OT: LIV field

[Mike_Young]

I think Jim Coleman is on the right track..  The PGA Tour relies on TV revenues and if golf tv revenues become diluted then PGA Tour benefits, retirements etc all have an issue...and sponsors will not pay the same...the guys who really benefit here will be some of the guys on the Korn Ferry who get there sooner that they thought...JMO

[Rob Marshall]

https://apnews.com/article/tiger-woods-sports-phil-mickelson-pga-championships-lanto-griffin-be72e844c4ffe496155b511db1cc278d


Strongest field, according to this anyway.

[Sean_A]

All rankings of this nature have a degree of subjectivity. No list can definitely tell me who the fifth best player in the world is at any given moment...as an example. Just because numbers are involved doesn't make the OWGR factual. It's an approximation based on criteria set by people.

I understand that, but the OWGR is a fairly well accepted standard. Hence, it's not "really" a matter of opinion. An opinion is whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.

Both Opens have objectively weaker fields due to the very nature of how they build their fields: with qualifiers.

Go by Sagarin if you want, or some other sort of ranking: the PGA will almost always top the list. And again, my point is only to refute that the majors "want to have the strongest field." They don't. That's not a goal of theirs, or they'd have different qualifying criteria.

Nope, the Open fields are subjectively weaker fields based on ever changing ideas. Hell, the OWGR is constantly changing its criteria. I know I had little faith in a system which had Tiger rated #1 up to Oct 2010 based on the 2009 season. Strength of field has no meaning for a major. It's an empty talking point.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Nope. … It's an empty talking point.

Whatever you say man. Look at the list of people who qualify for the U.S. Open tomorrow and tell me with a straight face that it's the strongest field you could put together. The 100th ranked player in the OWGR is almost surely objectively better than a qualifier from some random sectional qualifier in Connecticut (or whatever).

Each of them want's the best players playing at their tournament

Comments like this remain false. Their goal is not to get the "best players." Heck, it's not even the PGA's goal, or they wouldn't have 20 club pros playing.

[JohnVDB]

Strength of field has no meaning for a major. It's an empty talking point.

Ciao

It is, but it’s the PGA Championships claim for its position in the majors.  Also the Player’s that it should be a major.

[Sean_A]

Nope. … It's an empty talking point.

Whatever you say man. Look at the list of people who qualify for the U.S. Open tomorrow and tell me with a straight face that it's the strongest field you could put together. The 100th ranked player in the OWGR is almost surely objectively better than a qualifier from some random sectional qualifier in Connecticut (or whatever).

Each of them want's the best players playing at their tournament

Comments like this remain false. Their goal is not to get the "best players." Heck, it's not even the PGA's goal, or they wouldn't have 20 club pros playing.

It doesn't matter. The US Open will not be a better major if you drop the qualifier aspect of the event. It's a major, period. I don't understand what your point is. Nobody cares about strength of field for majors. Hell, the auto qualifiers love not having to go thru qualifying. The far more immediate issue is three majors in one country. I wish there was more of a qualifying element to the event, just as it was envisioned when started. Every major has its own identity.

The Players will become a major when it happens. I guess that will be when it's deemed important enough to be a major.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It doesn't matter. The US Open will not be a better major

That's an entirely different thing.

if you drop the qualifier aspect of the event. It's a major, period. I don't understand what your point is.

I don't know what you've been reading, man. My only point has been that the Opens (and the Masters) aren't "trying to have the strongest fields" (various versions of that). They're not.

"It's a major, period." What are you reading that makes you think you have to say something like that? Because nothing written here, by anyone, should prompt that kind of response. Nobody has debated whether the U.S. or British Opens are majors here.

[Niall C]

Erik


You seem to base your argument on whether the Open or US Open have the strongest fields on the R&A and USGA failing to simply adhere to the World Rankings when deciding their qualification criteria. As Sean has noted, and as much as the WR is a useful tool, it does throw up anomaly's from time to time. For example, who provides greater strength, the player who sits in the lower half of the world's top 100 due to having had a stellar season the year before but has rarely made a cut this year, or the player who is bang on form having made a number of top 10 finishes on some overseas tour ?


Then there are the qualifiers. Yes there may be some who "get lucky" to qualify and there are others who carry that form/luck into the championship and manage to get well up the leader-board, or in the case of Paul Lawrie in the Open and Michael Campbell in the US Open, actually end up winning.


So who out of that lot will add the most strength to the field ? You have your opinions and the R&A etc have there's, and that's all it is, opinions. Just opinions.


Niall

[David_Tepper]

Niall -

No, it is not just opinions. While all ranking systems are based on certain underlying subjective judgements, the World Rankings are the most objective, data-driven measure of player performance over time. Can you offer a better one?

That being said, one can certainly question how much "better" player #75 is than player #125. At some point the differences are de minimis.

There is nothing wrong with the qualifying system for either the US Open or the Open Championship. It certainly creates a field "representative" of the world of golf and allows for a Cinderella story every once in a while. But there is little doubt a certain number of players qualify each year who have little or no chance of competing on any of the established pro golf tours.

DT     


 

[Peter Pallotta]

It's like a line from Yogi Berra: 'The PGA field is so good no one cares who wins it no more.'

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You seem to base your argument on whether the Open or US Open have the strongest fields on the R&A and USGA failing to simply adhere to the World Rankings when deciding their qualification criteria.

Some amateur, or a club pro, or whatever who has a good day today (for the U.S. Open qualifying) is not an objectively better player than a PGA Tour player who fails to qualify at a different site due to a bad bounce or whatever.

The comment was made in various forms that the Opens "try to have the strongest fields" and that's simply not true. I've coached people who have played in U.S. Opens, U.S. Women's Opens, U.S. Junior Ams, etc. They don't have the strongest fields. I could throw out ten matchups after today of a player (often a PGA Tour player) who failed to make the cut against a guy nobody's heard of who makes it in which nobody would reasonably bet that the "made it" player would out-play the "missed it" player over 50 rounds on various golf courses.

36 holes isn't enough to determine the strongest players. Sometimes the best players play at least a B game and get through, but sometimes a better player plays his B- game and a worse player plays his A+ game and beats him out. That doesn't make the worse player a "better player" overall, or create a stronger field.

Again, the point I'm making: the statement "the majors are trying to create the strongest field" (or variations) is false.

But there is little doubt a certain number of players qualify each year who have little or no chance of competing on any of the established pro golf tours.

Thank you.

[Steve Lang]

Erik,


I haven't read your book, but are you arguing against its premise that lowest score wins?  The Opens are simply that, no coronations, tee it up and golf your ball into the hole, under the rules, and you qualify or not and only one wins out of thousands with the dream!


No one cares about absolute field strength or its lip service beyond tournament promoters and those in the gambol.  Most fans just want to see who prevails under the pressure that is tournament golf and many just catch the highlights. 


You've pounded your strength point repeatedly... 


The LIV field and money to be made or missed is their business, and has to start somewhere... should be interesting

[Jim Hoak]

I predict that the LIV experiment will fail--and many of the signed-up players will come crawling back and asking for reinstatement on the Tours or the Senior Tours.  Agree or disagree?

[cary lichtenstein]

Your prediction that the LIV will fail is probably correct, but look at DJ, his career earning at 37 are $73m. He signs for $125 million. He as making $11 million per year from sponsors. I think LIV is probably a lifeline for players 37-44, entering the non prime of their years. Taking advantage of this one time opportunity to secure their future earnings, plus if eligible, play in the 4 majors. I think Ricky Fowler and Phil Michelson will both sign up, probably negotiating as I write this.

[Sean_A]

Niall -

No, it is not just opinions. While all ranking systems are based on certain underlying subjective judgements, the World Rankings are the most objective, data-driven measure of player performance over time. Can you offer a better one?

That being said, one can certainly question how much "better" player #75 is than player #125. At some point the differences are de minimis.

There is nothing wrong with the qualifying system for either the US Open or the Open Championship. It certainly creates a field "representative" of the world of golf and allows for a Cinderella story every once in a while. But there is little doubt a certain number of players qualify each year who have little or no chance of competing on any of the established pro golf tours.

DT     

Bingo..underlying subjective judgements. That's the truth...which means the OWGR is most certainly not objectively true. It is amazing what numbers people try to make ya believe.

Ciao

[JohnVDB]

Your prediction that the LIV will fail is probably correct, but look at DJ, his career earning at 37 are $73m. He signs for $125 million. He as making $11 million per year from sponsors. I think LIV is probably a lifeline for players 37-44, entering the non prime of their years. Taking advantage of this one time opportunity to secure their future earnings, plus if eligible, play in the 4 majors. I think Ricky Fowler and Phil Michelson will both sign up, probably negotiating as I write this.

Phil just announced he is playing.

[John Kavanaugh]

If they really do a shotgun start the betting will be more fun.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm trying to imagine watching the LIV event on my computer or tablet, rather than the big screen TV, given that I watched not one shot of the Memorial this past weekend. I know the Saudis don't need my money, which is a good thing for them.

It is being reported today that Norman says that Tiger turned down an offer in "the high 9 figures" to play.  I'm sure this endears Norman even more to his Saudi masters.

[Peter Flory]

It is being reported today that Norman says that Tiger turned down an offer in "the high 9 figures" to play.  I'm sure this endears Norman even more to his Saudi masters.

If that's true, then good for Tiger for doing that.  He's basically only going to play in the majors anyway, so leaving the tour really wouldn't have any effect on him economically.   And even though he's surely very wealthy, this would have still been significant.

[Wayne_Kozun]

It is being reported today that Norman says that Tiger turned down an offer in "the high 9 figures" to play.  I'm sure this endears Norman even more to his Saudi masters.

If that's true, then good for Tiger for doing that.  He's basically only going to play in the majors anyway, so leaving the tour really wouldn't have any effect on him economically.   And even though he's surely very wealthy, this would have still been significant.

I wonder if they would have let Tiger use a cart?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'm trying to imagine watching the LIV event on my computer or tablet, rather than the big screen TV, given that I watched not one shot of the Memorial this past weekend. I know the Saudis don't need my money, which is a good thing for them.

It is being reported today that Norman says that Tiger turned down an offer in "the high 9 figures" to play.  I'm sure this endears Norman even more to his Saudi masters.

Like 700,000,000? I find that difficult to believe.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Phil's Apology and more...


https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2022/6/6/mickelson-grabs-the-scary-amps-money-intends-to-still-play-majors

[Niall C]

Niall -

No, it is not just opinions. While all ranking systems are based on certain underlying subjective judgements, the World Rankings are the most objective, data-driven measure of player performance over time. Can you offer a better one?

That being said, one can certainly question how much "better" player #75 is than player #125. At some point the differences are de minimis.

There is nothing wrong with the qualifying system for either the US Open or the Open Championship. It certainly creates a field "representative" of the world of golf and allows for a Cinderella story every once in a while. But there is little doubt a certain number of players qualify each year who have little or no chance of competing on any of the established pro golf tours.

DT     

"the World Rankings are the most objective"


that will be your opinion then 


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I haven't read your book, but are you arguing against its premise that lowest score wins?

Still no. I've been clear about what I've been saying this whole time (that the majors are not "trying to gather the strongest field"), so if you still don't know what I'm saying, that's on you.

[David_Tepper]

Sean & Niall -

Can you offer a comprehensive data-based system of player performance globally that, in your opinions, provides a more accurate, more objective ranking?  Can you tell us in what way the OWGR is flawed?

http://www.owgr.com/about

DT