[Niall C]

JL


Again there are probably guys still on the PGA Tour who have gone off the boil following a stellar start to their career. That happens.


Niall

[Rob Marshall]

The LIV players took their guaranteed money and left the best golf tour in the world and won't be missed. They didn't think they could compete against the best players in the world week to week so they are now playing 54 hole tournaments with shotgun starts and virtually no TV coverage. Real champions compete with the best in the best format and don't look for shortcuts and guaranteed paydays.

So the only guy I miss is Cam Smith. I don't think he was afraid of anyone. My son is at the Players. He has a buddy who works at a course next door. 12 hole course that a lot of pro's practice at. Molinari was there the other day. Anyway, he's playing the course then going to the tournament. He's on the range this morning and Cam Smith was hitting balls getting ready to play with a buddy who won the Australian open. He was in the group behind my son. My son asks for a picture and his reply is "of course mate". They talked for a few minutes and then teed off. My son said he couldn't have been nicer.


To put things in perspective. My sister in law is a flight attendant. She was in Israel yesterday. Goes out to dinner with her flight crew. Guy walks into the restaurant and starts shooting the place up. A man was shot twice in the head 10 feet from her. She had to crawl out of the place thru broken glass wondering if she would ever see her kids again.  What a world we live in.  I don't like LIV, won't watch it, but at the end of the day it's meaning less. Wanted to get that off my chest. Sorry.

Tim, not directed at you in anyway other than my Cam Smith story was related to your post.

[Niall C]

But now, and correct me if I'm wrong, he might only be able to maintain eligibility for majors if he can perform well in the majors for which he has remaining eligibility. Unless he wants to try to maintain his world rank by playing additional tournaments on the LIV-friendly tours.

Sorry, didn't pick up on the bit about rankings. As per my comments and others comments on this thread and elsewhere, with no crossover between the two tours (PGA and LIV) then the only place you will continue to have the best fields will be the majors, assuming they set the qualification process in such a way that LIV golfers are eligible by play through their own tour. That is hugely to the benefit of the majors.


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

[Tom_Doak]

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.


As George Carlin used to say, "It's a big club and you ain't in it."


I believe at least a couple of them would have disqualified the LIV players, except for the possibility of lawsuits over changing their criteria to discriminate against the LIV tour.  The easier road is to do what they're doing . . . keep the existing rules [knowing that they disadvantage the LIV players over time], and maybe hope that some sort of accommodation is reached before most of those players are phased out.


As for the TPC, the TOUR has always used the membership requirement to leverage international players to be TOUR members.  They kept Seve Ballesteros from playing in most TOUR events from 1986-88 because he wouldn't commit to playing in 15 events per year.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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)

[Michael Morandi]

Fantastic decision.


Mike, it's like if you were working for Goldman Sachs as a top salesperson and you were recruited to go work for Citadel with a huge signing bonus and guarantied compensation.


Do you think you should be invited to Goldman's annual Uber-boondoggle for their top producers even though you just left the team you worked with and competed with for years? I mean..."you" are a top performer and hence you feel that you "should" be invited, right?


Except there's just one problem: You don't fucking work at Goldman anymore!! You left for a lighter work schedule and less stress of actually competing.


Go ask your NEW employer about their annual boondoggle for their top performers!!


I dont begrudge ANY LIV golfer for "hitting the LIV bid" and lining their pockets. Dustin Johnson has the right viewpoint.
I just cant comprehend why many of the LIVers feel they are somehow entitled to double-dip at their discretion.


Decisions have consequences and not being invited to the Players is one of them that they simply must live with.

Sometimes a question is simply a question. I hate where we are  as a society today when a question implies a position. Often I share an article with someone and they immediately think I agree with its points when I simply think they might be interested in its contents. Don’t shoot the messenger or the questioner. Everybody.

The question IS just a question and my answer IS just an answer and not an accusation, Mike. It's an anlalogy made to the board, not you.


Lighten up.


The messenger is sometimes only shot when HE believes that it is happening. It's not.


I made an analolgy to highlight why I think the PGA made a good decision.
How you internalize that is apparently your issue to reconcile, but you missed my intent by 180 degrees. That happens.

Fair enough.

[Max Prokopy]

I'm not a big fan of LIV by any stretch, but should the US Open and THE Open expand the number of qualifiers to accommodate the inexorable phasing out of the LIV players? 


When players like DJ get to the point of having to go through sectionals, it would seem that the USGA/R&A might expand the number of available slots. 

[JohnVDB]

I'm not a big fan of LIV by any stretch, but should the US Open and THE Open expand the number of qualifiers to accommodate the inexorable phasing out of the LIV players? 


When players like DJ get to the point of having to go through sectionals, it would seem that the USGA/R&A might expand the number of available slots.

I believe the USGA expanded the exemptions from local qualifying to anyone in the top 500 in the world in the rankings which might help some players get straight to Final qualifying. About half the field comes from Final qualifying. If about 70-80 spots aren’t enough for those players, perhaps they aren’t good enough anymore.


It could be noted that this is the final year of Tiger’s exemption from qualifying for the US Open, although they might be convinced to give him a special exemption or two [size=78%]. Otherwise he’s going to have to walk a 36-hole one day qualifier starting next year if he wants to play in it.[/size]

[Ian Mackenzie]

Why is it that everyone, every entity, every option must make and allow for accommodations for the "Lost LIVers" so that there may be harmony?


Why can't LIV make any accommodations or concessions to their rigid business model in the spirit of (barf) "growing the game"?


Why can't they have slots for plyers who wish to qualify?
What are they 100% exclusive yet whine about other tours and governing body's criteria?


It's like they made their own VIP private club that no one else is allowed to visit yet they insist that they can swim in any public pool they want...just because they used to swim there back in the day.


Dudes, you have your own club now. Yup, the media hates it because the club's owner kills journalists. The sponsors hate it because the club's owners' fellow countrymen killed 3000 Americans and just signed a peace deal with Iran. Makes it kinda bad for business.


That's also why the president of Seminole didnt want LIVers at the pro/member event last month.
He lost employees on 9/11.


It matters.

[John Kavanaugh]

When the cool kids won’t let you in the clubhouse they don’t become less cool. We want the cool kids in the majors.

[JLahrman]

I'm not a big fan of LIV by any stretch, but should the US Open and THE Open expand the number of qualifiers to accommodate the inexorable phasing out of the LIV players? 

When players like DJ get to the point of having to go through sectionals, it would seem that the USGA/R&A might expand the number of available slots.

I really don't understand why they would or should, or why we would want them to.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm not a big fan of LIV by any stretch, but should the US Open and THE Open expand the number of qualifiers to accommodate the inexorable phasing out of the LIV players? 

When players like DJ get to the point of having to go through sectionals, it would seem that the USGA/R&A might expand the number of available slots.

I really don't understand why they would or should, or why we would want them to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the idea is that DJ or whomever is going to be taking a spot from an unknown who's trying to qualify, so make some extra spots for those unknowns who would have had a chance. That said, I don't think it works that way, the number should just be the number.

[JLahrman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the idea is that DJ or whomever is going to be taking a spot from an unknown who's trying to qualify, so make some extra spots for those unknowns who would have had a chance. That said, I don't think it works that way, the number should just be the number.

Right but I don't think the USGA or R&A should be stepping in to smooth out bumps in the road that were created by LIV and the PGA Tour. DJ and the rest of the LIV golfers willfully left the PGA Tour for an alternative that would leave them fewer ways to qualify for the majors. It's not as if the rug was pulled from under their feet. If they're still among the world's best then getting through qualifying shouldn't be a huge hurdle.


I think more qualifying spots for open events is a good thing, but not as a way to remedy the LIV/PGA bifurcation.

[Brian_Ewen]

GEEZUZ, again? 

[Max Prokopy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the idea is that DJ or whomever is going to be taking a spot from an unknown who's trying to qualify, so make some extra spots for those unknowns who would have had a chance. That said, I don't think it works that way, the number should just be the number.

Right but I don't think the USGA or R&A should be stepping in to smooth out bumps in the road that were created by LIV and the PGA Tour. DJ and the rest of the LIV golfers willfully left the PGA Tour for an alternative that would leave them fewer ways to qualify for the majors. It's not as if the rug was pulled from under their feet. If they're still among the world's best then getting through qualifying shouldn't be a huge hurdle.


I think more qualifying spots for open events is a good thing, but not as a way to remedy the LIV/PGA bifurcation.

The USGA didn't ask for this.  Their job is to try to identify the world's best (granted, during that singular week) on an extremely difficult course.  They don't have to smooth anything for anyone but rather hold the best possible event.  That could include recognizing the potential for more slots. 


This concept has already been applied when the USGA began holding qualifiers in foreign countries with the rationale of trying to make sure the best players were part of the tournament. 

[Mike Bodo]

What I find it both ironic and hypocritical in the whole Lost LIV'ers conversation is how LIV was heavily derided by the PGA Tour brass and players that didn't defect last year regarding it's no-cut format and and were in lockstep unison chanting the "No cut. No Points" mantra. Yet, the PGA Tour is going to have eight no-cut events on its calendar next year. Gee, I wonder what inspired that?


Given that LIV's format currently doesn't comply with OWGR points criteria - primarily for their being no cuts in their tournaments, does this mean the players that participate in the eight designated no-cut PGA Tour events next year also do not receive OWGR points? Somehow, I highly doubt it.


Basically, what we have are two sets of OWGR standards - one for the PGA Tour and another for LIV. Or, to put it another way, "Rules for thee, but not for me."

[Rob Marshall]

What I find it both ironic and hypocritical in the whole Lost LIV'ers conversation is how LIV was heavily derided by the PGA Tour brass and players that didn't defect last year regarding it's no-cut format and and were in lockstep unison chanting the "No cut. No Points" mantra. Yet, the PGA Tour is going to have eight no-cut events on its calendar next year. Gee, I wonder what inspired that?


Given that LIV's format currently doesn't comply with OWGR points criteria - primarily for their being no cuts in their tournaments, does this mean the players that participate in the eight designated no-cut PGA Tour events next year also do not receive OWGR points? Somehow, I highly doubt it.


Basically, what we have are two sets of OWGR standards - one for the PGA Tour and another for LIV. Or, to put it another way, "Rules for thee, but not for me."

PGA tour has always had a few no cut events. I've seen it referenced when they talk about Tigers no cut record. It's nothing new.


The problem is that the Norman lied to the players or just made promises he shouldn't have. IMO if the Saudi head really has to testify or be deposed he will pull the plug. To many skeletons in his closet. It's not like he gives a shit about golf. Question then will be how long the LIV players have to sit out before being allowed back.

[Mike Bodo]

PGA tour has always had a few no cut events. I've seen it referenced when they talk about Tigers no cut record. It's nothing new.

Never said it was new, but has increased at the players behest - many who ridiculed LIV for it's no-cut format.


I don't have a horse in the race and could care less if LIV survives. I just want there to be a level playing field as it concerns the awarding of OWGR points at any professional golf tournament with a no-cut format regardless of tour.

[Charlie Goerges]

PGA tour has always had a few no cut events. I've seen it referenced when they talk about Tigers no cut record. It's nothing new.

Never said it was new, but has increased at the players behest - many who ridiculed LIV for it's no-cut format.


I don't have a horse in the race and could care less if LIV survives. I just want there to be a level playing field as it concerns the awarding of OWGR points at any professional golf tournament with a no-cut format regardless of tour.

I don’t think the lack of cuts was the only reason for no points. Main problem was the age of the tour, less than a year. Maybe they’ll get points once the tour passes the longevity requirement. Problem is it won’t help much because of the small number of highly-ranked players and small number of players overall will mean LIV tournaments will offer so few points that everyone on the tour will slide inevitably down the OWGR ranking.

[John Kavanaugh]

Vegas has an accurate world ranking.


https://www.vegasinsider.com/golf/odds/masters/

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What I find it both ironic and hypocritical in the whole Lost LIV'ers conversation is how LIV was heavily derided by the PGA Tour brass and players that didn't defect last year regarding it's no-cut format and and were in lockstep unison chanting the "No cut. No Points" mantra. Yet, the PGA Tour is going to have eight no-cut events on its calendar next year. Gee, I wonder what inspired that?

The WGCs had no cut. The Tour Championship had no cut. Some of the playoff events, the Tournament of Champions… no cut. European Tour events had no cut, too.

Given that LIV's format currently doesn't comply with OWGR points criteria - primarily for their being no cuts in their tournaments, does this mean the players that participate in the eight designated no-cut PGA Tour events next year also do not receive OWGR points? Somehow, I highly doubt it.

That's not the "primary" reason at all. The other issues that matter more are:

• 54 holes (could possibly get limited points)
• 48 players (average field size on the PGA Tour is still quite high).
• Not in operation for a full year (a requirement).
• No qualification - you're "selected" you don't play your way in (a requirement).
• It's a fairly closed system (they don't play against a significant number of outside players all that often).

You have no way of really knowing how bad Peter Uihlein is, or even how good Brooks is right now. In years, he (Uihlein) never really sniffed maintaining a PGA Tour card, and yet he "challenged" for a win the other week on LIV. So how good is he? Probably not better than 500th in the world, but because of LIV being what they are… you have no direct way to compare players.

Basically, what we have are two sets of OWGR standards - one for the PGA Tour and another for LIV. Or, to put it another way, "Rules for thee, but not for me."

No.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Garland Bayley]

If you really want to talk history and go in the "way back" machine, the four original majors were the U.S. Open, U.S. Amateur, British Open and British Amateurs. When did it change to professional golf majors only and include the Masters and PGA Championship?

When a reporter asked Arnold Palmer what the four majors should be on a flight back from the British Open.

Also, why was The Master's selected over Western Open as a major given the latter was well establihed had been around longer?

Because Arnold had won the Master's, but he hadn't won the Western Open.

Who determined this?

The press.

Same goes for the PGA Championship. Did that tourney become a major for the simple fact it was the premiere evet of the PGA of America?

Because Arnold chose it, and there was no PGA Tour. The PGA was the top professional organization at the time.

If that's the case then why isn't The Players considered a "major" when it's promoted and consentually agreed upon as the premiere event of the PGA Tour?

Because tour pros prefer exclusivity, not competition.

...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()