LIV Golf

[Beezerk]

He could shoot 59 and they still would not be happy

Then it would be an easy course with no challenge ? an excuse for everything as long as it allows a negative spin.

 

[Swango1980]

How much do you need ????

I've no idea. Ask Phil Mickleson, Bryson DeChambeau or Cameron Smith

The only place where the 'best' issue is likely to be resolved is at the Majors! And for at least the next year, participation of the top LIV players (perhaps sans Chacarra) will certainly be able to play in at least a selection of the Majors Bryson probably won't be eligible for The Masters, but DJ will - for life. BdC has another 9 years of eligibility for US Open, Cameron Smith is exempt from The Open until 60 and qualifies for all other Majors in 2023 There are other LIV players with various exemptions. And, of course both Opens have open Qualifying tournaments too.

None of the players, on any Tour, that are in contention for Major wins have financial worries, so arguments based on that have no value!

How can it have no value, when we know that virtually all the LIV players, if not all, moved precisely because of the money. If I offered Rory and Spieth £500 million to move to my county, and play every weekend in my clubs monthly medals, with £10 million first place prize, £5 million for second, then I'm sure they'd want to win every time they play, although I'd strongly suspect their motivation to win would be less than competing on PGA Tour. I'd also imagine that their ability would decline, simply as they are no longer being tested as much as they could be, and the fact they have guaranteed money every week regardless.

I use an extreme example, of course, for clarity. I'm certainly not saying the likes of Cameron Smith, DJ, Bryson are suddenly rubbish players. They've only just joined LIV, and there is no evidence to suggest they are suddenly worse players as we sit here today. If one of them won the Masters next year, it would not be the shock of the century. What I am saying is that:

1. it is difficult to say they have or haven't declined in form, as the goalposts are now very much different to what they were pre-LIV. Have they all got better together, worse together, just the same, or all different? Especially hard to tell with such small fields with a wide range of ability in players
2. For many players, the extreme money they earn is a by product of their will to win, and be the best they can be. For others, money is the motivating factor, especially for those that are journeymen or even struggling to retain a tour card. Yes, journeymen may have millions, but I am sure most adapt to their earnings. They may have a multi million pound house or 2, and several flash cars, etc. More money than we can ever dream off, but once they have it they find they can quite comfortably spend it, and they are desperate to continue to earn more to ensure they can maintain that lifestyle. Signing up for LIV was a big signal that the player was motivated by the money, and it is a much easier way to get the money than having to graft on the PGA Tour, make cuts, get wins or high performances, etc.

If things stay roughly the same for the next 3 or 4 years, I would be interested to see how LIV players compete in Majors when they play. Especially the younger ones like Cameron Smith, who should still be in his prime years. Then we'll know if LIV has resulted in players taking their eye off the ball a bit due to lack of practice, or lose of desire simply as their is no NEED to be successful, even if there is still a desire to be successful every time they play. But, who knows where we'll be in 4 or 5 years. Maybe LIV will take over the world by then, maybe it'll fizzle out or somewhere in between. If it is still about, I'd wonder if they can still throw as much money around so freely?

 

[Swango1980]

He could shoot 59 and they still would not be happy

You are still playing the victim it seems, only hearing what you want to hear. No one has said your beloved Cameron Smith is a rubbish player, you just are not getting the context of the discussion.

 

[Backsticks]

Cam Smith shot a 65 round the Blue Monster on Sunday.

Why are people questioning the credentials of these guys?

I wouldnt question the credentials of the guys. I question the credentials of the 'wins', and dont regard them as any sporting achievement of note, fir elite golfers.

 

[Backsticks]

He could shoot 59 and they still would not be happy

It isnt the score that is the issue. Its the difficulty of getting a win. LIV is too easy, today. It is of negligible value. No matter what some one shoots. If its against a weak field, its still a weak win.

 

[Mel Smooth]

I wouldnt question the credentials of the guys. I question the credentials of the 'wins', and dont regard them as any sporting achievement of note, fir elite golfers.

So the same logic applies to Rory’s recent wins without the competition that is now playing on LIV…..?

 

[Bdill93]

I've no idea. Ask Phil Mickleson, Bryson DeChambeau or Cameron Smith


How can it have no value, when we know that virtually all the LIV players, if not all, moved precisely because of the money. If I offered Rory and Spieth £500 million to move to my county, and play every weekend in my clubs monthly medals, with £10 million first place prize, £5 million for second, then I'm sure they'd want to win every time they play, although I'd strongly suspect their motivation to win would be less than competing on PGA Tour. I'd also imagine that their ability would decline, simply as they are no longer being tested as much as they could be, and the fact they have guaranteed money every week regardless.

I use an extreme example, of course, for clarity. I'm certainly not saying the likes of Cameron Smith, DJ, Bryson are suddenly rubbish players. They've only just joined LIV, and there is no evidence to suggest they are suddenly worse players as we sit here today. If one of them won the Masters next year, it would not be the shock of the century. What I am saying is that:

1. it is difficult to say they have or haven't declined in form, as the goalposts are now very much different to what they were pre-LIV. Have they all got better together, worse together, just the same, or all different? Especially hard to tell with such small fields with a wide range of ability in players
2. For many players, the extreme money they earn is a by product of their will to win, and be the best they can be. For others, money is the motivating factor, especially for those that are journeymen or even struggling to retain a tour card. Yes, journeymen may have millions, but I am sure most adapt to their earnings. They may have a multi million pound house or 2, and several flash cars, etc. More money than we can ever dream off, but once they have it they find they can quite comfortably spend it, and they are desperate to continue to earn more to ensure they can maintain that lifestyle. Signing up for LIV was a big signal that the player was motivated by the money, and it is a much easier way to get the money than having to graft on the PGA Tour, make cuts, get wins or high performances, etc.

If things stay roughly the same for the next 3 or 4 years, I would be interested to see how LIV players compete in Majors when they play. Especially the younger ones like Cameron Smith, who should still be in his prime years. Then we'll know if LIV has resulted in players taking their eye off the ball a bit due to lack of practice, or lose of desire simply as their is no NEED to be successful, even if there is still a desire to be successful every time they play. But, who knows where we'll be in 4 or 5 years. Maybe LIV will take over the world by then, maybe it'll fizzle out or somewhere in between. If it is still about, I'd wonder if they can still throw as much money around so freely?

Surely the actual measure here though is their scores? So long as in a good week DJ and Smith etc. are going 4-6 under per round (mid rated track) they'd compete at any level on any tour.

 

[Swango1980]

Surely the actual measure here though is their scores? So long as in a good week DJ and Smith etc. are going 4-6 under per round (mid rated track) they'd compete at any level on any tour.

Not necessarily. it is difficult to make any worthwhile conclusions from scores alone. For starters, we do not know what the Course Rating is in Comparison to Par. If Course Par was 70 at 2 courses, and one had a course rating of 74 and the other a course rating of 78, that is an absolute difference of 12 shots over 3 rounds (regardless if the player plays well or badly). We also do not know how easy or hard the course was set up, in contrast to how these Ratings were measured in the first place.

But, as I said, I don't think a player necessarily immediately loses their ability once they signed on the dotted line. Far from it. And, even if they started to lose their consistency and form over a longer term, that is not to say they don't have the potential to turn up one day and have a great round, where everything just goes right.

 

[Ian_George]

How can it have no value, when we know that virtually all the LIV players, if not all, moved precisely because of the money...

They may have 'gone for the money', but they didn't go 'because they needed the money'! In fact they were all already seriously wealthy! Cam Smih $50M, Dustin Johnson $100M and so on! So my assertion that arguments simply on their need for the money offered stands!

 

[Swango1980]

They may have 'gone for the money', but they didn't go 'because they needed the money'! In fact they were all already seriously wealthy! Cam Smih $50M, Dustin Johnson $100M and so on! So my assertion that arguments simply on their need for the money offered stands!

It depends what you mean by the "need"

If they genuinely had zero need for money, they wouldn't have wanted the money. No point in wanting something you do not need.

However, all that extra money LIV offered will have allowed them to invest more in their personal needs, their business interests and their families future (including wider family, inheritance, etc). So, in that sense, thet wanted the money as it allows them to maximise their needs to spread it around a wide number of areas.

They could have grafted really hard on PGA Tour for many more years to maximise their income. Then LIV came along and offered then much much more than they could ever dream of on PGA Tour, and without even really needing to graft for it.

 

[Bdill93]

Not necessarily. it is difficult to make any worthwhile conclusions from scores alone. For starters, we do not know what the Course Rating is in Comparison to Par. If Course Par was 70 at 2 courses, and one had a course rating of 74 and the other a course rating of 78, that is an absolute difference of 12 shots over 3 rounds (regardless if the player plays well or badly). We also do not know how easy or hard the course was set up, in contrast to how these Ratings were measured in the first place.

But, as I said, I don't think a player necessarily immediately loses their ability once they signed on the dotted line. Far from it. And, even if they started to lose their consistency and form over a longer term, that is not to say they don't have the potential to turn up one day and have a great round, where everything just goes right.

I mean course rating doesn't mean jack, nor do scores relative to CR. Pros play to the par of the course. Were talking about pros winning scores in tournaments after 4 days. Recent PGA tour fields winners = -10 -17 -15 -24 -17 -16

If you're averaging 4-6 under per round in a good week, you're close to 18-24 under for a tournament. Not many PGA tour events go that low. Obviously the ones set up for low scores may go even lower but in general terms its absolutely possible to track how well they're all playing.

Now I don't know if any LIV guys have got close to that in any of their comps, cba to do the research, but if they have they're certainly still competitive.

 

[Swango1980]

I mean course rating doesn't mean jack, nor do scores relative to CR. Pros play to the par of the course. Were talking about pros winning scores in tournaments after 4 days. Recent PGA tour fields winners = -10 -17 -15 -24 -17 -16

If you're averaging 4-6 under per round in a good week, you're close to 18-24 under for a tournament. Not many PGA tour events go that low. Obviously the ones set up for low scores may go even lower but in general terms its absolutely possible to track how well they're all playing.

Now I don't know if any LIV guys have got close to that in any of their comps, cba to do the research, but if they have they're certainly still competitive.

You are absolutely wrong in that. I mean, totally.

My old course had a par of 70, CR of 67 off yellows. The Pros could easily go round it in the 50's on a good day, they could probably get on most greens in one less than regulation. However, they would not have such an easy time on a Par 70 course with a Course Rating of 79. Would they!?

 

[Bdill93]

You are absolutely wrong in that. I mean, totally.

My old course had a par of 70, CR of 67 off yellows. The Pros could easily go round it in the 50's on a good day, they could probably get on most greens in one less than regulation. However, they would not have such an easy time on a Par 70 course with a Course Rating of 79. Would they!?

But pros dont play on your track, they play on PGA length tracks of 7k yards mate

Are you suggesting that LIV are playing on a goat track in comparison to the PGA tour?

 

[Ian_George]

It depends what you mean by the "need"

If they genuinely had zero need for money, they wouldn't have wanted the money. No point in wanting something you do not need.

Does Poulter need any more Ferraris than the 14 he has already? No! But the money does provide other options - more time with family being the most common one stated.

 

[Bdill93]

But pros don't play on your track, they play on PGA length tracks of 7k yards mate

Are you suggesting that LIV are playing on a goat track in comparison to the PGA tour?

Here a course comparison using your metrics:

https://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/portroyalgcbermuda/

https://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/royalgreens/index.htm

Both about a CR 75

Both competition fields have winners average -4 per day (ish) - one was LIV, one was the PGA tour.

 

[Swango1980]

But pros dont play on your track, they play on PGA length tracks of 7k yards mate

Are you suggesting that LIV are playing on a goat track in comparison to the PGA tour?

No, I was not saying LIV players are playing on a goat track at all. I was simply saying we cannot compare how many under a player is as to how good they are. All courses will have different difficulties in relation to Par, so how many under or over a player is does not give us a proper picture, except against the other players playing on that course on that day(s).

It works both ways, LIV players could be playing much harder courses than the PGA for all I know, I haven't checked.

 

[Swango1980]

Does Poulter need any more Ferraris than the 14 he has already? No! But the money does provide other options - more time with family being the most common one stated.

Well, you could have said that after he had 13 Ferrari's. And then he went and bought another one. So, who am I to say that 14 is the magic number that finally satisfies him?

And yes, the money allows more family time, I agree with that one as well. Less time probably required on the practice range as there is less need to perform well to earn a certain amount of money, more time with the family.

 

[AussieKB]

we will see next year if the Majors want the best golfers or not ? am sure Rory would not want to win one without the top LIV players, and what if only 1, 2 or 3 Majors accept LIV players, will the 5th become ?

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Winning is winning!
Whether on the Alps tour, DP World, PGA or LIV.
Some will be harder than others, as you will have different levels of competition within the field, but getting over the line isn't easy. hence why some players get reputations for bottling etc.

what we can't know is whether the fact that you will still win a fortune, and have the protection of guaranteed golf, if you don't win has any effect.

 

[Slab]

Do you all not think that LIV golf would have the foresight to put some kind of ‘failure to perform’ clause in the Players contracts?

I doubt the LIV Players are on the kind of endless gravy train some are imagining