LIV Golf

[r0wly86]

Doesn’t matter what people on here think.
If the worlds best golfers are refused entry to an event (because that’s the scenario that we’d have to be facing) - then it devalues that event. There’s a few already on the PGA tour where the current winners can’t play, and the Ryder Cup is facing the same fate.

Firstly they are not refused entry.

They do not qualify for entry, much like I do not qualify for entry. This is the choice of the players, they knew or should have known that going to a tour with no ranking points may affect their chances of qualification.

Secondly, people outside of the LIV fanboys will not care and watch and be drawn into the the majors once they are on

 

[r0wly86]

Yes, players miss majors, that's a given, but in such numbers?? Lets do a thought experiment:

Scenario A: Rory wins the Masters but all the other competitors are outside the Top 100, people will remember it for the time that Rory was unopposed, they will consider it a lesser achievement.
Scenario B: Rory wins the Masters but Jon Rahm is missing through injury, pretty sure nobody will consider that "lesser" because, as has been pointed out, there is always someone missing.

Logically, there has to be a sliding scale between A and B. At some point, the win goes from being celebrated, to being asterisked. I'm just wondering where that point is. How many of the best golfers in the world need to be missing before the achievement of winning is downgraded? I don't know the answer but there must be one - and the major championships are going to need to come to their own conclusions about what it is.

Most of the top LIV players have qualified for most of the upcoming majors anyway haven't they. Mickelson, Johnson, Reed, Garcia all have life time exemption to the Masters, and I am not certain but presume that as they have won majors recently have exemption to all majors for a few years, which also applies to Smith and BDC.

The question then is which LIV players will be missing that is going to make a massive impact on the field. Players like Westwood, Poulter etc were very unlikely to be challenging anyway so no real loss in terms of "devaluing" the major

 

[LincolnShep]

Most of the top LIV players have qualified for most of the upcoming majors anyway haven't they. Mickelson, Johnson, Reed, Garcia all have life time exemption to the Masters, and I am not certain but presume that as they have won majors recently have exemption to all majors for a few years, which also applies to Smith and BDC.

The question then is which LIV players will be missing that is going to make a massive impact on the field. Players like Westwood, Poulter etc were very unlikely to be challenging anyway so no real loss in terms of "devaluing" the major

That might well be the case for the short term but I'm not talking about individual players, or what happens this year. If we have a future where the world's best are split between two tours (arguably three, but the DPWT is a distant third) then the majors are going to want to ensure that they can continue to celebrate the world's best players - all of them.

 

[r0wly86]

That might well be the case for the short term but I'm not talking about individual players, or what happens this year. If we have a future where the world's best are split between two tours (arguably three, but the DPWT is a distant third) then the majors are going to want to ensure that they can continue to celebrate the world's best players - all of them.

I am presuming in the long term, if LIV is still going in this format that they will have made the required changes in order to get ranking points in which case, problem solved and the majors will be made up of the qualifiers as per their entry requirements. If LIV has not made the changes and still does not have ranking points, then anyone new going over as forfeited their rights to play in the majors, though I think if this is the case that LIV in it's current guise will fold as I doubt PIF will want to keep sinking $billions in a golf tour with no major representation

 

[AussieKB]

“I’m looking forward to seeing Cam Smith tee-up around 9.40am on the first day of The Open next year,” Slumbers added.

Enough said about The Open....but what of the others if they decide to exclude LIV players ?
will they still be Majors where the best players in the World are supposed to compete.

 

[r0wly86]

“I’m looking forward to seeing Cam Smith tee-up around 9.40am on the first day of The Open next year,” Slumbers added.

Enough said about The Open....but what of the others if they decide to exclude LIV players ?
will they still be Majors where the best players in the World are supposed to compete.

Will they still be majors? yes absolutely they will

With various exemptions in the qualifying criteria, it will be many years before the majors do not have the top LIV players playing in them anyway

 

[AussieKB]

I still struggle to to understand how people do not want the best players to appear in the Majors.....

 

[cleveland52]

Yes, players miss majors, that's a given, but in such numbers?? Lets do a thought experiment:

Scenario A: Rory wins the Masters but all the other competitors are outside the Top 100, people will remember it for the time that Rory was unopposed, they will consider it a lesser achievement.
Scenario B: Rory wins the Masters but Jon Rahm is missing through injury, pretty sure nobody will consider that "lesser" because, as has been pointed out, there is always someone missing.

Logically, there has to be a sliding scale between A and B. At some point, the win goes from being celebrated, to being asterisked. I'm just wondering where that point is. How many of the best golfers in the world need to be missing before the achievement of winning is downgraded? I don't know the answer but there must be one - and the major championships are going to need to come to their own conclusions about what it is.

There would be an asterisk if the pgatour boycott the majors in 2023 due to the fact that LIV players are allowed to play in them.

 

[Backsticks]

Firstly they are not refused entry.

They do not qualify for entry, much like I do not qualify for entry. This is the choice of the players, they knew or should have known that going to a tour with no ranking points may affect their chances of qualification.

According to a qualification criteria written when LIV didnt even exist !
So of course the existing system excludes them, and is thus obsolete.
20 of the top 100 golfer are playing on Liv. Majors are devalued if a significant portion of them, and not just those with legacy qualification routes of recent major winners, are not in the field. (the comparison with injured players not weakening a field is as weak a case as I have heard).

Majors will not be majors next year if Cantlay, Hovland, Schauffle, Homa, Finau, etc jumped to Liv and did not all have automatic entry to the big field three, and most of them to the masters.

But have no fear. If that type of group defected, the rules for majors automatic entry would be revised quicker than they had even teed up in a LIV tourny.

 

[cleveland52]

I still struggle to to understand how people do not want the best players to appear in the Majors.....

Because they went to a tour that don't meet the criteria. Now, ask a friend to explain this to you.

 

[doublebogey7]

It isnt being changed to suit the players. It will be changed to suit the majors. The majors need the world's best players more than players need the majors. Without the best, they would no longer be majors.

And if that is what happens I will say far enough, it's the constant carping by those that have left the established tours that riles me and most of those that are not fully supportive of LiV. They made their bed they should lie in it. Personally, I don't think the Majors will change their criteria and without big changes to LiV neither will the OWGR, but let's see what develops.

 

[AussieKB]

Because they went to a tour that don't meet the criteria. Now, ask a friend to explain this to you.

Still struggle with this argument......
What ever sport is being played I want to see the best playing it....but that's me.

 

[Backsticks]

For anyone in any doubt of that, imagine if the remainder of the top 50 owgr jumped, so LIV has the best 50 golfers.
Only the existing major winners among them are in the majors. They misfire. But no matter, the cream of non major winners in the field rose to the top and Denny McCarthy beats Adri Arnaus for the claret jug ? Champion golfer of the Year my ass.

 

[SteveJay]

Majors will not be majors next year if Cantlay, Hovland, Schauffle, Homa, Finau, etc jumped to Liv and did not all have automatic entry to the big field three, and most of them to the masters.

The Majors are "majors" because of their history. They can't suddenly not be majors next year. Just like LIV suggesting they create a Major of their own will not suddenly gain the same status. Maybe in 50 years or so it might have done so, but it can't be instantaneous for either to lose, or gain, long established tradition and status.

 

[Ian_George]

Still struggle with this argument......
What ever sport is being played I want to see the best playing it....but that's me.

Even the ones who knowingly disqualify themselves? To me, that's a decision they've made, so I've no problem with them being absent!

 

[Swango1980]

Doesn’t matter what people on here think.
If the worlds best golfers are refused entry to an event (because that’s the scenario that we’d have to be facing) - then it devalues that event. There’s a few already on the PGA tour where the current winners can’t play, and the Ryder Cup is facing the same fate.

I did laugh at this post.

Open up by telling us that it doesn't matter what people in here think. Then you follow that up by telling us what you think.

 

[Backsticks]

The Majors are "majors" because of their history. They can't suddenly not be majors next year. Just like LIV suggesting they create a Major of their own will not suddenly gain the same status. Maybe in 50 years or so it might have done so, but it can't be instantaneous for either to lose, or gain, long established tradition and status.

Yes, they are majors because of their history...of being contested for by the worlds best golfers. That is what made them majors. If you no longer ensure it is contested for by the best, then major status becomes historical. To repeat, no major will risk harming their position by excluding anyone.

 

[Mel Smooth]

I did laugh at this post.

Open up by telling us that it doesn't matter what people in here think. Then you follow that up by telling us what you think.

Well, it’s true, it matters not what I think anymore than it does you. What matters is the thoughts of those in charge of the majors, and they will want the best players in the world, in their events, to appease their backers. Pelley has already confirmed the position of The Open, and I’d expect the others to folllow suit.

 

[r0wly86]

I still struggle to to understand how people do not want the best players to appear in the Majors.....

You are adding 2+2 and getting 74

Everyone, and I mean everyone would want the all the best players playing in the majors.

What some are saying is that they don't want it so much that they would be willing to

Yes, they are majors because of their history...of being contested for by the worlds best golfers. That is what made them majors. If you no longer ensure it is contested for by the best, then major status becomes historical. To repeat, no major will risk harming their position by excluding anyone.

IF, and a big IF the majors refused to admit the best players for say 20 years then yes maybe they would lose their "major" tag. But not for one year, especially as most of the LIV top players are already qualified

 

[Aztecs27]

Even the ones who knowingly disqualify themselves? To me, that's a decision they've made, so I've no problem with them being absent!

Basically this. They knew the risks when they shipped off to LIV...IT. WAS. THEIR. DECISION. If they miss out because of a decision they've made, that's on them, not anyone else.

Not really sure how much simpler to make the argument.