OWGR and LIV golfers

[Kalen Braley]

A) So… no, you've failed to show how this is about ego.B) What makes him a jerk? Still waiting.Does appointing Jimmy Dunne to the board somehow make Jay a jerk?

I disagree with your first point and to your second, the fact that Jay Monahan had multiple opportunities the past five years to explore working and collaborating with the PGL and later, SGL and simply brushed them off and dismissed them as if they were more of a nuisance than a help, tells me all I need to know about the arrogant jerk he is.


I suspect there's 40+ guys on the LIV tour currently that would agree with me.

Well you left one part off.


"I suspect there's 40+ guys with hundreds of millions of reasons on the LIV tour currently that would agree with me. 

[Mike Bodo]

Well you left one part off.


"I suspect there's 40+ guys with hundreds of millions of reasons on the LIV tour currently that would agree with me. 

LOL! Thanks for injecting some humor in the conversation. It needed it. I hate the place we're at in professional men's golf and just want the daily soap opera and one up's-manship crap to end. To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I disagree with your first point

You're seeing what you want to see. If it was about ego, it'd be about protecting JAY and promoting JAY, not doing his work as commissioner of the PGA Tour. He didn't build it. It's not him. And he's not much to say that he's "egotistical." I think you're confusing that he's in a position of power as commissioner with having an "ego."

and to your second, the fact that Jay Monahan had multiple opportunities the past five years to explore working and collaborating with the PGL and later, SGL and simply brushed them off and dismissed them as though they were more of a nuisance than a help, tells me all I need to know about the arrogant jerk he is.

Do you think you know more about what it takes to run the PGA Tour than the commissioner, to the point that you can call him an "egotistical jerk?" Seems so. Have you had a conversation with him to ask him why he didn't meet with the PGL? Do you understand how much (not 100% of course, but not 0%) he works for the players, not the owners group like in most other sports?

I suspect there's 40+ guys on the LIV tour currently that would agree with me.

Well there are only about 48 of them, and many of them weren't even on the PGA Tour, so…

To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

And yet, seemingly, rather than place any blame on the disruptor with the blood money, you want to lay all the blame at the inability to "get along" at the feet of Jay Monahan.

[Mike Bodo]

And yet, seemingly, rather than place any blame on the disruptor with the blood money, you want to lay all the blame at the inability to "get along" at the feet of Jay Monahan.

You need to go back and read an earlier comment where I chastised Greg equally for bringing us to the place we're at. He's as much to blame for the morass the sport finds itself in as anyone. He doesn't get a free pass from me as you seem all too willing to give to Jay.


Again, as Jon Rahm suggested two days ago at a presser (and I pointed out in this thread yesterday) perhaps Greg and Jay should both step down to lower the tone and temperature of the conversaion and see if some type of agreement or resolution between the two groups can be made. Given the recent moves made by both sides, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Rob Marshall]

I disagree with your first point

You're seeing what you want to see. If it was about ego, it'd be about protecting JAY and promoting JAY, not doing his work as commissioner of the PGA Tour. He didn't build it. It's not him. And he's not much to say that he's "egotistical." I think you're confusing that he's in a position of power as commissioner with having an "ego."

and to your second, the fact that Jay Monahan had multiple opportunities the past five years to explore working and collaborating with the PGL and later, SGL and simply brushed them off and dismissed them as though they were more of a nuisance than a help, tells me all I need to know about the arrogant jerk he is.

Do you think you know more about what it takes to run the PGA Tour than the commissioner, to the point that you can call him an "egotistical jerk?" Seems so. Have you had a conversation with him to ask him why he didn't meet with the PGL? Do you understand how much (not 100% of course, but not 0%) he works for the players, not the owners group like in most other sports?

I suspect there's 40+ guys on the LIV tour currently that would agree with me.

Well there are only about 48 of them, and many of them weren't even on the PGA Tour, so…

To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

And yet, seemingly, rather than place any blame on the disruptor with the blood money, you want to lay all the blame at the inability to "get along" at the feet of Jay Monahan.

You have to admit that Jay did F up. He believed Bryson, DJ, and Brooks when they said in Feb that they were committed to the PGA tour. How could he be so stupid.............


Still waiting for Phil to meet up with his employer to explain the evil MFer comment. I've sure they haven't forgotten about it. Thinking Phil isn't taking any meetings unless they are in the middle of a crowd of people.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You need to go back and read an earlier comment where I chastised Greg equally for bringing us to the place we're at.

No I don't. Greg and LIV were the disruptors here. They were the ones who "did" things to "professional golf."

He's as much to blame

More to blame. Greg + LIV.

He doesn't get a free pass from me as you seem all too willing to give to Jay.

Nope. I'm not giving Jay a free pass, I'm saying only that you don't understand things to the level needed to form a decent opinion. I haven't said Jay's done a great job. I haven't said Jay definitely shouldn't have taken the meeting. You're the one saying the opposite of those types of things. I'm only pointing out that you haven't really got a clue what you're talking about, and that the situation is far more complex than you're making it out to be from your armchair, and that some of your opinions have little or no basis in fact.

Again, as Jon Rahm suggested two days ago at a presser (and I pointed out in this thread yesterday) perhaps Greg and Jay should both step down to lower the tone and temperature of the conversaion and see if some type of agreement or resolution between the two groups can be made. Given the recent moves made by both sides, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

He didn't say "Greg and Jay should step down." He said:

[Greg Norman] “His intentions might not be as pure as they could, which is a problem,” Rahm said. “So he might not be the best person for the job, even if he has done great things for the tour. I do believe that, for conversations to take place, Greg might need to be gone. Right now, it doesn’t seem like he and [PGA Tour commissioner] Jay [Monahan] will want to be in the same room together.

“Even if they disagreed, it would have been good to talk. So to get a resolution we might need one or both of them gone. I hope not. Jay has done a great job for the PGA Tour.”

That's pretty different than "both should step down." He's suggesting that it MIGHT be required, while laying almost all of the blame on Greg and saying that Jay has done "a great job for the PGA Tour."

[Jeff Evagues]

I can't comment about Monahan being an egotistical jerk, but its fair to question his leadership recently.

The PGA Tour acted like they were blindsided by LIV and all subsequent actions appear to have been reactionary. Monahan has for years known about the development of the PGL and the concept of an elevated tournament series that became LIV, but simply ignored the potential for change. When it came, Monahan was ill prepared to control the golf world like the PGA Tour has for decades, creating the current fractured future.

+1

Ben


I agree. He appears to have been either complacent or a bit naive. He's only now trying to lock in the players with a guaranteed payment which is like bolting the stable door when half the herd have already legged it. I'd have thought the biggest thing in any sport business is surely securing your players on contract. He failed to do that.


He's now pulling out all the stops to compete but I sincerely wish the one stop he hadn't pulled was the one where he wound up the players and it started getting all personal, which I don't think was necessary.


Niall

The LIV players made it personal when they started bashing the PGA tour to justify leaving. Instead of saying "I did it for the money" like Varner they lied about things like less travel, more time off, growing the game,  blah blah blah. It's only about the money.


It's also ONLY personal for Greg Norman.

[Mike Bodo]

Still waiting for Phil to meet up with his employer to explain the evil MFer comment. I've sure they haven't forgotten about it. Thinking Phil isn't taking any meetings unless they are in the middle of a crowd of people.

Agree 100%! Although he's conveniently trying to re-write history and now says he never made that remark in the phone conversation he had with Alan Shipnuck. As if anyone but the most ardent Phil fans are buying that.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Agree 100%! Although he's conveniently trying to re-write history and now says he never made that remark in the phone conversation he had with Alan Shipnuck. As if anyone but the most ardent Phil fans are buying that.

In other words, cary buys it. 

[Mike Bodo]

Nope. I'm not giving Jay a free pass, I'm saying only that you don't understand things to the level needed to form a decent opinion. I haven't said Jay's done a great job. I haven't said Jay definitely shouldn't have taken the meeting. You're the one saying the opposite of those types of things. I'm only pointing out that you haven't really got a clue what you're talking about, and that the situation is far more complex than you're making it out to be from your armchair, and that some of your opinions have little or no basis in fact.

My comments are based on what's available in the media for public consumption on the subject, same as you or most anyone else here commenting on it. What makes what you have to say any more credible than anyone else who holds an opinion different from yours? Do you work for the PGA Tour or have inside sources that only speak off the record to make you an authority? If so, please enlighten us.

[Greg Norman] “His intentions might not be as pure as they could, which is a problem,” Rahm said. “So he might not be the best person for the job, even if he has done great things for the tour. I do believe that, for conversations to take place, Greg might need to be gone. Right now, it doesn’t seem like he and [PGA Tour commissioner] Jay [Monahan] will want to be in the same room together.

“Even if they disagreed, it would have been good to talk. So to get a resolution we might need one or both of them gone. I hope not. Jay has done a great job for the PGA Tour.”

That's pretty different than "both should step down." He's suggesting that it MIGHT be required, while laying almost all of the blame on Greg and saying that Jay has done "a great job for the PGA Tour."

I ageed with Rahm's suggestion that it may take both men stepping down in order to strike some sort of resolution. That is all.

[Pat Burke]

I’ve already shared my thoughts and beliefs on this.
A lot of personal bias for certain and my dealings with the tour at upper levels was professionally not something I view as positive.


But, when I played and dealing with stuff with students both in the USA and abroad, as good as the pga tour is, they did plenty to Piss off players and tournaments. 


Right now Honda has announced they’re leaving a long term event.  Not being chosen as an elevated event is one reason.
I talked with people at a number of events that felt  the tour turned their back on their events leaving long time communities to chase bigger purses.  Makes sense business and purse wise, but it also burned bridges.


Again, I’m not saying LIV is right (or wrong), I have my opinion.  But the tour has pissed of more than Greg Norman over the years, and some of their dealings have opened the door to rivals wanting to do something like this. 


Personally, my belief is that players will start chafing at the number of mandatory elevated events, non-elevated events will start to look at the value of not having the top players, and the have/have not on the players sides will create a lot of griping.


Other tours outside the tour will likely struggle with the US tour fighting for their own dominance in professional
Golf.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My comments are based on what's available in the media for public consumption on the subject, same as you or most anyone else here commenting on it. What makes what you have to say any more credible than anyone else who holds an opinion different from yours?

Here's what you're missing: I'm not out here making big proclamations about what someone SHOULD have done or shouldn't have done or whatever. You are. I'm commenting on some matters of fact — like that LIV doesn't deserve all of the credit for the increases in purses (etc.) on the PGA Tour (the new TV deal deserves a lot of credit there), that the LIV business isn't a rational one constrained by normal business practices, etc. You're commenting on all kinds of stuff, about most of which you haven't got the faintest clue.

I ageed with Rahm's suggestion that it may take both men stepping down in order to strike some sort of resolution. That is all.

That's an entirely different thing than what you said (he said).

[Ken Moum]

Pat, I can only imagine what it was like dealing with tour politics and policies when you were playing.  But that was under Beman wasn't it?  And he was a player.


Re. the new elevated events,  I can't understand why anyone thought that was a good idea, much less Tiger and Rory who apparently ramrodded it through.


The math is impossible.  Twelve required appearances plus four majors leaves no room for DP events, or much of anything.


The top players are not going to be out there 25-plus weeks a year.

[Mike Bodo]

My comments are based on what's available in the media for public consumption on the subject, same as you or most anyone else here commenting on it. What makes what you have to say any more credible than anyone else who holds an opinion different from yours?

Here's what you're missing: I'm not out here making big proclamations about what someone SHOULD have done or shouldn't have done or whatever. You are. I'm commenting on some matters of fact — like that LIV doesn't deserve all of the credit for the increases in purses (etc.) on the PGA Tour (the new TV deal deserves a lot of credit there), that the LIV business isn't a rational one constrained by normal business practices, etc. You're commenting on all kinds of stuff, about most of which you haven't got the faintest clue.

I ageed with Rahm's suggestion that it may take both men stepping down in order to strike some sort of resolution. That is all.

That's an entirely different thing than what you said (he said).

Whatever, dude.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Whatever, dude.

Exaaaactly.

[Pat Burke]

Pat, I can only imagine what it was like dealing with tour politics and policies when you were playing.  But that was under Beman wasn't it?  And he was a player.


Re. the new elevated events,  I can't understand why anyone thought that was a good idea, much less Tiger and Rory who apparently ramrodded it through.


The math is impossible.  Twelve required appearances plus four majors leaves no room for DP events, or much of anything.


The top players are not going to be out there 25-plus weeks a year.

It was Finchem


Never dealt with a person I disliked more.


Very good for the business and political maneuvering for the tour.
But personally, I’ve only dealt with one person in my life I dislike more

[Rob Marshall]

Pat, I can only imagine what it was like dealing with tour politics and policies when you were playing.  But that was under Beman wasn't it?  And he was a player.


Re. the new elevated events,  I can't understand why anyone thought that was a good idea, much less Tiger and Rory who apparently ramrodded it through.


The math is impossible.  Twelve required appearances plus four majors leaves no room for DP events, or much of anything.


The top players are not going to be out there 25-plus weeks a year.

It was Finchem


Never dealt with a person I disliked more.


Very good for the business and political maneuvering for the tour.
But personally, I’ve only dealt with one person in my life I dislike more

 Can you elaborate Pat?

[Daryl David]

You need to go back and read an earlier comment where I chastised Greg equally for bringing us to the place we're at.

No I don't. Greg and LIV were the disruptors here. They were the ones who "did" things to "professional golf."

He's as much to blame

More to blame. Greg + LIV.

He doesn't get a free pass from me as you seem all too willing to give to Jay.

Nope. I'm not giving Jay a free pass, I'm saying only that you don't understand things to the level needed to form a decent opinion. I haven't said Jay's done a great job. I haven't said Jay definitely shouldn't have taken the meeting. You're the one saying the opposite of those types of things. I'm only pointing out that you haven't really got a clue what you're talking about, and that the situation is far more complex than you're making it out to be from your armchair, and that some of your opinions have little or no basis in fact.

Again, as Jon Rahm suggested two days ago at a presser (and I pointed out in this thread yesterday) perhaps Greg and Jay should both step down to lower the tone and temperature of the conversaion and see if some type of agreement or resolution between the two groups can be made. Given the recent moves made by both sides, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

He didn't say "Greg and Jay should step down." He said:

[Greg Norman] “His intentions might not be as pure as they could, which is a problem,” Rahm said. “So he might not be the best person for the job, even if he has done great things for the tour. I do believe that, for conversations to take place, Greg might need to be gone. Right now, it doesn’t seem like he and [PGA Tour commissioner] Jay [Monahan] will want to be in the same room together.

“Even if they disagreed, it would have been good to talk. So to get a resolution we might need one or both of them gone. I hope not. Jay has done a great job for the PGA Tour.”

That's pretty different than "both should step down." He's suggesting that it MIGHT be required, while laying almost all of the blame on Greg and saying that Jay has done "a great job for the PGA Tour."

Blah blah blah. Point me to the ignore button, please.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Blah blah blah. Point me to the ignore button, please.

Great argument. Way to put some thought into it.

The ignore button here doesn't work, much like your brain. 

[Daryl David]

Blah blah blah. Point me to the ignore button, please.

Great argument. Way to put some thought into it.

The ignore button here doesn't work, much like your brain. 

Thank you for pointing out my mental deficiencies. Real valuable GCA commentary.

[Pat Burke]

Pat, I can only imagine what it was like dealing with tour politics and policies when you were playing.  But that was under Beman wasn't it?  And he was a player.


Re. the new elevated events,  I can't understand why anyone thought that was a good idea, much less Tiger and Rory who apparently ramrodded it through.


The math is impossible.  Twelve required appearances plus four majors leaves no room for DP events, or much of anything.


The top players are not going to be out there 25-plus weeks a year.

It was Finchem


Never dealt with a person I disliked more.


Very good for the business and political maneuvering for the tour.
But personally, I’ve only dealt with one person in my life I dislike more

 Can you elaborate Pat?

 Very personal. I believe the way Finchem handled some issues (players association,WGC, retirement plan conversations) was a part of opening of doors for competitors.  Ironically, the threats (perceived or real) were always dealt with finding more money suddenly and throwing it at the players to brush things aside.


The supplemental retirement plan bonuses were questioned by a few players back in late 90’s, including me, and as far as I know, they were never answered.


Finchem was a great politician. That’s not a compliment. He gave long eloquent answers without ever answering, and with me, it became a matter of trust.


Beman was ruthless, but didn’t dance around things. Finchem peed on your shoes and said “nice rain isn’t it?”

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Thank you for pointing out my mental deficiencies. Real valuable GCA commentary.

It contributed as much as your previous comment. Actually, a tiny bit more, since it informed that the "Ignore" functionality doesn't really do anything here. If it did, I wouldn't have to see your posts. It's on you to ignore… so, give it a try.

[John Kavanaugh]

Golf is the only sport where intelligence is a substitute for incompetence.

[Sean_A]

As someone who doesn't play for any golf tour circuit, I really have nothing firsthand to offer, except my thoughts as a fan.


All I care about are majors. I don't care if someone plays in the Antartica league or the Ponte Vedra Beach league-it's how they step up to the plate at the majors that matters to me.


And, 72 holes no cut is way easier than the US AM, which I consider the fifth major. I'm just too stupid, I suppose, to understand the logic of why 72 holes and a cut determines who the best golfer is. No wonder I was rejected to Harvard for thinking that it's just an attempt for different golf tournaments to sell advertising.


One can talk about how OWGR dictates the field for big tournaments, an argument that I find circular and myopic.


I guess I'm confused why the Ponte Vedra Beach tour has such an outsized influence. No I'm not. It's just money.

I agree completely.  The majors are all that I care about.  I want to see the best players in the world, regardless of where they play for the rest of the season.   Trying to keep top players out, via whatever ranking system, only weakens the significance of the majors.


As for the rest of the season, i find network golf unwatchable without a DVR, and even then lacking in golf shot coverage.   LIV coverage is much more appealing as the ratio of actual golf shots to wasted time is way better.


I don't understand the hate/fear expressed by PGAT proponents.  Resistance to change, I guess.  The 54 hole argument is hard to understand.  Would 90 hole tournaments be even better?


I hope that both sides act a bit more mature.  Stop negative campaigns and name calling and find a way to coexist.  Competition is good and can only serve to improve the quality and popularity of the entertainment product.

The 54 hole, no cut, no tour qualifying system argument has merit because it makes comparing players more difficult and therefore the OWGR is less effective. However, that is not a valid reason to award zero points. At the end of the day the OWGR exists to rank golfers. It has no other purpose. Therefore, it should be a goal to consider all golfers eligible for ranking. Yes, it's messy, but the methodology has changed many times previously and will change in the future. I see no valid reason why, when it knows there are several very high quality LIV players, that it can't devise a new system which includes different tour set ups. It should be no skin off their nose if they are trying to rank players objectively. I can easily see a new system where LIV events are worth 25% (as an example) the points of a good US Tour event and worth maybe 50% of the poor events. Yes, it would make it difficult for LIV players to qualify for majors on points, but not impossible as is now the case and unreasonably so.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean


Agreed, no good reason why a system can't be devised other than some of the stakeholders in the OWGR don't want to award LIV players points for their own commercial reasons.


In terms of your suggestion that they should get fewer points because of the tournament format, it brought to mind Rahm's comments in the last few days where he suggested it was ridiculous that the DP Tour event was getting less points compared to the PGA Tour event being played at the same time simply because the the PGA Tour event had more players. Rahm's point was that the DP event had 7 out of the world top 20 playing while the PGA event had none so was it not ridiculous that the DP event had fewer points.


Rahm's logic could be applied to awarding ranking points to the LIV Tour. 


Niall