LIV Golf

[Swango1980]

They quite obviously have, (not just over tigger winning the PIP), but over the way they feel about playing on the PGA tour or DPW Tour to a lesser extent.

If somebody moves from one organisation to another, it's usually because they feel it's better for them personally. However, you generally find those shouting loudest to defend the PGA Tour, are the ones that have heard an absolute stack of money while playing there - so I'm not sure your "playing for the love of golf " argument would be 100% correct.

Many of these LIV players have told us they are happy about playing much less golf, and earning mega amounts of money whilst doing it.

They probably don't love golf that much, relative to their peers on the PGA anyway. Or maybe they just didn't like the pressure in golf, and having to keep playing at a high level. They prefer less pressure, whilst still being able to guarantee their income.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Yes, less pressure and more money = better for the indivdual.

Given the pressure some of them have played under though with the multiple major wins, Ryder Cup events etc - I'd say you're way off the mark on how much they love golf and the pressure it can bring.

 

[AussieKB]

I'm afraid we are talking about Mel's theory here, not mine. And we are talking exclusively about PIP. So, if there are disgruntled players about Tiger, completely ignoring the fact that he us a huge reason they have done as well as they have financially, then they can follow the money to LIV.

I'm sure Phil Mickleson fits the bill. And, perhaps you just have to accept that Cameron Smith's motivation is primarily financial, more so than his potential future in playing in Majors and the big PGA events. Which is fine, you can fly your flag high everytime he credits his bank account with another huge cheque from LIV

I suppose Cam could play a few exibiton 4 balls with Phil DJ and Brooks but then they would be accused of doing it for the money

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I suppose Cam could play a few exibiton 4 balls with Phil DJ and Brooks but then they would be accused of doing it for the money

At least they wouldn’t be pretending otherwise

 

[BubbaP]

Many of these LIV players have told us they are happy about playing much less golf, and earning mega amounts of money whilst doing it.

They probably don't love golf that much, relative to their peers on the PGA anyway. Or maybe they just didn't like the pressure in golf, and having to keep playing at a high level. They prefer less pressure, whilst still being able to guarantee their income.

There's an old journalist saying - never let facts ruin a good story ?
Thought it had been established on this thread, only 2% actually said this. ?‍
Maybe you are correct - at each time of asking previously no-one could back it up...

 

[Swango1980]

There's an old journalist saying - never let facts ruin a good story ?
Thought it had been established on this thread, only 2% actually said this. ?‍
Maybe you are correct - at each time of asking previously no-one could back it up...

OK, fair enough, maybe we only heard one or 2 players say it. The players we have actually heard off, and journalists can be bothered interviewing. So, I hold my hands up, I extended this reason for joining LIV to others we have not heard say it. Because, let us be honest, no one cares enough about 60-80% of the other golfers in the field to have heard what their motivations are. Although it is probable that it is about the money for them, as they are not in the same league as the handful of decent players or has beens in LIV.

Anyway, just out of my own flaky memory, I thought I heard at least DJ, Bryson and Westwood discuss they were happy with playing less golf, as it gives them more time with family / other interests?

 

[AussieKB]

I'm shocked it's about the money....isn't that what Pro's play for ?
or maybe we all go into work because we love it.

Glad I'm retired, but I still think about the money.

 

[Swango1980]

I suppose Cam could play a few exibiton 4 balls with Phil DJ and Brooks but then they would be accused of doing it for the money

I wouldn't care about that. Why would I? Tiger has played Phil in the past, Bryson played Brooks. They are welcome to do so, and if they earn a lot of money doing it, well played to them. I didn't really watch any of them, but I saw little bits and pieces. It all looked very relaxed and jovial (i.e. as a fan, it lacked a lot of competitiveness about it, more like a friendly social round).

But, they were nice and open about it. They called it an exhibition. Just reading the BBC website discussing the upcoming The Match, between Tiger / Rory versus Spieth / Thomas. Second sentence says "Fifteen-time major champion Woods, who helped launch the exhibition event in 2018, returns for the seventh edition...". I'm sure no one is crying that the BBC call it an exhibition, least of all Tiger. They probably won't demand that they are entitles to World Ranking Points because of the fact there 100% of the players are top quality (or 75% if we take into account Tiger could be classed as a has been)

 

[Swango1980]

Yes, less pressure and more money = better for the indivdual.

Given the pressure some of them have played under though with the multiple major wins, Ryder Cup events etc - I'd say you're way off the mark on how much they love golf and the pressure it can bring.

I agree with this. But, I'm more interested what is better for the fans, after all that is what will grow the game.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm shocked it's about the money....isn't that what Pro's play for ?
or maybe we all go into work because we love it.

Glad I'm retired, but I still think about the money.

if you read my very early posts, I never criticised the players that went for the money. If that is what interests them, they are welcome to it.

However, when we are talking about the very top players, they are already multi multi millionaires, and are likely to continue earning millions and millions in the future. So, they are in a better position than us to turn down better job offers, don't you think?

But, I'm not a player. I'm a fan, and therefore I'm more interested in how it impacts my experience of watching the game. The European Super League in European football was universally slated by fans, even fans of the clubs that were going to join it, for significantly more money AND less pressure in having to qualify each year. Therefore, it fell on its backside. So, just because the professionals involved may be able to make more money, that does not directly equate to happier fans.

 

[Mel Smooth]

I agree with this. But, I'm more interested what is better for the fans, after all that is what will grow the game.

Both, obviously. The more choice, the greater the appeal.

It’s quite obvious LIV is picking up a younger audience. How can that be a bad thing?

 

[Mel Smooth]

if you read my very early posts, I never criticised the players that went for the money. If that is what interests them, they are welcome to it.

However, when we are talking about the very top players, they are already multi multi millionaires, and are likely to continue earning millions and millions in the future. So, they are in a better position than us to turn down better job offers, don't you think?

But, I'm not a player. I'm a fan, and therefore I'm more interested in how it impacts my experience of watching the game. The European Super League in European football was universally slated by fans, even fans of the clubs that were going to join it, for significantly more money AND less pressure in having to qualify each year. Therefore, it fell on its backside. So, just because the professionals involved may be able to make more money, that does not directly equate to happier fans.

The European Super League took teams away from the existing league structure.

LIV players are free to play wherever the choose, or are allowed. That’s the significant difference.

 

[Swango1980]

The European Super League took teams away from the existing league structure.

LIV players are free to play wherever the choose, or are allowed. That’s the significant difference.

So, if a player played in 25 events on the PGA Tour pre LIV, then when they join LIV would they still have played 25 events on the PGA Tour PLUS to exhibition style events on LIV? Or, would they have reduced their playing time on the more competitive PGA Tour (or any other Tour), so that they could accommodate the time they played on LIV? And, only having to compete against 47 other golfers on LIV, removing a full days golf to be watched by fans, and condensing ALL the golf into 4 or 5 hours on the other 3 days, rather than spreading things over the day to give fans more flexibility as to when they tune in to watch it.

 

[Mel Smooth]

So, if a player played in 25 events on the PGA Tour pre LIV, then when they join LIV would they still have played 25 events on the PGA Tour PLUS to exhibition style events on LIV? Or, would they have reduced their playing time on the more competitive PGA Tour (or any other Tour), so that they could accommodate the time they played on LIV? And, only having to compete against 47 other golfers on LIV, removing a full days golf to be watched by fans, and condensing ALL the golf into 4 or 5 hours on the other 3 days, rather than spreading things over the day to give fans more flexibility as to when they tune in to watch it.

They’d play as many events on the PGA tour as agreed with the PGA Tour I’d guess? That’s if the powers that be hadn’t removed that as an option.

How many golfers post cut on a tour event have a chance of contributing to the final positions?
On LIV, they all do..

It’s different, it’s meant to be different, it’s meant to appeal to different people. You seem to be having a hard time accepting that.

Ultimately- it’s still competitive golf despite the continuous spin you keep trying to put on it about it being exhibition golf.

 

[Swango1980]

They’d play as many events on the PGA tour as agreed with the PGA Tour I’d guess? That’s if the powers that be hadn’t removed that as an option.

How many golfers post cut on a tour event have a chance of contributing to the final positions?
On LIV, they all do..

It’s different, it’s meant to be different, it’s meant to appeal to different people. You seem to be having a hard time accepting that.

Ultimately- it’s still competitive golf despite the continuous spin you keep trying to put on it about it being exhibition golf.

I know you love making things up, possibly the worst I've ever seen at trying to read between the lines. I've never said it wasn't different, and always realised it was trying to be different. I also never said it doesn't appeal to anyone. It is clear that it appeals to you and a few others (e.g. the Cameron Smith fan club ).

However, I doubt it means a whole lot to the significant majority of golf fans, and am dubious it has found a whole new sector of fans who never watched golf before. Maybe a few, but not bucket loads. You'd find that people that cared enough to watch golf on the television pre-LIV, would have been happy enough to put their hands in their pockets and pay a subscription to Sky. People who were not that bothered, wouldn't have put their hand in their pockets, and use their money for other things.

 

[Mel Smooth]

I know you love making things up, possibly the worst I've ever seen at trying to read between the lines. I've never said it wasn't different, and always realised it was trying to be different. I also never said it doesn't appeal to anyone. It is clear that it appeals to you and a few others (e.g. the Cameron Smith fan club ).

However, I doubt it means a whole lot to the significant majority of golf fans, and am dubious it has found a whole new sector of fans who never watched golf before. Maybe a few, but not bucket loads. You'd find that people that cared enough to watch golf on the television pre-LIV, would have been happy enough to put their hands in their pockets and pay a subscription to Sky. People who were not that bothered, wouldn't have put their hand in their pockets, and use their money for other things.

Right, “golf fans” in this case existing tour golf) are generally over 65, and can afford to pay for Sky.
If there’s an untapped audience of younger people who can’t afford or justify Sky, that want something condensed into a shorter and more vibrant package, then why not build a product for them? Or are only wealthy old people allowed to be “golf fans”

 

[AussieKB]

if you read my very early posts, I never criticised the players that went for the money. If that is what interests them, they are welcome to it.

However, when we are talking about the very top players, they are already multi multi millionaires, and are likely to continue earning millions and millions in the future. So, they are in a better position than us to turn down better job offers, don't you think?

But, I'm not a player. I'm a fan, and therefore I'm more interested in how it impacts my experience of watching the game. The European Super League in European football was universally slated by fans, even fans of the clubs that were going to join it, for significantly more money AND less pressure in having to qualify each year. Therefore, it fell on its backside. So, just because the professionals involved may be able to make more money, that does not directly equate to happier fans.

I agree with happier fans....for us out here in the colonies we do not get see them or our home grown talent, because the PGA created the year round tour....now they are changing that but a bit late for us....(LIV arrived)

 

[AussieKB]

Yes I am a cam Smith fan also A DJ Rory and heaps of others on both sides, the bottom line is I want to see the best play against each other in the Majors.....I just don't understand where people want the Majors to be diluted.

Plus on the upside for us we get to see top pro's playing in OZ again.

 

[Swango1980]

Right, “golf fans” in this case existing tour golf) are generally over 65, and can afford to pay for Sky.
If there’s an untapped audience of younger people who can’t afford or justify Sky, that want something condensed into a shorter and more vibrant package, then why not build a product for them? Or are only wealthy old people allowed to be “golf fans”

Are you trying to play the victim again, use an argument that is meant to pull on the heart strings? make it sound like I am saying poor people cannot be golf fans?

Wise up. It is a fact of life that things cost a certain amount of money. For the sake of a night or 2 out a month on booze, a person can afford to pay for a subscription that will get them golf and several other sports like football, F1, cricket, etc. But, it is up to every individual how they spend their money. I think we are also fairly aware that it is NOT in LIV's business model to give free golf to the masses. Maybe in the first year or 2 to try and generate support (or just the fact they couldn't secure a deal). If Sky Sports were to come along and offer them a whopping great broadcasting deal, LIV would bite their hands off. Then you will all have to pay for it again, and probably even more so than now if LIV has well and truly "grown the game"

 

[Swango1980]

Yes I am a cam Smith fan also A DJ Rory and heaps of others on both sides, the bottom line is I want to see the best play against each other in the Majors.....I just don't understand where people want the Majors to be diluted.

Plus on the upside for us we get to see top pro's playing in OZ again.

Were you not roundly mocked for trying to say a similar thing a while ago? Who wants the Majors diluted!?