Tony,
This sounds very similar to the defense of Tiger Woods up until Thanksgiving weekend. In 1984 there was no Nationwide and there were no overseas tour to really speak of and those seniors did not have the money for the most part to travel.
Tiger in this? Strrrrrrrretch.
Look, the guys could have gone to a host of places, where... I don't care. Fact is, the Senior Tour could go away tomorrow and few would notice.
The start of this thread was the concept that Phil put himself above the rules and the game for his own benefit. In my opinion, he is no different than Hogan in being selfish. Maybe in different ways, but they are both selfish. We can argue all day about who started which charity first and get nowhere. Having spent time with the old seniors, I can just say they were no worse or better than today's professional golfer. They just played for less money with less media coverage.
Difference is, there were rules made to restore a bit of skill back into the game. Hogans choice had nothing to do with the integrity of the game. Nix, nada, zippo.
With Hogan, a late 50's-year old man at the time, protective of his name and brand, with buggered legs, had no desire to play. I get it. Phil chose the legal out. Fine... I said I understand it, but don't have to respect it.
These Hogan, Crump, Woods legacies all get built up too much IMO, and Phil is not nearly the skunk that people portray him. He's a little smelly for sure, but I could play a round of golf with him and have a good day.
Hogan's story is a great one. Woods has proven himself to be in a class of his own. Like a man competing against college kids. Crump did something fantastic and ground breaking, and put his own money and time up to do it.
Now there is a lot of smoke and mirrors, herd instincts, advertising passing for journalism in this business, but with time it all comes round.
You can't fool all the people all the time; not with the internet. Eventually the truth will surface.
I'll stick with my OP, and leave it at that:
It's a different era. In the old days players would take someone that pulled a swifty to the woodshed; which is what McCarron did publicly. I can respect his guts for taking a stand.
In the old days the recipient wouldn't have reacted with veiled legal threats, using the word "slander" so often a legal novice could figure out what was going on.
In light of the old days, how about another perspective: What Would Hogan Do? Or have done?
I think we all have an inkling, and illustrates the modern game has lost something.
I can understand both sides, and think it's fair to say Phil won't be looked up to as a leader, or taking the high road.
.