LIV Golf

[r0wly86]

Why shouldn’t they?

Surely a flexible and accurate ranking system is better than and restrictive one.

Preventing LIV having ranking points becomes increasingly linked towards preventing LIV, so it would seem.

Literally no one is preventing LIV from gaining ranking points, they simply have to reach certain criteria, that every other tour has to reach.

It makes sense for any ranking system to have criteria to join, otherwise as a hypothetical what is stopping me from setting up a tour with my mates and saying we should get ranking points. The whole point of the entry criteria is that the tours are somewhat comparable, if the tours are so different on an operational level then it make comparing them to one another almost impossible, which after all is the whole point of a ranking system.

As for the majors, they have to have some way of allowing entry that is somewhat equitable to all. If LIV set themselves up deliberately outside the system, and refuse to change, then it is not hte fault of the PGAT, OWGR, or the Majors if the players do not qualify. They and you have repeatedly been told that if LIV make the requisite changes to get ranking points (which are not particular onerous or goes against what they stand for) then they will get ranking points and access to the majors.

This is all on LIV, always has been, to blame everyone else is frankly stupid

 

[Dando]

Literally no one is preventing LIV from gaining ranking points, they simply have to reach certain criteria, that every other tour has to reach.

It makes sense for any ranking system to have criteria to join, otherwise as a hypothetical what is stopping me from setting up a tour with my mates and saying we should get ranking points. The whole point of the entry criteria is that the tours are somewhat comparable, if the tours are so different on an operational level then it make comparing them to one another almost impossible, which after all is the whole point of a ranking system.

As for the majors, they have to have some way of allowing entry that is somewhat equitable to all. If LIV set themselves up deliberately outside the system, and refuse to change, then it is not hte fault of the PGAT, OWGR, or the Majors if the players do not qualify. They and you have repeatedly been told that if LIV make the requisite changes to get ranking points (which are not particular onerous or goes against what they stand for) then they will get ranking points and access to the majors.

This is all on LIV, always has been, to blame everyone else is frankly stupid

have you not read that all the other tours have to pull their trousers down and bend over

 

[Imurg]

have you not read that all the other tours have to pull their trousers down and bend over

I think it's absolutely right for everyone to hang a moon at Greg Norman.....

 

[Ian_George]

Anyone going to attend LIV's UK event next year? Assuming we get one....

It's in their schedule - equivalent date I believe. Assuming LIV still exist then of course (I'm sure it will)!

 

[Ian_George]

Are they giving away 50 quid tickets for nothing?

If the attendance goes the same way and rate as their YT viewer count, they'll be paying folk to attend!

I think it's absolutely right for everyone to hang a moon at Greg Norman.....

He's been a lot quieter recently! The Prez seems to have taken over quite a bit of the PR side.

 

[Bdill93]

If the attendance goes the same way and rate as their YT viewer count, they'll be paying folk to attend!

In which case ill do all 3 days

 

[LincolnShep]

... It makes sense for any ranking system to have criteria to join, otherwise as a hypothetical what is stopping me from setting up a tour with my mates and saying we should get ranking points. The whole point of the entry criteria is that the tours are somewhat comparable, if the tours are so different on an operational level then it make comparing them to one another almost impossible, which after all is the whole point of a ranking system...

That hypothetical doesn't really make any sense. It's a huge exaggeration to say you and your mates could just start a tour and expect to receive ranking points. In no way is that comparable with the LIV situation.

OWGR already factor the 'event ranking' into their calculations. If they consider 54 holes to be weaker than 72, they just adjust the event rankings to reflect that. I certainly don't agree that comparing performance between a 72 hole tournament and a hole tournament is "almost impossible". It just needs a weighting adjustment, which they already do. OWGR won't change their procedure because they're owned by the PGAT/DPWT. It's not a case of can't, it's won't.

 

[cleveland52]

The role of the Official World Golf Ranking company has never been more front and centre. Prior to LIV, they were just some people at Wentworth who did a load of maths to decide who was best. We knew there were doing it but we didn't really think about how they did it.

Now we have to think about what their purpose is. Should the OWGR continuously review and develop their system to reflect golf, however it is being played; or should they set the terms for how it must be played if you want to be ranked? Personally, I'd prefer it if they were impartial and ranked all pro golfers, regardless of tour. However, given that they are 100% owned and funded by USGA, R&A, ANGC, PGAT and DPWT, I don't think that's very likely.

Maybe it's time for a rival ranking organisation, with commercial sponsorship, that's independent of any of the tours.[/QUOTE]
Nothing stopping .....You, Me, LIV or anyone else from doing just that. The pgatour would continue to use their sanctioned OWGR Org. for their purposes and LIV or anyone else could use theirs. Now will the major tournaments accept the results is something else.

 

[Swango1980]

The role of the Official World Golf Ranking company has never been more front and centre. Prior to LIV, they were just some people at Wentworth who did a load of maths to decide who was best. We knew there were doing it but we didn't really think about how they did it.

Now we have to think about what their purpose is. Should the OWGR continuously review and develop their system to reflect golf, however it is being played; or should they set the terms for how it must be played if you want to be ranked? Personally, I'd prefer it if they were impartial and ranked all pro golfers, regardless of tour. However, given that they are 100% owned and funded by USGA, R&A, ANGC, PGAT and DPWT, I don't think that's very likely.

Maybe it's time for a rival ranking organisation, with commercial sponsorship, that's independent of any of the tours.

Let me guess Shep. You've already set up an Excel spreadsheet that does this, and now you are looking to get sponsorship?

 

[r0wly86]

That hypothetical doesn't really make any sense. It's a huge exaggeration to say you and your mates could just start a tour and expect to receive ranking points. In no way is that comparable with the LIV situation.

OWGR already factor the 'event ranking' into their calculations. If they consider 54 holes to be weaker than 72, they just adjust the event rankings to reflect that. I certainly don't agree that comparing performance between a 72 hole tournament and a hole tournament is "almost impossible". It just needs a weighting adjustment, which they already do. OWGR won't change their procedure because they're owned by the PGAT/DPWT. It's not a case of can't, it's won't.

I am not saying that me making up my own tour and LIV are at all similar, simply stating that it is totally correct for OWGR to have criteria that tours need to reach, or any tour could claim ranking points and it would be impossible to deny them points.

It's not just 72 v 54 holes that is an issue, it is the qualification process, the lack of a cut and all the other issues that LIV won't address. Each one requires a new algorithm to "weight" LIV, the question is why would or even should OWGR do that, when they quite clearly list what criteria a tour must use in order to gain ranking points.

They are not owned by the PGAT or DPWT. They are separate organisation who's stakeholder include 4 majors and 6 PGA Tours, they also administer points to an additional 17 tours.

So there is 23 tours and 4 majors that all abide by the system and get points, and one tour that doesn't abide by the rules and yet still expects ranking points

 

[Mel Smooth]

Literally no one is preventing LIV from gaining ranking points, they simply have to reach certain criteria, that every other tour has to reach.

It makes sense for any ranking system to have criteria to join, otherwise as a hypothetical what is stopping me from setting up a tour with my mates and saying we should get ranking points. The whole point of the entry criteria is that the tours are somewhat comparable, if the tours are so different on an operational level then it make comparing them to one another almost impossible, which after all is the whole point of a ranking system.

As for the majors, they have to have some way of allowing entry that is somewhat equitable to all. If LIV set themselves up deliberately outside the system, and refuse to change, then it is not hte fault of the PGAT, OWGR, or the Majors if the players do not qualify. They and you have repeatedly been told that if LIV make the requisite changes to get ranking points (which are not particular onerous or goes against what they stand for) then they will get ranking points and access to the majors.

This is all on LIV, always has been, to blame everyone else is frankly stupid

You, amongst others, are missing my point.
All of us are ranked every time we submit a score to England Golf.
Why is the OWGR so convoluted?
Why isn’t it modified so that there is no ambiguity over qualifying criteria from one tour to another?
Why can’t it accommodate events that are 3 days with no cuts? If another tour wanted to introduce such an event, surely it would make sense to have a system in place that can accommodate that event?

This isn’t me excusing LIV, it’s asking how the OWGR should be improved to make it more adaptable to future golf events.

 

[r0wly86]

You, amongst others, are missing my point.
All of us are ranked every time we submit a score to England Golf.
Why is the OWGR so convoluted?
Why isn’t it modified so that there is no ambiguity over qualifying criteria from one tour to another?
Why can’t it accommodate events that are 3 days with no cuts? If another tour wanted to introduce such an event, surely it would make sense to have a system in place that can accommodate that event?

This isn’t me excusing LIV, it’s asking how the OWGR should be improved to make it more adaptable to future golf events.

We are not ranked when we put in a score to Golf England

OWGR is not convoluted, how do you think it is

There is no ambiguity over qualifying criteria, it is published to anyone who wants to read it

It can accommodate "events" like that, as long as they are part of a tour that is already sanctioned by the OWGR

 

[cleveland52]

"Maybe it's time for a rival ranking organisation, with commercial sponsorship, that's independent of any of the tours."[/QUOTE]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing stopping .....You, Me, LIV or anyone else from doing just that. The pgatour would continue to use their sanctioned OWGR Org. for their purposes and LIV or anyone else could use theirs. Now will the major tournaments accept the results is something else.[

 

[Ian_George]

I am not saying that me making up my own tour and LIV are at all similar, simply stating that it is totally correct for OWGR to have criteria that tours need to reach, or any tour could claim ranking points and it would be impossible to deny them points.

It's not just 72 v 54 holes that is an issue, it is the qualification process, the lack of a cut and all the other issues that LIV won't address. Each one requires a new algorithm to "weight" LIV, the question is why would or even should OWGR do that, when they quite clearly list what criteria a tour must use in order to gain ranking points.

They are not owned by the PGAT or DPWT. They are separate organisation who's stakeholder include 4 majors and 6 PGA Tours, they also administer points to an additional 17 tours.

So there is 23 tours and 4 majors that all abide by the system and get points, and one tour that doesn't abide by the rules and yet still expects ranking points

I suspect they actually already algorithms to cover those tournaments in conforming tours that have limited or invitation fields and no qualifiers. But they minimise the distortion these produce by requiring a minimum percentage of 'standard' style tournaments to mitigate any distortion. LIV's 100% nonconforming style needs to change in order to receive OWGR points, but I doubt it will - just to continue to be 'loud' and a disrupter!

 

[Dando]

I suspect they actually already algorithms to cover those tournaments in conforming tours that have limited or invitation fields and no qualifiers. But minimise the distortion these produce by requiring a minimum percentage of 'standard' style tournaments to mitigate any distortion. LIV's style needs to change in order to receive OWGR points, but I doubt it will - just to continue to be 'loud' and a disrupter!

but it's been made perfectly clear that LIV shouldn't have to change!

 

[Ian_George]

but it's been made perfectly clear that LIV shouldn't have to change!

It doesn't! But, as a consequence, its tournaments shouldn't receive OWGR points!

 

[cleveland52]

I am not saying that me making up my own tour and LIV are at all similar, simply stating that it is totally correct for OWGR to have criteria that tours need to reach, or any tour could claim ranking points and it would be impossible to deny them points.

It's not just 72 v 54 holes that is an issue, it is the qualification process, the lack of a cut and all the other issues that LIV won't address. Each one requires a new algorithm to "weight" LIV, the question is why would or even should OWGR do that, when they quite clearly list what criteria a tour must use in order to gain ranking points.

They are not owned by the PGAT or DPWT. They are separate organisation who's stakeholder include 4 majors and 6 PGA Tours, they also administer points to an additional 17 tours.

So there is 23 tours and 4 majors that all abide by the system and get points, and one tour that doesn't abide by the rules and yet still expects ranking points

Totally agree with the above....Sooo, by not bending to a rogue tour for OWGR points make the whole system unofficial...absolutely not.

 

[LincolnShep]

Let me guess Shep. You've already set up an Excel spreadsheet that does this, and now you are looking to get sponsorship?

I'm on it.

 

[Ian_George]

All of us are ranked every time we submit a score to England Golf.

Not unusually, absolute rubbish! Please specify the ranking of any fellow club member (to retain anonymity)!

 

[LincolnShep]

They are not owned by the PGAT or DPWT. They are separate organisation who's stakeholder include 4 majors and 6 PGA Tours, they also administer points to an additional 17 tours.

That's incorrect. OWGR has seven equal stakeholders, two of them are PGAT and DPWT. So the two major tours have a 29% stake, that's ownership.