BubbaP
Occasional Player of Golf
FWIW, I mulled this and concluded it referred to this thread/forum.
Could be wrong though.
LIV Golf
- Thread starter MarkT
- Start date
Could be wrong though.
Beezerk
Money List Winner
Well yes, but it is a golf discussion forum isn’t it? Maybe I’m being stupid but I’d expect lots of LIV stuff (either pro or anti) on this thread ?
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Nope, just provided you with the solution to wanting to play less and save all that travelling around the planet is all.
When money is the biggest selling point of LIV, you cant just remove it as an option in your argument. It is the only argument really
Swango1980
Well-known member
I know all this (you have read my posts on this forum though)?Nope, just provided you with the solution to wanting to play less and save all that travelling around the planet is all.
When money is the biggest selling point of LIV, you cant just remove it as an option in your argument. It is the only argument really
The post you responded to was speaking from the point of view as a player pre LIV, as this seems to be the time professional golfers were not going and playing in Australia according to AussieKB. I was trying to ask to him what motivations a professional golfer had to play in Australia, apart from being Australian themselves, or offered a lot of money to do so.
Of course, now they are banned from playing on PGAT, I am sure there are now other motivations to play in Australia. Yet, none of those reasons from the golfers point of view will be about growing the game.
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
I read a lot but not all - hard to keep up with this thread after 2 days being away...
Its a moot argument though and you're just arguing with yourself - why bother going to all the effort when the answer is money and you know it?
Swango1980
Well-known member
I do know it, which is exactly why I included it within my answer. I'm not sure what you are saying that is different!? To repeat, in the post you replied to, I said:
"That goes to my original comment, what is so special about Australia? I'd argue nothing, so I can only see Australian golfers having an interest, or those offered a lot of money."
Ian_George
Active member
I certainly agree with this comment!
To me, 'Growing the Game' isn't about having a tournament in a county, though it may be associated with one! It's a more 'grass roots' concept of establishing and promoting the organisational structure that will actually get folk involved for the long term - and actually getting folk, preferably young ones, involved by the likes of clinics etc! The 'growing the game' concept spouted by most proponents is just an excuse to either exist in the first place or to be doing what they really want! Having a few kids play with some balls and clubs for 30mins or so is NOT 'growing the game'!
Last edited:
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Yeah, so why are you trying to find another answer that doesn't exist by asking a question you already know the answer to?
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Id argue if you bring a pro golf event to a country that doesn't get one often - you invest in it, make it a big deal (big name players help) and news-worthy - and you bring it annually for a good 5/10 years - you will increase interest in golf there over time.
Rome wasn't built in a day!
r0wly86
Head Pro
Unless you are promoting it to get the young people in, they won't.
If instead they sent the top pros into schools or junior events at clubs, that would more likely generate more interest in the young
Swango1980
Well-known member
I didn't think there was an answer, but the posts of AussieKB suggests he might have an alternative answer. I wanted to give him a chance to highlight what the us are missing.Yeah, so why are you trying to find another answer that doesn't exist by asking a question you already know the answer to?
Swango1980
Well-known member
If growing the game was simply based on increasing numbers worldwide, then you are right. They'd look to focus in growing the game in China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria, etc. as the most populous countries. There will be plenty of reasons this doesn't happen so easily. Political, cultural and economical reasons. If it was a simple strategic decision, I'm sure the PGAT would have looked to having many global events, if it is likely to grow the game and drive in much much more money to them presently, and in the future.
The US, being the 3rd most populous country in the world, has clearly done a lot to grow its own market in golf, and as a result players and fans from all over the world have been attracted to the US Golf over the years. China and India, massively more populous than the US, could technically invest a lot in golf, and really grow golf in their own countries. I guess they choose not to, because if they did I can imagine it would start to slowly attract more and more golfers from around the world, until they established the dominant tour.
LIV will market itself as growing the game globally. But, I'm sure it has little interest in that really. It simply has an interest in making as much money as possible (like nearly all businesses in fairness), and hoping it becomes the most dominant tour in the world and is sustainable. If that meant it ultimately had to play 95% of its events in the US, and that it sold the rights to big broadcasters so we all had to pay for the privilege, that is what it would do. It wouldn't make any special considerations that their events had to take place in other countries like Oz, it would only do so if the money was right. And, the money will only be right if the country itself has grown golf within its own borders, to make a professional event popular with investors and fans.
D
Deleted member 21445
Guest
I think datagolf has been interesting in that they showed it wasn't that hard to do. I have a feeling it operates a bit more like WHS so more reflective of recent form (is a tool for gamblers) whereas OWGS was maybe designed to generally move more slowly. Yes there are "winners & losers" depending on which you look at - no surprises there for me.
I do agree that the current LIV offering would not gain the points on par with a current top tier PGAT event. I'm not really following how having qualifying and a cut would explicitly increase points though - based on what? Surely it is the field strength that affects that.
It may be the tour championship and upcoming hero challenge give a better indication of what it could be if ever included.
I've said before, in some ways it may have been better for them to have awarded points early, just not very many - then the focus would move away from OWGR debate and more onto those players who have chosen to not play that often this year (which isn't all of them)
This did make me smile though
View attachment 45147
To be fair to OWGR they would never have expected any new tour to rock up and take 14 of their top 50 players (Start of 2022) within 6 months.
Time will tell if they are going to lose more but with every one that does move across, the more inaccurate they become as the world ranking system.
As soon as people start to say its not relevant because too many top players are not ranked it becomes obsolete, where that tipping point is will be a personal opinion, some may say we are there already with 28% of top 50 players (Start Of 2022) unable to earn points.
They are set up for new start up small tours that have no grounds or need based on the players they start with to get OWGR quickly.
Swango1980
Well-known member
I'd imagine any World Ranking system could be considered fundamentally flawed, even if it included LIV golfers. Simply because of the fact is plays under a complete set of different goalposts, and being able to continually compare players from LIV and other Tours becomes almost impossible. Mainly as there is very limited crossover between players across the different tours.
I suspect the ranking system would remain in place for the qualification of the lions share of participants in major events. As others have mentioned, perhaps the Majors would then say the Top 5 or so in LIV qualify as well. I think that would be easier for them, rather than trying to figure out how many ranking points they should be given. If they tried to find a way using ranking points, then either there will be complaints that LIV players are getting too many ranking points, or vice versa (or both, where non LIV players say the LIV players are getting too many points, whilst LIV players are simultaneously saying they are not getting enough).
The issue for the LIV players now was that, when they decided to join, they should have known that nothing was even close to being agreed (discussions might not even have properly started). So, they knew they were not going to get ranking points or Major exemptions, LIV knew about some of the basic limitations in their format that were a barrier, yet now they all seem angered, frustrated and surprised. And, by the sounds of what some say in here, it is all the fault of the PGAT.
BubbaP
Occasional Player of Golf
Fair point - just to pick up on one thing though - unable isn't the correct word IMO - more that most of the top guys haven't appeared to wish to in smaller events. Pat did dabble and I believe Westy may be showing up in Indonesia. May be different next year.
Ian_George
Active member
That would likely make progress - but inspiration of 'the young', particularly through playing, is what really 'grows the game' - which is far more than simply 'increasing interest'! I don't believe GN's version of 'growing the game' is anything more than tokenism!
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
I'm not suggesting you're an evangelist Iain, no issue at all with your contributions.
I'd consider LIV more sports entertainment than serious golf.
Sports entertainment is a type of spectacle which presents an ostensibly competitive event using a high level of theatrical flourish & extravagant presentation with the purpose of entertaining an audience. Unlike typical sports and games which are conducted for competition, sportsmanship, physical exercise or personal recreation, the primary product of sports entertainment is performance for an audience's benefit. Commonly, but not in all cases, the outcomes are predetermined; as this is an open secret, it is not considered to be match fixing.
The LIV field is hand-picked, there is no open qualification route, there's definitely theatrical flourish and it's clearly designed to pull in a crowd; the contrived team event being just one example. And there's the safety net of being paid regardless of the result. So I'd consider LIV to be nearer the WWE (without the predetermined results) or the Harlem Globetrotters than a serious golf tour (and I'm not suggesting the last line of the definition applies, I merely included it for completeness).
Serious golf is playing for your livelihood, knowing that you need to perform to earn money; not that you can just turn up and get paid. It's competition that's open to a greater or lesser degree, rather than a closed shop, which results in finding the best of the best. The Opens are precisely that, open to those with the talent, as are the DP & PGA Tours; if you are good enough you can earn your way there and make a living, if you aren't then you're out.
The Hero World Challenge I would consider a charity exhibition event; it's not got clearly defined entry conditions, it's a benefit for the Tiger Woods Foundation and it's not an official tour event so no Fedex points. It's good golf to watch but not a serious golf tournament.
The CJ Cup is different for me. Clearly defined entry conditions; although it's a limited field of 78, the entrants are the top 60 available from the previous years FedEx standings, winners of the KPGA & Genesis Championship on the Korean Tour, top 3 available players from the Korean Tour OoM, top available player from the Asian Tour OoM, top available Korean, player from the Asian Tour OoM, top next 3 available Korean players from the Official World Golf Ranking and 8 sponsors exemptions; 5 PGA Tour members, the winner of a Korean amateur qualifier and two unrestricted. So a restricted field, but a quality one, and one that you can earn your way into, like the US Masters. I'm not suggesting that it is anything like the quality of the Masters, but the fact that there is a clearly defined entry route into it, and that players can earn their place, places it in the serious golf category for me; not the top end, but certainly not exhibition golf or sports entertainment.
I don't have a problem with sports entertainment. It exists to serve a market, but that market isn't me. I don't have an issue with players choosing to go; I fully understand the reason why players like Richard Bland go, and I admire Harold Varner III's honestly in stating why he's gone. But there are also certain aspects of the behaviour, such as the lawsuits, the have our cake and eat it attitude of some, the whining about the points and the belief that they are the saviours of golf and that the world should be grateful to them that annoy me intensely and as such I cannot see me ever warming to them however it develops, if indeed it does.
BubbaP
Occasional Player of Golf
Focusing on the highlighted - there are currently over 20 tours being ranked, how much crossover do you think there is? Surely that is the point of the system to allow the comparison of players playing in different places isn't it? e.g. Ryan Fox to Kazuki Higa to Scott Vincent to Marty Dou Zecheng. Afraid I am really not following your view here.
Also not following the "complete set of different goalposts". Isn't stroke play just stroke play? Hit the ball until it goes in the hole...
Here is what the OWGR say .....
STROKES GAINED WORLD RATING
A player’s Strokes Gained World Rating is based on a player’s actual scores in stroke-play events and adjusted for the relative difficulty of each round played over a rolling two-year period.
To place more emphasis on recent performances, a similar weighting system as that applied to World Ranking Points is utilised (i.e., a 13-week period of full weight, thereafter, reduced in equal decrements).
Scores from completed 18-hole round stroke-play events are eligible for inclusion in the Strokes Gained World Rating.
TOTAL FIELD RATING
Every player in a tournament field contributes performance points as determined by the player's individual Strokes Gained World Rating. The sum of these Performance Points determines the Total Field Rating.
---
I agree it may be easier to ignore the points and do something different, as I think backsticks has also suggested
Attachments
Swango1980
Well-known member
For simplicity.
Let us say 10 golfers decide to leave all established tours, and play in their own individual set of events. The format is different (only 3 rounds, no cut, limited players, no qualification or loss of place on future events, etc). These 10 players may be the top 10 golfers in the world when they join.
How do you derive a ranking system that provides reasonable ranking points to all players? In a year or two's time, will the ranking system still have these guys as the top 10 in the world, or outside the top 10? Regardless of the answer to this, how do we know the rankings are providing a reasonable result? Maybe these guys would still be the top 10 golfers in the world. But, then again, maybe not. Maybe a few are, but several could have declined significantly. How do we determine their proper place in the world, when they've only really been competing against 9 other guys? Whoever is considered best out of those 10 guys after a year or 2 might still be best in the world. Then again, they might only be 20th, 30th, etc in the world, as many others outside that group of 10 might now be better than them. How do we position them amongst everyone else?
This is not so much of an issue pre LIV. We are primarily focused on the top of the rankings for qualification to the major events. In that sense, most of the top golfers in the world are ultimately ending up on the PGAT. Some may also end up on the DP World Tour. But, I am sure there are enough events, including Majors, where there is enough of a representation of PGAT and DP World Tour players, to constantly monitor how they finish relative to each other. The rankings they get before joining the PGAT are sufficient enough to allow them to climb the ranks of whatever tour they are on, and then they'll likely move up a tour to elevate their career. But, who knows if the guy that sits 501st in the world is actually better than the guy who sits 701st? At that level, it is far enough our radar not to make much interest, and it has no impact on the qualification to Major events.
Last edited:
BiMGuy
LIV Bot, (But Not As Big As Mel) ?
LiV golf is just like The Match. Should we give WR points out for that too?
