LIV free 5th Major

[Garland Bayley]

...
IMHO Jones' feat is the single most incredible achievement in sports.  He realized he'd have a chance two years earlier after the Walker Cup, because when it was going to be in the UK the Amateur and Open were scheduled to accommodate the players.
...

I disagree. Tiger winning five majors in succession (US Open, British Open, PGA, Player's, Master's) is the single most incredible achievement in sports. Winning the Master's in that sequence was probably the easiest accomplishment since it has the weakest field and has more past winners repeating than the others.

[Garland Bayley]

The reason the women can have five majors is because


a). they have a lot shorter history than the men's game,
b)  almost nobody knows that history [I could not begin to tell you how many majors any particular woman golfer won], and
c). today's women are better off marketing themselves by establishing more majors so they can win more of them and maybe get some recognition for it




Just for fun I Googled who has the most majors in women's golf, and the first hit was that it was Patty Berg, with 15.  And her 15 consisted of one U.S.Women's Open, and 14 events that are no longer majors -- 7 Titleholders tournaments and 7 Women's Western Opens!


So, yeah, women's majors are a bit murky.  Which is to take nothing away from Patty Berg.  I attended a clinic of hers at Harder Hall in Florida forty years ago, and she was full of life.  A friend of mine shoved me out of the crowd when Ms. Berg wanted a volunteer to demonstrate a couple of things to the assembled group . . . who included a lot of the best amateur players in the country.  They all had a laugh at my expense!

Actually, I would say it is because they control the criteria for entry into the LPGA Hall of Fame.

And the golfer must have accumulated 27 points, based on these criteria:

A victory in an LPGA major is worth 2 points.
A win in a non-major LPGA Tour event is worth 1 point.
Winning the Vare Trophy (low scoring average) is worth 1 point.
Winning the Player of the Year award is worth 1 point.
Winning the gold medal in golf in the Olympic Games is worth 1 point.
LPGA Hall of Fame Points (Criteria for Election) - Golf Compendium

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The PGA Championship excludes many of the best players, and replaces the with club pros.

The PGA traditionally has the strongest field of any of the majors. It wouldn't get much stronger at all if you replaced PGA of America member with the #155 ranked player in the world.

In 2022, in order, it was…

• PGA (876)
• British Open (871)
• U.S. Open (830)
• Players (806)
• Masters (785)

The WGC Match Play was next. Then the two Genesis tournaments (LA, Scotland). Then Jack's event, then Arnie's.

[Pete_Pittock]

If the LIV was here, I'd be sorrier for the group starting on the 18th than 17.

[Thomas Dai]

As recently heard on the car radio.
"LIV will keep us together" ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvwESFJsbI

atb

[David_Tepper]

"Tiger winning five majors in succession (US Open, British Open, PGA, Player's, Master's) is the single most incredible achievement in sports."

Among Tiger's many remarkable achievements (will anyone ever come close to his consecutive cuts made?), his winning 6 USGA championships at matchplay in a row (3 USGA Juniors & 3 USGA Ams) should not be forgotten

[JohnVDB]

"Tiger winning five majors in succession (US Open, British Open, PGA, Player's, Master's) is the single most incredible achievement in sports."

Among Tiger's many remarkable achievements (will anyone ever come close to his consecutive cuts made?), his winning 6 USGA championships at matchplay in a row (3 USGA Juniors & 3 USGA Ams) should not be forgotten

Technically, he won one a match play amateur for each of six years in a row, but he lost the US Amateurs after winning the three juniors. In 91 he didn’t make match play, in 92 he lost in the second round to Tim Herron and in 93 he lost in the second round to an Englishman named Paul Page.

[Kalen Braley]

Understood. Does it lose its 5th major status if it excludes some of the best players?

What's up with this? The Masters excludes the most best players!
The US and British Opens excludes many of the best players, and replaces them with amateurs that happen to be on a hot streak.

The PGA Championship excludes many of the best players, and replaces the with club pros.

I think I can live with The Players being a 5th major while excluding LIV golfers.

100% Concur with Garland on this one.

The Players still in fact has the most amount of top players in the field over any other major all year, even after losing a few to LIV.

[Ronald Montesano]

"Do you have any eights?"

If a question is only a question, does it still demand an answer?

I'm with Ian on the whole VIL topic. His analogy was as accurate as a Ted Lasso dart toss.

The Western Open was a men's professional major for years, until it was no longer a major.

[Rob Marshall]

"Do you have any eights?"

If a question is only a question, does it still demand an answer?

I'm with Ian on the whole VIL topic. His analogy was as accurate as a Ted Lasso dart toss.

The Western Open was a men's professional major for years, until it was no longer a major.

Ben Hogan won the Western Open in Buffalo

[Niall C]

I think that in practice, if the "world" ranking people don't change their rules to allow for LIV then I think the majors will simply start their own rankings or choose some other metric to decide who gets in to their tournaments so that they continue to get the best field.

Then I would suggest you don't understand the politics of golf at the highest levels very well.

Tom


I think a lot of people assume that the interests of the different organisations that form part of OWGR are exactly aligned. I'm not so sure. While I'm quite certain that they all would rather that LIV never happened and hope that it fails some time soon, they will also have different reasons for thinking that way and more importantly different aims and objectives.


For instance the PGA sees LIV as an outright competitor that's competing for players and competing for sponsors. Historically by being based in the largest golfing economy they have been able to outspend the competition and in doing so succeeded in poaching most of the best players from other tours. Now they are up against a competitor who seems to have more financial muscle than them, hence the different tactics like banning LIV players from playing in PGA Tour events and withholding ranking points. If they could they would have the R&A and the Masters ban LIV golfers also.


The R&A/Masters on the other hand maybe don't see LIV as a direct threat to their comps, although LIV could yet decide to schedule events directly against them, but I suspect they will be worried of their status being eroded by a reduction in top talent playing in the event. Think of the Open post WWI but pre-Palmer. The top guys who aren't exempt by having previously won a major probably have enough residual points from before they joined LIV for this year and therefore the R&A/Masters can probably afford to kick the can down the road for another year but at some point they are going to have to address the issue if LIV continues.


At that point I imagine the OWGR gets revamped to include LIV or its relevance as far as the majors are concerned diminishes. Bear in mind that the OWGR was originally thought up to assist the R&A with judging who should qualify for the Open.


Niall


 

[Charlie Goerges]

I think that in practice, if the "world" ranking people don't change their rules to allow for LIV then I think the majors will simply start their own rankings or choose some other metric to decide who gets in to their tournaments so that they continue to get the best field.

Then I would suggest you don't understand the politics of golf at the highest levels very well.

Tom


I think a lot of people assume that the interests of the different organisations that form part of OWGR are exactly aligned. I'm not so sure. While I'm quite certain that they all would rather that LIV never happened and hope that it fails some time soon, they will also have different reasons for thinking that way and more importantly different aims and objectives.


For instance the PGA sees LIV as an outright competitor that's competing for players and competing for sponsors. Historically by being based in the largest golfing economy they have been able to outspend the competition and in doing so succeeded in poaching most of the best players from other tours. Now they are up against a competitor who seems to have more financial muscle than them, hence the different tactics like banning LIV players from playing in PGA Tour events and withholding ranking points. If they could they would have the R&A and the Masters ban LIV golfers also.


The R&A/Masters on the other hand maybe don't see LIV as a direct threat to their comps, although LIV could yet decide to schedule events directly against them, but I suspect they will be worried of their status being eroded by a reduction in top talent playing in the event. Think of the Open post WWI but pre-Palmer. The top guys who aren't exempt by having previously won a major probably have enough residual points from before they joined LIV for this year and therefore the R&A/Masters can probably afford to kick the can down the road for another year but at some point they are going to have to address the issue if LIV continues.


At that point I imagine the OWGR gets revamped to include LIV or its relevance as far as the majors are concerned diminishes. Bear in mind that the OWGR was originally thought up to assist the R&A with judging who should qualify for the Open.


Niall

By the time that happens Niall, the points on offer in a LIV tournament will be so low that it won't be much help to the players on it in terms of getting in to majors.

[MCirba]

I guess I would have liked to see Cam Smith play but I truthfully can't say anyone was "missed" and suspect he'd be among the pile-up well behind Scottie Scheffler, especially since he's playing inferior competition these days.

[Kalen Braley]

I guess I would have liked to see Cam Smith play but I truthfully can't say anyone was "missed" and suspect he'd be among the pile-up well behind Scottie Scheffler, especially since he's playing inferior competition these days.

Mike,

Certainly agreed there, and I'd throw in DJ as well.

But all the other guys who bolted to LIV, its certainly a Bye Felicia kind of deal.

[MCirba]

Mike,

Certainly agreed there, and I'd throw in DJ as well.

But all the other guys who bolted to LIV, its certainly a Bye Felicia kind of deal.

Yeah...but for every aging DJ I'll trade you a Morikawa or other young guy doing all of that and more coming on on tour.   

[Stewart Abramson]

For instance the PGA sees LIV as an outright competitor that's competing for players and competing for sponsors...


. Now they are up against a competitor who seems to have more financial muscle than them, hence the different tactics like banning LIV players from playing in PGA Tour events and withholding ranking points.

Niall

The above is not really accurate. There are no "different tactics".


 Requiring pga tour participants to play only tour events with limited exceptions/exemptions is not a "different tactic" Players who played (or committed to play) 8 competing events on another tour were never allowed to play the  PGA tour. It's not a ban created for LIV players. It's the same old requirement that to play in pga tour events the player be a PGA tour member in compliance with the rules that he agreed to when he signed his contract to join the tour, which includes not playing in competing events, (or get in by playing a qualifier or get a sponsor exemption.)


The PGA tour doesn't grant or withhold OWGR points.


LIV doesn't allow players from other tours into LIV events. Why should any other tour allow LIV players into their events?

[JohnVDB]

If the OWGR doesn’t want to give points to the LIV, the four majors could do something like they do for other tours around the world and exempt the top one or two money winners from LIV.


For example, the USGA gives an exemption to the top Korn Ferry player from the previous year, they could do that for the top LIV player as well.

[JLahrman]

I think that in practice, if the "world" ranking people don't change their rules to allow for LIV then I think the majors will simply start their own rankings or choose some other metric to decide who gets in to their tournaments so that they continue to get the best field.

Niall

But that's the whole thing, if somebody like Niemann isn't qualifying for the future majors by his performance in the majors this year, then how else can it be determined whether he is one of the top players? He can play some of the events on tours that are allowing LIV guys to play, I suppose. But his performance in majors for four weeks of this year are really his auditions for playing in next year's majors. Apart from that his only proof points are going to be his performance in these 54-hole LIV exhibitions, with their strict qualifying criteria of whether you've been invited to play in them.

This is why I was kind of surprised by the level of discourse around the original world ranking decision. Even if LIV gets world ranking points, it will be so few that it would only slightly slow down LIV players' inexorable slide off the list.

Agreed Charlie,

I'd bet the current discussion behind closed doors is just to maintain the status quo of denying LIV substantial if any world ranking points and the "problem" takes care of itself.  (Assuming the Saudis are willing to continue this fiscal charade and flush hundreds of millions down the toilet)

To follow up on this:


https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/the-nine-liv-golfers-who-could-be-playing-their-last-masters-this-year

Here are nine players who, if they don't play well at The Masters next month, are not going to have many other options for qualifying to return next year unless something changes with either Masters eligibility or the OWGR.

[Kalen Braley]

I think that in practice, if the "world" ranking people don't change their rules to allow for LIV then I think the majors will simply start their own rankings or choose some other metric to decide who gets in to their tournaments so that they continue to get the best field.

Niall

But that's the whole thing, if somebody like Niemann isn't qualifying for the future majors by his performance in the majors this year, then how else can it be determined whether he is one of the top players? He can play some of the events on tours that are allowing LIV guys to play, I suppose. But his performance in majors for four weeks of this year are really his auditions for playing in next year's majors. Apart from that his only proof points are going to be his performance in these 54-hole LIV exhibitions, with their strict qualifying criteria of whether you've been invited to play in them.

This is why I was kind of surprised by the level of discourse around the original world ranking decision. Even if LIV gets world ranking points, it will be so few that it would only slightly slow down LIV players' inexorable slide off the list.

Agreed Charlie,

I'd bet the current discussion behind closed doors is just to maintain the status quo of denying LIV substantial if any world ranking points and the "problem" takes care of itself.  (Assuming the Saudis are willing to continue this fiscal charade and flush hundreds of millions down the toilet)

To follow up on this:


https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/the-nine-liv-golfers-who-could-be-playing-their-last-masters-this-year

Here are nine players who, if they don't play well at The Masters next month, are not going to have many other options for qualifying to return next year unless something changes with either Masters eligibility or the OWGR.

Thanks for posting that.  If that is the actual goal, then that's a quicker result than I initially thought...

Although the ones I'm guessing they would like to exclude like Phil, Pat, and Sergio have thier lifetime achievement status locked in 

[Tim Martin]

It’s not a lock that any more excitement would have been injected into the tournament by letting the LIV guys in. I’ll give Sheffler his due for separating himself from the field but the tournament couldn’t have been any more boring. The lack of drama and the non-existent personality of Sheffler made it a snorefest.

[John Kirk]

Based on two minutes of intense analysis for the two dueling pro tournaments today, it looks like this week the LIV is the better option for TV golf guy.

The course looks nice, the players look more athletic and comfortable wearing shorts, and the strength of the field is better.
 

[Ken Moum]

It’s not a lock that any more excitement would have been injected into the tournament by letting the LIV guys in. I’ll give Sheffler his due for separating himself from the field but the tournament couldn’t have been any more boring. The lack of drama and the non-existent personality of Sheffler made it a snorefest.

So you're agreeing with Harry Higgs that LIV stealing all the assholes is going to ruin pro golf?


The fact that you find Scotty Scheffler any more boring than most of the other clones currently on Tour is interesting. FWIW, I think Scheffler's personality is just fine, being a nice guy isn't a bad thing.

[Tim Martin]

It’s not a lock that any more excitement would have been injected into the tournament by letting the LIV guys in. I’ll give Sheffler his due for separating himself from the field but the tournament couldn’t have been any more boring. The lack of drama and the non-existent personality of Sheffler made it a snorefest.

So you're agreeing with Harry Higgs that LIV stealing all the assholes is going to ruin pro golf?

I’m not familiar with what Harry said but your reference doesn’t align with what I wrote in the first sentence of my post which was the only reference to LIV.

[Max Prokopy]

It’s not a lock that any more excitement would have been injected into the tournament by letting the LIV guys in.

No, but having several of the world top 50 sure increases the odds.  It's also not a lock that having Spieth or McIlroy injects excitement if/when they miss the cut. 


I prefer the 4 "majors" to have a meritorious field.

[Ken Moum]

It’s not a lock that any more excitement would have been injected into the tournament by letting the LIV guys in. I’ll give Sheffler his due for separating himself from the field but the tournament couldn’t have been any more boring. The lack of drama and the non-existent personality of Sheffler made it a snorefest.

So you're agreeing with Harry Higgs that LIV stealing all the assholes is going to ruin pro golf?

I’m not familiar with what Harry said but your reference doesn’t align with what I wrote in the first sentence of my post which was the only reference to LIV.

Higgs said they were getting all the villains, basically leaving behind the boring guys like Scheffler.  His point was that without villains the competition would be less interesting. 


Excuse my hyperbole.