024 Olympics because he won't have many points in the Olympic Golf Ranking (which uses points from the last two years in the OWGR), I think that's wrong.

[A.G._Crockett]

You know what just continually shocks me about this particular debate in this particular place? 


That you guys NEVER focus on the difference that a shotgun start makes compared to playing the course the way it was freaking designed to be played.  And this from guys who claim to be all about the subject.


I play a lot of senior tournaments, and more often than not, there are shotgun starts.  If you don’t think it matters a LOT, or that it fundamentally changes the golf course, you just aren’t paying attention. I’ve written this before, but that to me is as big a deal as the 54 hole no cut aspects of LIV.  Maybe bigger.


Silly discussion, which is partly my fault for staying in the echo chamber. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

When a player comes straight out of college and is invited to play on LIV and wins an event, there is no way of determining that he is a better golfer than his college teammate who was not invited to play on the LIV tour.  The OWGR system is based on players qualifying for tours and events on merit.

What about when player receive a sponsor's exemption into a PGA Tour event and wins?

You know what just continually shocks me about this particular debate in this particular place? 

That you guys NEVER focus on the difference that a shotgun start makes compared to playing the course the way it was freaking designed to be played.  And this from guys who claim to be all about the subject.

If you don’t think it matters a LOT, or that it fundamentally changes the golf course, you just aren’t paying attention. I’ve written this before, but that to me is as big a deal as the 54 hole no cut aspects of LIV.  Maybe bigger.

Can you quantify how much of a difference there is between a shotgun start and playing split tees with half the field going off of 10, or having a morning and afternoon wave with varying weather? At least with a shotgun, the weather will impact the field equally.

playing the course the way it was freaking designed to be played.

Right, because at no time has a PGA Tour sanctioned event ever flipped the 9's, or changed the hole sequence, or deviated from the original design in any way.

I guess in your eyes the only Masters that counts is the first one, as that was the only Masters played the way it was freaking designed to be played?

[Rob Marshall]

A bunch of mostly has beens playing a few guys who are competitive on the world stage. How many points should you get for beating Chase Keopka and Peter Ulien?

[Phil Young]

Sean, you stated: "The OWGR works because players qualify to play on tours and qualify to play in events, therefor you can assume that a player who qualifies for a pga tour event and wins it is better than a player who has not qualified for the event."

Let's go back to the 1920s and consider who was considered among the top 3 players in the world if not actually the best because he won far more majors than anyone else...Bobby Jones. By your logic, Bobby Jones could not have been better than any professional because he didn't qualify to play in the PGA Championship and never did. The reason? He wasn't a professional. Yet in several "Top Ten" list he was considered to be either the best or 2nd best in the world who ever played. (e.g.- "TIME'S TOP TEN," Pacific Coast Golfer, December 1939.)

The problem with any ranking system is that it depends solely on what its creator believes are the most important accomplishments on which to base its results. This thread seems to prove that there isn't a way to create a true World Golf Ranking system that all will accept.

[Dave Doxey]

You are advocating that the OWGR change the standards, rather than that the LIV comply with standards that were already long since in place.

A.G. I'm advocating that the 4 tournaments people really care about use a system that identifies the best players in the world, not the current system that as stated ranks only those players playing on the tours the ranking system deems eligible. 

The USGA, R&A, Masters and PGA shouldn't care where the golfers in their championship play other than the week of their event.  They should want the best players in the field. 

On the second page Tim Cronin mentions the Sagarin Golf Rankings, something like that is what I want the majors to use as a qualifying method.

Well said!  The majors should invite the best players.  If LIV consists of "has beens" as some have said, the PGA Tour has nothing to fear.

[A.G._Crockett]

When a player comes straight out of college and is invited to play on LIV and wins an event, there is no way of determining that he is a better golfer than his college teammate who was not invited to play on the LIV tour.  The OWGR system is based on players qualifying for tours and events on merit.

What about when player receive a sponsor's exemption into a PGA Tour event and wins?

You know what just continually shocks me about this particular debate in this particular place? 

That you guys NEVER focus on the difference that a shotgun start makes compared to playing the course the way it was freaking designed to be played.  And this from guys who claim to be all about the subject.

If you don’t think it matters a LOT, or that it fundamentally changes the golf course, you just aren’t paying attention. I’ve written this before, but that to me is as big a deal as the 54 hole no cut aspects of LIV.  Maybe bigger.

Can you quantify how much of a difference there is between a shotgun start and playing split tees with half the field going off of 10, or having a morning and afternoon wave with varying weather? At least with a shotgun, the weather will impact the field equally.

playing the course the way it was freaking designed to be played.

Right, because at no time has a PGA Tour sanctioned event ever flipped the 9's, or changed the hole sequence, or deviated from the original design in any way.

I guess in your eyes the only Masters that counts is the first one, as that was the only Masters played the way it was freaking designed to be played?

Ben, I feel certain that if you go and sit in a quiet place and just think a bit, you'll see the difference between course changes made over time (in the case of The Masters, nearly 90 years) vs a shotgun start.  I know you can do it, because I know you can eventually understand the difference in playing holes in the same sequence IN A GIVEN YEAR vs. random hole assignments and hole order.  The split tee thing is a complete red herring, because when that device is used for a LARGE field, each player plays the course in the same order as everyone else one time.

But you're right about this: I can't quantify the difference between a shotgun start, which NO other pro tour uses, vs split tee starts, which ALL other pro tours use at times BEFORE the cut that the LIV tour doesn't have.  Not only can I not quantify the difference, nobody else can either, including the OWGR.  So thanks for helping me make my point; you are a kind man!

[Rob Marshall]

You are advocating that the OWGR change the standards, rather than that the LIV comply with standards that were already long since in place.

A.G. I'm advocating that the 4 tournaments people really care about use a system that identifies the best players in the world, not the current system that as stated ranks only those players playing on the tours the ranking system deems eligible. 

The USGA, R&A, Masters and PGA shouldn't care where the golfers in their championship play other than the week of their event.  They should want the best players in the field. 

On the second page Tim Cronin mentions the Sagarin Golf Rankings, something like that is what I want the majors to use as a qualifying method.

Well said!  The majors should invite the best players.  If LIV consists of "has beens" as some have said, the PGA Tour has nothing to fear.

PGA Tour has no fear of the current LIV players. If they fear anything it’s the endless stream of money LIV has to buy players currently on the PGA And DP World tours.

[Ben Hollerbach]

AG,

It seems pretty clear to me that you are unaware that the European Tour has multiple times used a Shotgun start during an event.

It also seems preposterous that you believe it would be impossible to measure the impact a shotgun start could have on tournament scoring.

[Pat Burke]

As a has been


Listening to that often used term doesn’t make the argument against look great

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,

It seems pretty clear to me that you are unaware that the European Tour has multiple times used a Shotgun start during an event.

It also seems preposterous that you believe it would be impossible to measure the impact a shotgun start could have on tournament scoring.

Ben, once again I’m sure that if you go and sit quietly and just think a bit, you’ll be able to figure out the difference between the occasional need for a shotgun start to get a tournament completed due to weather issues vs a shotgun start EVERY ROUND OF EVERY TOURNAMENT.  You truly seem to love the logical fallacy of going from the instance to the generalization, and it makes it really hard to discuss anything.


As to a “formula” for ranking points for shotguns, this seems a perfect example of what happens when you continually ask the wrong question.  The easiest path to ranking points for LIV isn’t for me or you or the OWGR board to concoct a new formula for 54 hole no-cut shotgun starts with different prize money status for different players. 


The easiest path to ranking points is for the LIV Tour to just conduct their tournaments the way every other pro tour that DOES receive ranking points plays the game, rather than insisting that they are somehow entitled to special treatment.

[David_Tepper]

Good, relatively even-handed, podcast on the current situation with Lawrence Donegan, Jamie Corrigan & Geoff Shackelford here:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mckellar-gold-podcast-60-jamie-corrigan-and-geoff/id1483786770?i=1000581951022

[Jim_Coleman]

    Why are they so concerned about ranking points and majors? They didn’t leave for prestige; they left for the money; they’re making more money. Most decisions require a balancing of pros and cons. For some, money trumped prestige. For others, prestige trumped money. This is a have your cake and eat it too situation.

[Ian Mackenzie]

    Why are they so concerned about ranking points and majors? They didn’t leave for prestige; they left for the money; they’re making more money. Most decisions require a balancing of pros and cons. For some, money trumped prestige. For others, prestige trumped money. This is a have your cake and eat it too situation.

That is 100% what Harold Varner articulated in his own humble way.
He knew the issues when he signed the deal and has nothing but positive things to say.


I dont think anyone begrudges any of the "LIVers" who sought the fast payday.
It's just so ridiculous that many of them want to double-dip.


It's like they all worked their way up in a company to the top then a rich competitor offered them a guarantee and more $$ to come work for them then they are now all somewhat butt-hurt that they are not invited to their old company's 1) annual meeting 2) holiday parties 3) summer retreat and 4) top-performer reward trip.


Worse...their new CEO is an aggressive and sharp-elbowed ex-player with a chip on his shoulder instead of a smooth, consensus-building executive that seeks real partnerships.


Someone should just lay it on the line: If 54 hole events were the norm "back in the day", then Greg Norman would have won 7 majors.


Ooops...that 4th round is indeed meaningful.

[Niall C]

    Why are they so concerned about ranking points and majors? They didn’t leave for prestige; they left for the money; they’re making more money. Most decisions require a balancing of pros and cons. For some, money trumped prestige. For others, prestige trumped money. This is a have your cake and eat it too situation.

That is 100% what Harold Varner articulated in his own humble way.
He knew the issues when he signed the deal and has nothing but positive things to say.


I dont think anyone begrudges any of the "LIVers" who sought the fast payday.
It's just so ridiculous that many of them want to double-dip.

So is it also ridiculous that guys on the US Tour want to "double-dip" also by playing on other tours and also the majors ?


Niall

[Ian Mackenzie]

    Why are they so concerned about ranking points and majors? They didn’t leave for prestige; they left for the money; they’re making more money. Most decisions require a balancing of pros and cons. For some, money trumped prestige. For others, prestige trumped money. This is a have your cake and eat it too situation.

That is 100% what Harold Varner articulated in his own humble way.
He knew the issues when he signed the deal and has nothing but positive things to say.


I dont think anyone begrudges any of the "LIVers" who sought the fast payday.
It's just so ridiculous that many of them want to double-dip.

So is it also ridiculous that guys on the US Tour want to "double-dip" also by playing on other tours and also the majors ?


Niall

Niall, the "correct" question here is: are they violating their CONTRACTS by playing where they see fit when they double-dip?


The LIVers knew they had all signed contracts and knew that when they went to LIV, there would be "consequences". HV3 knows that and articulates it wonderfully.


The others? I think many of them were told by their agents and the LIV guys that it would all work out (when they had the LIV pen in their hands.)


The LIVers seem to think that the contractual obligations they have are at their own discretion somehow regardless of with whom it is memorialized.

[Ian Mackenzie]

It was announced today that LIV golfers may also use range funders during the events.


https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2022/10/25/liv-golf-news-rangefinders-team-championship-trump-national-doral/


Probably not going to help their case with the OWGR....