LIV Golf

[AddisonRoad]

I think it's pretty clear the field for LIV is third-rate, but that's not to say it won't improve in the future if more defections occur. Even though DJ and Brooks are top players, until Cam Smith left, the type of players leaving the PGA were the exact types of players you expected — players that don't seem that bothered about playing golf or players that are past it.

From what I've seen, it's a pretty sloppy product thus far. Things may change, but I often find myself looking at DP World Tour and PGA results and completely forgetting LIV events are on. If the LIV investors are willing to burn cash indefinitely, it will be around for a while, although I think people are mistaken if they think LIV will be willing to basically lose 100s of millions annually for the next few years. The idea is to become profitable eventually. TBH they're looking to diversify their money outside of their national oil company, and they've made a lot of bad bets in the past (WeWork, Softbank, etc.); there's no doubt they're eager for a return at some point, so don't expect them to subsidize LIV indefinitely for the love of golf or the desire to be involved in western sport.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

LIV is a mixture of players as you would expect when all the top players haven't (yet?) joined.

You have some top players - DJ, Smith Brooks, Bryson etc
Some very good, but not big names - Ortiz, Ancer, Niemann etc
Some coming to the end of their illustrious careers - Westwood, Poulter, McDowall etc
Some never really made it - Weisberger, Uihlein, Howell 3 etc
And some nobodies - Kim, Chase Koepka, Piot etc

For it to really make it I can only think that it needs to lose the bottom couple of rungs and add some more of the biggest names and those who were at the beginning of making it big.

 

[bernix]

LIV is a mixture of players as you would expect when all the top players haven't (yet?) joined.

You have some top players - DJ, Smith Brooks, Bryson etc
Some very good, but not big names - Ortiz, Ancer, Niemann etc
Some coming to the end of their illustrious careers - Westwood, Poulter, McDowall etc
Some never really made it - Weisberger, Uihlein, Howell 3 etc
And some nobodies - Kim, Chase Koepka, Piot etc

not unlike the composition of PGA Tour fields isnt it

 

[Deleted member 1147]

not unlike the composition of PGA Tour fields isnt it

No, but wasn't LIV set up to have the very best all playing each other. I can't see that their real aim is to have the lesser lights joining in.

Whereas the PGA tour and the Euro' tour are both set up for anyone who qualifies from that continent or abroad.

 

[Swango1980]

not unlike the composition of PGA Tour fields isnt it

Maybe not. But one of the big "selling points" for LIV is the quality of field, hence the song and dance that is made when players like DJ, Brooks and Smith sign up. Hence the extraordinary amounts of money LIV are willing to spend to get them involved.

If the field is no better (or even contains fewer of the worlds top golfers) than standard PGA events, then LIV do not have a selling point in comparison to their rivals on that front. Unless their advertising campaign is "watch LIV, the fields are comparable to the standard PGA Tour events"

And, even if comparable, at least golf fans can genuinely feel that pretty much all the players playing in the PGA Tour events deserve to be there. They qualified.

 

[Mel Smooth]

When did LIV claim to have the worlds best golfers?

What they do have is proportionally more of the top golfers than the vast majority of events that take place week in, week out, on any of the other tours.

 

[Beezerk]

When did LIV claim to have the worlds best golfers?

What they do have is proportionally more of the top golfers than the vast majority of events that take place week in, week out, on any of the other tours.

Honestly, some of the anti LIV posters on here would make great US presidents with the amount of fake news they bandy about ?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

When did LIV claim to have the worlds best golfers?

What they do have is proportionally more of the top golfers than the vast majority of events that take place week in, week out, on any of the other tours.

The posts were in response to this

Got to say this talk about ‘has been’ players, ‘third rate’ players etc has got to stop, on which ever tour, these players are the best in the world, on their weeks could probably win any event.
It may just be an opinion but it makes you look like a clueless idiot.
Like any job their is up’s and down’s.

Social media is awash with claims similar in regards the level of players in the field

 

[r0wly86]

Honestly, some of the anti LIV posters on here would make great US presidents with the amount of fake news they bandy about ?

wow, just wow

You don't even see the irony do you

 

[Beezerk]

wow, just wow

You don't even see the irony do you

Irony on both sides mate ?

 

[BrianM]

Really? Can't see the likes of Poulter, Westwood, Horsfield, (and thats's just the Brits, I could add many others from the table above) to name a few, being likely to be in contention to win if they had remained on the PGA tour. Even they can't think that otherwise they would have stayed. A lot of them have clearly migrated to LIV for that very reason.....easy money given they can't compete elsewhere.

I get there are a handful of LIV golfers who fit your description, but to say all the LIV golfers could win on the PGA tour is just crazy.

So Ben Curtis won a major when he was 396th in the world, was that just luck, everybody else was crap that week….

My point is, in my opinion, golf is one of the most open sports of all, all these guys on any tour on their week can win a tournament, I’d never even heard of the guy on the DP world last week and look at Tom Watson a few years ago, he nearly won the Open in his 60’s I think.
No one could of predicted that.

It’s just how golf is in my opinion, on their week anyone can win.

 

[BrianM]

The posts were in response to this



Social media is awash with claims similar in regards the level of players in the field

No shock you took it out of context, I said on any tour.

 

[Swango1980]

So Ben Curtis won a major when he was 396th in the world, was that just luck, everybody else was crap that week….

My point is, in my opinion, golf is one of the most open sports of all, all these guys on any tour on their week can win a tournament, I’d never even heard of the guy on the DP world last week and look at Tom Watson a few years ago, he nearly won the Open in his 60’s I think.
No one could of predicted that.

It’s just how golf is in my opinion, on their week anyone can win.

I'm not convinced anyone can win. I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of golfers who have played a significant amount of PGA events and never won, and many who have just scraped into the PGA but never really stood a chance to win.

At any rate, even if "anyone" could win, by highlighting examples of poorly ranked players winning an event in history, is not the same as saying everyone has an equal chance to win. It is why Woods was mega favourite in every event he played for about 15 years, and why others are given 500/1 odds.

It would be true though, that the poorer ranked players on LIV have a much better chance of winning LIV events. Not only is the field significantly smaller in size, they only need to string 3 good rounds together, not 4. And, there are only a handful of top quality players in LIV events, so if none of them have a good 3 days, it can really start opening things up for others. And, this can be very likely, as it is probably pretty rare that a top quality player actually plays near their best, so this can leave a lot of opportunities for the poorer players in LIV. Mind you, I don't know enough about all the LIV players, so maybe there are about 10-20 who don't even stand a chance in LIV, simply because they are so poor?

 

[BrianM]

I'm not convinced anyone can win. I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of golfers who have played a significant amount of PGA events and never won, and many who have just scraped into the PGA but never really stood a chance to win.

At any rate, even if "anyone" could win, by highlighting examples of poorly ranked players winning an event in history, is not the same as saying everyone has an equal chance to win. It is why Woods was mega favourite in every event he played for about 15 years, and why others are given 500/1 odds.

It would be true though, that the poorer ranked players on LIV have a much better chance of winning LIV events. Not only is the field significantly smaller in size, they only need to string 3 good rounds together, not 4. And, there are only a handful of top quality players in LIV events, so if none of them have a good 3 days, it can really start opening things up for others. And, this can be very likely, as it is probably pretty rare that a top quality player actually plays near their best, so this can leave a lot of opportunities for the poorer players in LIV. Mind you, I don't know enough about all the LIV players, so maybe there are about 10-20 who don't even stand a chance in LIV, simply because they are so poor?

Im not sure what you’re getting at, the boy that won on the DP tour, I think was his first win, probably a rank outsider to win, but did anyway.
Clearly some golfers are more consistent, go on better runs etc, like you said about Tiger, but I stand by my comments about anyone can win on any given week on any tour.

 

[Swango1980]

Im not sure what you’re getting at, the boy that won on the DP tour, I think was his first win, probably a rank outsider to win, but did anyway.
Clearly some golfers are more consistent, go on better runs etc, like you said about Tiger, but I stand by my comments about anyone can win on any given week on any tour.

They are not just more consistent though, or go on better runs (not through luck anyway). They are simply miles better golfers. Hence the reason the ones that never win, or win on the rarest of occasion, are often called third rate (I.e. relative to the conversation that was being had).

Jeff Overton is a 3rd rate golfer in comparison to Woods, McIlroy, Smith, DJ, etc. Those guys are simply miles better than him. Doesn't rule him out from ever winning necessarily, but that still doesn't put him on the same level as them.

 

[BubbaP]

The metric and criteria changed to better reflect individuals and tournaments - I posted a link many pages ago.... supposedly more 'fair' and endorsed by the PGAT. It was agreed in 2021 and is in action as you say from August 2022. The Stoke Gains World Ranking is touted as identifying the best player in the world using actual strokes in tournaments... basically, McIlroy has been the best player in the world since before August (accurate, but only now hit no. 1); Cam Smith has been the 2nd best player in the world for a while (also accurate) whilst Shuffler has (despite being World no. 1) not been the best player in the world for quite a bit of time (currently 5th or 6th I think).

Yes I recall the previous post & link, but I don't think it, nor today's post, cover the change I was highlighting - unless I've misunderstood.

 

[BubbaP]

As posted elsewhere, I do think Rory is rightfully numero uno. IMO a pretty balanced piece there from GM...

https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/ha...m_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=socialflow

 

[birdyhunter]

yep Champion Golfer of the Year Cam Smith a real has been.....

It's a one off.. just watch his rankings in the OWGR decline now

 

[Mel Smooth]

FTFY

It's a one off.. just watch his rankings in the accuracy of the OWGR decline now

 

[Newtonuti]

Right, ima set up a boxing night, forum members who support LIV on one side, and anti-LIV on the other Anchorman rules, no touching of the hair or face.