LIV Golf

[Ian_George]

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

Indeed, points for a single LIV 'tournament' might be able to be calculated, but for an entire series where that is the only style makes it impossible to accurately rate it. That's the reason the OWGR 'requires' the majority to be open, have qualifying and cuts! Even if LIV does get OWGR points certification, the numbers will be reduced because of the format! I'm uncertain whether LIV execs are really interested in getting OWGR points anyway - it gives them something to continue their 'disruption' publicity! OWGR points will only be of significant benefit to a small number of their players and only for a relatively short time!

 

[BubbaP]

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.

Thanks for explaining, I do better understand your view now.
In simple terms to maintain a position a player needs to be collecting points to match the ones dropping off. So in your example, if a player keeps playing badly they'd earn very few points and drop.
In reality if it was only 10 players I suspect the max points wouldn't be enough to keep maintaining position.
Of course 10 is an extreme number, and every system is imperfect. That would kind of be their problem to solve - and the solution may be related to the strokes gained methodology.

 

[BubbaP]

LiV golf is just like The Match. Should we give WR points out for that too?

Hmmm, no emojis ?
Okay, back to you - what format is The Match this year?

 

[Swango1980]

Thanks for explaining, I do better understand your view now.
In simple terms to maintain a position a player needs to be collecting points to match the ones dropping off. So in your example, if a player keeps playing badly they'd earn very few points and drop.
In reality if it was only 10 players I suspect the max points wouldn't be enough to keep maintaining position.
Of course 10 is an extreme number, and every system is imperfect. That would kind of be their problem to solve - and the solution may be related to the strokes gained methodology.

Indeed, this is the problem. A player could start playing worse, but if the 9 others around him are as well, you can only compare their performances to one another. We can't really compare it to guys competing separately, like up and coming young prodigies that find their way on to PGAT. Conversely, but unlikely, we don't know if LIV has made them better players, and they should improve upon their world position (if others were ahead of them to begin with).

10 might be considered an extreme example, but it is not much more extreme than 48. And, to be honest, if you had 500 on PGAT, and 500 on LIV, with no crossover between them, it would still be difficult to rank against each other. The only thing is there may be enough crossover in the 4 Majors to derive some sort of rough factor.

Using stats against the course may help, like handicaps for us. But, that would be flawed, as course set ups and conditions can play a huge part. Watch tours request easier set ups to improve player ratings. The only proper way to rank players is to have them competing against each other often enough, so that the rankings can be based on results against each other, rather than against the course.

 

[Imurg]

Strokes Gained WR can be a bit complicated

https://twitter.com/x/status/1592213210970873857

 

[Ian_George]

Thanks for explaining, I do better understand your view now.
In simple terms to maintain a position a player needs to be collecting points to match the ones dropping off. So in your example, if a player keeps playing badly they'd earn very few points and drop.
In reality if it was only 10 players I suspect the max points wouldn't be enough to keep maintaining position.
Of course 10 is an extreme number, and every system is imperfect. That would kind of be their problem to solve - and the solution may be related to the strokes gained methodology.

'matching' points isn't quite right! Because there's an 'ageing' process, where points earned are rated at full value for 13 weeks (3 months-ish) then decrease in value for rating value according to a scale before dropping off 2 years after the event. Those that drop off have less effect than those added recently. So those added recently affect a player's average for ranking more than old ones - that's how it emphasises recent results. A recent 20th place might be the equivalent, for ranking, to a 10th or better place on the one that drops off. Of course, that's the same for all players, so another source of variation.
And, of course, if the player ranked immediately below him performed better (say won the tournament they both played) it's quite possible that he will leapfrog the previously higher player purely based on the resultant better average! There are additional quirks too!

 

[Ian_George]

Strokes Gained WR can be a bit complicated

https://twitter.com/x/status/1592213210970873857

Another example of the 'Lies, damned lies, and statistics' truism!

 

[Mel Smooth]

At least an Englishman picked up some strong points this weekend.

Well done Benjamin Taylor on your 3rd place in the Houston Open.

Sorry Tommy, you played in the wrong event son.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

At least an Englishman picked up some strong points this weekend.

Well done Benjamin Taylor on your 3rd place in the Houston Open.

Sorry Tommy, you played in the wrong event son.

Mel, not sure what planet you are currently in orbit around, but the facts are

Ben Taylor picked up 15.24 ranking points and a chq for $579600 US (Very well done, game changer for him)

Tommy picked up 14.92 points and over a million euros in prize dosh

Are you really crowing about 0.32 of a ranking point?

 

[Mel Smooth]

Mel, not sure what planet you are currently in orbit around, but the facts are

Ben Taylor picked up 15.24 ranking points and a chq for $579600 US (Very well done, game changer for him)

Tommy picked up 14.92 points and over a million euros in prize dosh

Are you really crowing about 0.32 of a ranking point?

The average ranking of the top ten finishers was higher (better) at the Nedbank than it was in Houston - so you could argue the Nedbank was pretty difficult to win - this despite the world number 2 finishing in the top ten in Houston. I'm just highlighting how the points system isn't perhaps all that accurate.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

So its fine to try and discredit the points system when it suits your argument

But LIV would love to be part of that same system....Go Figure

 

[Mel Smooth]

So its fine to try and discredit the points system when it suits your argument

But LIV would love to be part of that same system....Go Figure

I think my view has consistently been that the points system isn't accurate, not being able to include LIV players in that definitely adds weight to that argument, does it not?
If you check back on my posts you'll find I've repeatedly said that the OWGR is now defunct as a world golf ranking system.
If a guy winning an event is getting less points than somebody finishing 3rd in an event with a similar level of competition, then that also adds to that argument.

 

[Ian_George]

The average ranking of the top ten finishers was higher (better) at the Nedbank than it was in Houston - so you could argue the Nedbank was pretty difficult to win - this despite the world number 2 finishing in the top ten in Houston. I'm just highlighting how the points system isn't perhaps all that accurate.

You are doing equivalent of comparing Apples and Oranges!
Nedbank is an Invitation, No cut 64 player field! Houston was a standard 132 player field Direct or via Qualifying, with a halfway cut! One gets 221.5 Field points; the other 86.95! The #2 ranked player only finished T9!

That simply demonstrates the different rating of an Invitation, 64 player No Cut tournament to a normal one - with 132 direct or qualifying players and a halfway cut that eliminate 64 of them, some ranked highly (12, 17, 19, 27, 33)! That's consistent with my statements that LIV, with 48 player, no qualifying, no cut , 3 round 'tournaments', will not be allocated a huge number of Field points!

Basically - It's NOT 'a similar level of competition'!

 

[doublebogey7]

I think my view has consistently been that the points system isn't accurate, not being able to include LIV players in that definitely adds weight to that argument, does it not?
If you check back on my posts you'll find I've repeatedly said that the OWGR is now defunct as a world golf ranking system.
If a guy winning an event is getting less points than somebody finishing 3rd in an event with a similar level of competition, then that also adds to that argument.

It wasn't a similar level of competition though was it, is it easier to win in a field of 150 professionals or one with a field of 30?

 

[doublebogey7]

Maybe those non Aussies could have thought about growing the Game....and yes players have to ask the PGAT for a release even to play in your national OPEN, and there were consequences.

PGAT players do have to seek permission to play in tournaments outside of their tour, but permission has historically almost always been approved. Paul Casey and Sergio Garcia played in the last Australian Open as did Cam Smith. So what were the "consequences" for them I wonder, don't remember hearing about them being banned and /or fined.

 

[BubbaP]

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.

Thanks R, a detailed and thoughtful post. I'd interpreted the serious sport part as the bit after the whistle blows/hooter sounds, and separated away from the whole qualification side; whereas, if I follow, I think you feel you view them as together.
For me, I feel the developmental / lower level pro golf is really at that pure sporting place - as you mention playing for a living, on the edge. Might be back in a regular job if it doesn't go well. I'd place the two major Opens very close to that - very clear pathways. Away form them, as the rewards grow, for me, the lines start to blur a little - sponsors, commercial tours, management companies, appearance fees, special exemptions and invites, players committees, etc. OOMs typically have an element of participation reward as well as performance. Some criteria maybe seem more about 'keeping players in the club' rather than on form/performance.
Definitely the LIV thing pushed out those boundaries even more, and it may come down to where lines are drawn (individually). Certainly there is a current lack of clarity around exactly how LIV operates, plenty of bluster - feels like winging it at times. I've not checked, but I am pretty confident that no event had the same 48 players as another one though - so it didn't feel (to me) like a totally closed shop, and there did seem some degree of qualification and "dropping" - even if not going far enough or clear enough. Pros love a good moan, am confident the cracks will show soon and there'll be some revelations that may clarify further on this!

Somewhere around page 3 I said something like 'I'll judge it in June 2023' when I might actually know what it is - I may well feel the same as you by then. I guess for now I have cut a bit of slack as a full qualifier would had been pointless in June when scratching around to fill a field. I do think it may have more sense for them to "buy" an existing tour and build it up over time, but I guess they wanted to move more quickly which inevitably has caused resentment, with reason.

Perhaps the interesting piece is where pro golf is heading - LPhil made a point (if I recall) when the change announcements started to come out that PGAT should have 'trusted what they had'. For me, if they had cut out much of the fluff that has built up, and paired back to a more 'pure sporting' offering then I could have more easily stood behind that - we'll have to wait to see what actually pans out, but the announcements as I understand them seem to be moving further away from that place, and into areas you have raised concerns about. This may well be viewed partly LIV's fault of course!
As things clarify I do wonder if being in the LIV pot for one season ends up being that different to being a fully exempt PGA TOUR member (guaranteed entry into all full-field events) in practical actuality.

 

[AussieKB]

Please explain your reasoning - apart from timing! Surely, you are not considering that a 'victory' for LIV! Do you consider the change from wrap around to pure calendar schedule a good thing? It certainly means Golf tournaments can be arranged in Southern Hemisphere in more reliable weather, though Summer might not be the optimum time for some parts of Oz! Remember, the PGAT is US-centric, as that's where by far the greatest audience (primary driver) and source of top level players is!

Like you said the PGAT is all about the USA, everyone else including the EU are just feeder tours to them.

 

[AussieKB]

PGAT players do have to seek permission to play in tournaments outside of their tour, but permission has historically almost always been approved. Paul Casey and Sergio Garcia played in the last Australian Open as did Cam Smith. So what were the "consequences" for them I wonder, don't remember hearing about them being banned and /or fined.

That was before the wrap around tour started, as did many come out here before, Seve, Faldo, Monty and Couples to name a few and of course Tigger when they paid him US$100 million to show up.

 

[AussieKB]

You are doing equivalent of comparing Apples and Oranges!
Nedbank is an Invitation, No cut 64 player field! Houston was a standard 132 player field Direct or via Qualifying, with a halfway cut! One gets 221.5 Field points; the other 86.95! The #2 ranked player only finished T9!

That simply demonstrates the different rating of an Invitation, 64 player No Cut tournament to a normal one - with 132 direct or qualifying players and a halfway cut that eliminate 64 of them, some ranked highly (12, 17, 19, 27, 33)! That's consistent with my statements that LIV, with 48 player, no qualifying, no cut , 3 round 'tournaments', will not be allocated a huge number of Field points!

Basically - It's NOT 'a similar level of competition'!

If the Nedbank was invitational and no cut, doesn't it then make it an exhibition game ?

 

[Ian_George]

Like you said the PGAT is all about the USA, everyone else including the EU are just feeder tours to them.

That's a Mel level of spin as it's NOT what I said! There's a huge difference, between 'US-centric' and 'all about USA'! Oh and what has 27 countries (the EU) got to do with the PGAT? If you mean ET, then certainly t's a 'feeder tour' for their US events; but also a 'partner tour', allowing PGAT players to play, and be seen, in Europe! Basically, 'so what'!