Hypothetically: If LIV were backed by....

[Sean_A]

It dawned on me that how the LIV guys played at the Masters was really besides the point. Of course some played well, LIV spent a Billion-plus to get some top players to take their money, they are professionals with a track record. Koepka was always accused of not taking the regular tour events that seriously when he was on the tour, not surprised he played well now that he's healthy.

It also demonstrated that they managed to pick off a few top players, but the depth runs out pretty quickly. While they had 3 of the top 5 or whatever, they also had only 4 of the top 20 or so. And they have 48 players, with only 18 qualified. 11.5 were predicted to make the cut, and 12 did. Lee, Poulter, etc. weren't even there.

38% qualified is good considering guys have so few opportunities to earn ranking points. So 12 made the cut. That's suggests LIV events should be earning ranking points even if on a highly modified basis. No need to respond. I know you believe the ranking system should ignore highly successful golfers.

Ciao

[Ian Mackenzie]

It dawned on me that how the LIV guys played at the Masters was really besides the point. Of course some played well, LIV spent a Billion-plus to get some top players to take their money, they are professionals with a track record. Koepka was always accused of not taking the regular tour events that seriously when he was on the tour, not surprised he played well now that he's healthy.

It also demonstrated that they managed to pick off a few top players, but the depth runs out pretty quickly. While they had 3 of the top 5 or whatever, they also had only 4 of the top 20 or so. And they have 48 players, with only 18 qualified. 11.5 were predicted to make the cut, and 12 did. Lee, Poulter, etc. weren't even there.

38% qualified is good considering guys have so few opportunities to earn ranking points. So 12 made the cut. That's suggests LIV events should be earning ranking points even if on a highly modified basis. No need to respond. I know you believe the ranking system should ignore highly successful golfers.

Ciao

I believe there is a two year process from "application" to decision on OWGR points. When did LIV submit their application? Did they know the criteria?


Why would LIV then choose to then sue two of the entities that make up part of the advisory board and "client list" of the OWGR?


Like most issues related to LIV that I have seen, this OWGR problem seems self-inflicted.


IMO, this is a case of misunderstood expectations by the defecting LIV players. I believe they were told by LIV, when they had the pen in their hands,  that the OWGR thing would not be an issue. And now that it is, they are a bit chuffy about it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

That's suggests LIV events should be earning ranking points even if on a highly modified basis. No need to respond. I know you believe the ranking system should ignore highly successful golfers.

Nope, that doesn't "suggest" that. And no, I don't "believe the ranking system should ignore highly successful golfers." I've always pointed out essentially what Ian and others have said: that there's a process by which they have to go, requirements they need to meet, etc. They haven't done them, and those moving to LIV knew that before they left, particularly some of the later movers. I don't think a special case should be made to grant LIV golfers OWGR points early.

[John_Cullum]

If you can't get to a major, but you want to see the best players in the world, get to a LIV event

[Kalen Braley]

Without taking a side in the PGA Tour/LIV imbroglio it’s clear that LIV had a very good showing at the Masters. Two of the top three finishers and three of the top six were from LIV. Twelve of the eighteen players in the field made the cut. I would think that a public relations/marketing blitz isn’t far off with those results as the headline. Something to the effect of “Who says these guys aren’t tournament tested?”

But it is interesting that the guys that finished at the top (mickelson, Reed and Kopeka) didn't really need to do so as they still get into majors, at least for a few years.  The guys from LIV that really could have used a top 12 finish in the Masters to get invited back next year did not.  Players like Gooch, Ancer, Pereira, Kokrak, Niemann, Varner, etc. No LIV golfer earned their way into the 2024 Masters on the weekend. Niemann came closest at T16.

Seconded.

Also, is nobody going to say it? Brooks was great... for 54 holes.

I will 3rd this.

And when we look at the bigger picture of top performers in this masters, specifically the top 30 (in this case 32 with ties)

75% play on the PGA Tour
16% play on LIV
9% Other - 1 Am 2 from Asian tours.

[Sean_A]

It dawned on me that how the LIV guys played at the Masters was really besides the point. Of course some played well, LIV spent a Billion-plus to get some top players to take their money, they are professionals with a track record. Koepka was always accused of not taking the regular tour events that seriously when he was on the tour, not surprised he played well now that he's healthy.

It also demonstrated that they managed to pick off a few top players, but the depth runs out pretty quickly. While they had 3 of the top 5 or whatever, they also had only 4 of the top 20 or so. And they have 48 players, with only 18 qualified. 11.5 were predicted to make the cut, and 12 did. Lee, Poulter, etc. weren't even there.

38% qualified is good considering guys have so few opportunities to earn ranking points. So 12 made the cut. That's suggests LIV events should be earning ranking points even if on a highly modified basis. No need to respond. I know you believe the ranking system should ignore highly successful golfers.

Ciao

I believe there is a two year process from "application" to decision on OWGR points. When did LIV submit their application? Did they know the criteria?


Why would LIV then choose to then sue two of the entities that make up part of the advisory board and "client list" of the OWGR?


Like most issues related to LIV that I have seen, this OWGR problem seems self-inflicted.


IMO, this is a case of misunderstood expectations by the defecting LIV players. I believe they were told by LIV, when they had the pen in their hands,  that the OWGR thing would not be an issue. And now that it is, they are a bit chuffy about it.

My take is that any ranking system exists to rank. The ranking system should find ways to be inclusive rather than exclusive if they hope to produce an accurate ranking. It shouldn't take an application, two years and whatever other highly subjective criteria thrown up to ignore obviously high quality players. Unlike Niall, I do think the ranking system is a scam.

Ciao

[Niall C]

That's suggests LIV events should be earning ranking points even if on a highly modified basis. No need to respond. I know you believe the ranking system should ignore highly successful golfers.

Nope, that doesn't "suggest" that. And no, I don't "believe the ranking system should ignore highly successful golfers." I've always pointed out essentially what Ian and others have said: that there's a process by which they have to go, requirements they need to meet, etc. They haven't done them, and those moving to LIV knew that before they left, particularly some of the later movers. I don't think a special case should be made to grant LIV golfers OWGR points early.

Erik
 
 
I'm all for rules but rules can be changed. If you look at the history of the rankings that has happened quite a lot to make it more relevant with the latest changes happening only last year and when LIV was already up and running.
 
Bear in mind also that according to their articles of incorporation that one of their objectives is "to devise, maintain, review, update, administer and promote the recognition of a system that fairly ranks the relative performances of male professional golfers participating in the leading golf tournaments throughout the world, taking into account all relevant factors including, amongst other matters, the date of the tournament, the prestige of the tournament, the standard of the other participants and the value of the tournament prize fund."
 
It doesn't look to me that they are trying too hard to meet that objective.
 
Niall

[Wayne_Kozun]

  Blackstone??? I wonder what kind of ESG considerations they'd be pushing on the LIV investment decisions???

First off I think you are confusing Blackstone with BlackRock - two different companies.   Blackstone is a private equity GP and BlackRock is the world's largest asset manager, primarily in public markets like equities and fixed income.

And I think you are overestimating what BlackRock is actually doing in ESG.  BlackRock CEO Larry Fink talks about ESG a lot, but they still hold a lot of "dirty" assets - for example, BlackRock is the second largest shareholder of Exxon Mobil as they own 7.2% of the company.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm all for rules but rules can be changed.

They can be, but why should they? LIV is literally suing Augusta National and the Masters, and they're a chunk of the OWGR. To say that LIV has handled OWGR points (lying multiple times, misleading, suing, etc.) well is to be either completely ignorant or to just be trolling. I'm not saying you are saying this, just that LIV folks have done these things, and I see no real reason why their "application" should be pushed through, or why the rules should be changed for them.

At the end of the day, you have a bunch of players with no cut, playing 54 holes, with no qualifying process whatsoever. Somewhere near 2/3 of the field any given week at LIV is not in the top x-hundred in the world.

If you look at the history of the rankings that has happened quite a lot to make it more relevant with the latest changes happening only last year and when LIV was already up and running.

The multi-year process that changed the OWGR calculation was just that: a multi-year process.

It doesn't look to me that they are trying too hard to meet that objective.

I disagree. LIV has given them no real reason to change the rules because they jumped the gun and then acted like babies about it.

[Steve Lang]

  Blackstone??? I wonder what kind of ESG considerations they'd be pushing on the LIV investment decisions???

First off I think you are confusing Blackstone with BlackRock - two different companies.   Blackstone is a private equity GP and BlackRock is the world's largest asset manager, primarily in public markets like equities and fixed income.

And I think you are overestimating what BlackRock is actually doing in ESG.  BlackRock CEO Larry Fink talks about ESG a lot, but they still hold a lot of "dirty" assets - for example, BlackRock is the second largest shareholder of Exxon Mobil as they own 7.2% of the company.

No confusion on my part...  see  [size=78%]https://www.blackstone.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/02/BX-Firmwide-ESG-Policy.pdf[/size]

[Bill Seitz]

I know you believe the ranking system should ignore highly successful golfers.

Ciao

This wasn't directed at me, but I don't think ranking systems should ignore highly successful golfers.  But they should ignore events whose fields are determined not by any specified ranking criteria, but rather whoever Greg decided to give money to.  I can watch a PGA Tour event and can find out exactly how every player in the field earned their way into the event (even if I think that a bunch of them shouldn't be playing!).  How did Chase Koepka earn his way into LIV events?  Or the other 20+ guys who can't get regular starts on the PGA Tour? 

[Sean_A]

I know you believe the ranking system should ignore highly successful golfers.

Ciao

This wasn't directed at me, but I don't think ranking systems should ignore highly successful golfers.  But they should ignore events whose fields are determined not by any specified ranking criteria, but rather whoever Greg decided to give money to.  I can watch a PGA Tour event and can find out exactly how every player in the field earned their way into the event (even if I think that a bunch of them shouldn't be playing!).  How did Chase Koepka earn his way into LIV events?  Or the other 20+ guys who can't get regular starts on the PGA Tour?

It doesn't matter how players came to be on the tour or any tour. What matters is that they are professional players. Any ranking system can devise a point system to account for relative lack of field quality. But a ranking system shouldn't ignore a tour with relatively low qualify fields. Again, a ranking system exists to rank players. The entire system is subjective. Points are devised in a subjective manner. So subjectively include players from another tour. I don't see what the problem is. There are over 20 tours included in the rankings. Is anybody putting their hand up to say LIV isn't as strong as any of these tours?

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It doesn't matter how players came to be on the tour or any tour.

No, how they got on the Tour definitely matters. According to the OWGR, and according to what I'm tempted to say common sense, but…

What matters is that they are professional players.

There are mini tour players that are "professional golfers." I'm technically a professional. I don't think that if I was on LIV I should get OWGR points for beating Chase Koepka once every five events. 

But a ranking system shouldn't ignore a tour with relatively low qualify fields.

They're not ignoring them because of "relatively low quality fields."

[Pete_Pittock]

It's about 13 hours until the beginning of the CW LIVE broadcast of the LIV Singapore event.  Right now they have played about 13-14 holes, so tomorrow's NON-LIVE airing, in direct competition with the PGA tournament in Mexico is just another raised middle finger. If it were live, they would be playing under the lights.

[Steve Lang]

   Hey Pete,


Well CBS & Warner Bros. (CW) do have to market things for their USA market...


Best for 2023