LIV Golf

[Deleted member 21445]

PGA Tours Longest serving sponsor announces ending its partnership with the Honda Classic because its not being elevated

Its an iconic event that Honda has sponsored for 42 years ?

Thats the problem with this PGAT plan, the events that are not being elevated with smaller purses and weak fields are going to become complete non events..

 

[cleveland52]

Lol, it's added millions and millions of dollars to the purses, better securities for players and caddies, and changed the dynamic with the DPWT to protect itself - nothing then.....

A year ago, no one was clamoring for team golf, and no one was trashing the Pgatour, in fact people were saying that the tour was in the best shape that it ever has been. Coming out of Covid golf was at the height of its popularity. Then came LIV golf and players was being poached, lawsuits were being filed, DOJ investigations, golf fractured, and downright hatred being spewed.

Then Phil started trashing the pgatour and GN started telling people that team golf is the future of golf.

Now here we are.....To say that LIV has been good for golf is naive at best.

 

[Ian_George]

...
The DPWT has seen some events with stronger fields - BMW at Wentworth being the obvious one.
...

Only begrudgingly! The weren't wanted there - and were, in fact, shunned - by DPWT!

 

[AussieKB]

Just remember that it DPWT's 'funny tournament' period, so limited field events abound! And it's that aspect that's making the points allocation 'so far apart'.

I'd be interested to actually see the reasoning behind the (apparently) significant weighting of field numbers over strength of players! I'm sure they've done research, but perhaps not enough. Looking at the first round leaderboard of DPWT Champs though, it's understandable how field numbers might have more influence than would seem warranted compared to ranking - I'm certain that'll become more 'normal' by the final round though.

Have a look at all those well know names at RSM...am sure the cream will rise to the top by the end.

 

[Ian_George]

Have a look at all those well know names at RSM...am sure the cream will rise to the top by the end.

Agreed! Weighting does seem seem skewed somewhat! It's the 50 player (DPWTC) vs 150+ (RSM) that is the reason! With marginally fewer players than Dubai, no wonder LIV guys are crying out for OWGR points to be allocated! It will be 'interesting' to compare the effect the slightly different rating method done by Datagolf has.

 

[BrianM]

A year ago, no one was clamoring for team golf, and no one was trashing the Pgatour, in fact people were saying that the tour was in the best shape that it ever has been. Coming out of Covid golf was at the height of its popularity. Then came LIV golf and players was being poached, lawsuits were being filed, DOJ investigations, golf fractured, and downright hatred being spewed.

Then Phil started trashing the pgatour and GN started telling people that team golf is the future of golf.

Now here we are.....To say that LIV has been good for golf is naive at best.

What people?
If anything this statement you’ve put out is naive at best!!

 

[Mel Smooth]

A year ago, no one was clamoring for team golf, and no one was trashing the Pgatour, in fact people were saying that the tour was in the best shape that it ever has been. Coming out of Covid golf was at the height of its popularity. Then came LIV golf and players was being poached, lawsuits were being filed, DOJ investigations, golf fractured, and downright hatred being spewed.

Then Phil started trashing the pgatour and GN started telling people that team golf is the future of golf.

Now here we are.....To say that LIV has been good for golf is naive at best.

Where is all the hatred from LIV and it's players?

Why are lawsuits being filed?

Why can't golf have a team aspect to it, so it can appeal to a broader market?

And what did Phil say about the PGA Tour, that hasn't turned out to have some basis?


LIV has been bad (I'd prefer the word disruptive but we'll go with bad for now) for the PGA Tour, not golf - are you another one that thinks the PGA Tour have the rights to be numero uno when it comes to pro golf - and be unchallenged - and be unchallenged in that position?

 

[Mel Smooth]

Agreed! Weighting does seem seem skewed somewhat! It's the 50 player (DPWTC) vs 150+ (RSM) that is the reason! With marginally fewer players than Dubai, no wonder LIV guys are crying out for OWGR points to be allocated! It will be 'interesting' to compare the effect the slightly different rating method done by Datagolf has.

The OWGR system just demonstarates that quantity is better than quality - crystalised by the situation this weekend where the field in Dubai clearly contains more quality that in the RSM. If the solution to improving field rating in events to drive up OWGR points, is to have more players taking part then it's a pretty basic and restrictive system.

 

[AussieKB]

Playing in a stableford tomorrow with a 100 players, wonder how many points are up for grabs.....oh sorry I forgot it's not 72 holes or controlled by the PGAT.

 

[Ian_George]

The OWGR system just demonstarates that quantity is better than quality - crystalised by the situation this weekend where the field in Dubai clearly contains more quality that in the RSM. If the solution to improving field rating in events to drive up OWGR points, is to have more players taking part then it's a pretty basic and restrictive system.

I agree with the 1st sentence and partially agree with the 2nd. There's, apparently, been something around 5 years of analysis involved and I'd expect a lot of comparison to have been done before it was implemented. I'd like to see those results published somewhere, and to see how their decisions were justified I don't totally disagree with their approach, but this week challenges their apparent 'purity' of change - to be solely sum of strokes gained, that favours large fields so much.
Basically it now treats, or at least seems to treat every player as equally likely to win any tournament, whether they be #1 in the world or #200 (which I believe may be a cut-off). I'd think a weighting according to rating range needs to be applied, say top 20, 21-50, 51-100 and 101-200, as the guys at the top of OWGR really ARE more likely to win than those 200+!
I'm sure it's a coincidence that it favours US based Tournaments.

 

[AussieKB]

I agree with the 1st sentence and partially agree with the 2nd. There's, apparently, been something around 5 years of analysis involved and I'd expect a lot of comparison to have been done before it was implemented. I'd like to see those results published somewhere, and to see how their decisions were justified I don't totally disagree with their approach, but this week challenges their apparent 'purity' of change - to be solely sum of strokes gained, that favours large fields so much.
Basically it now treats, or at least seems to treat every player as equally likely to win any tournament, whether they be #1 in the world or #200 (which I believe may be a cut-off). I'd think a weighting according to rating range needs to be applied, say top 20, 21-50, 51-100 and 101-200, as the guys at the top of OWGR really ARE more likely to win than those 200+!
I'm sure it's a coincidence that it favours US based Tournaments.

I assume that was a joke about it favors PGAT.

 

[Swango1980]

Playing in a stableford tomorrow with a 100 players, wonder how many points are up for grabs.....oh sorry I forgot it's not 72 holes or controlled by the PGAT.

From most people, this could be classed a joke.

But, as a caricature LIV fan, I suspect AussieKB will be threatening legal action against the PGA if his 28 points doesn't get him any World Ranking Points.

 

[Mel Smooth]

I agree with the 1st sentence and partially agree with the 2nd. There's, apparently, been something around 5 years of analysis involved and I'd expect a lot of comparison to have been done before it was implemented. I'd like to see those results published somewhere, and to see how their decisions were justified I don't totally disagree with their approach, but this week challenges their apparent 'purity' of change - to be solely sum of strokes gained, that favours large fields so much.
Basically it now treats, or at least seems to treat every player as equally likely to win any tournament, whether they be #1 in the world or #200 (which I believe may be a cut-off). I'd think a weighting according to rating range needs to be applied, say top 20, 21-50, 51-100 and 101-200, as the guys at the top of OWGR really ARE more likely to win than those 200+!
I'm sure it's a coincidence that it favours US based Tournaments.

It actually didn't favour US based tournaments before - the opposite infact, but, the PGA Tour has all the best players because historically it's attracted them there because of the money available, so inevitably the field strengths are always high. The new system now amplifies this, but it's clearly flawed - as is been seen this weekend.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I’d be interested to see the detailed analysis done by those saying the points allocation is wrong or flawed.

Again, we appear to have options being presented as facts.

I don’t know either way or care particularly. Other than it’s amusing how some people simultaneously think the OWGR is pointless yet so important.

Give the LiV events points. The points allocated will be so small they will be almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Ian_George]

I assume that was a joke about it favors PGAT.

No! If you read the rest, you'll see why that happens!

 

[Ian_George]

I’d be interested to see the detailed analysis done by those saying the points allocation is wrong or flawed.

Again, we appear to have options being presented as facts.

I don’t know either way or care particularly. Other than it’s amusing how some people simultaneously think the OWGR is pointless yet so important.

Give the LiV events points. The points allocated will be so small they will be almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Re the Italicised point, OWGR 'boffins' should have that already! I'm simply asking them to justify their method - as would happen with an equivalent academic exercise, seems to be pretty much what they did.
Re the Bold point, Who is presenting which options as facts?
Re the rest, it probably depends on how affects them o their favourites!

 

[Mel Smooth]

I’d be interested to see the detailed analysis done by those saying the points allocation is wrong or flawed.

Again, we appear to have options being presented as facts.

I don’t know either way or care particularly. Other than it’s amusing how some people simultaneously think the OWGR is pointless yet so important.

Give the LiV events points. The points allocated will be so small they will be almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

OWGR is now defunct as a professional world golf ranking system - There are players, playing pro tournaments, that it doesn’t rank, so it’s obsolete in that respect.

And yes, under this defunct system, the points awarded to LIV players will be small, but at least the system would be more accurate.

The only place you can play golf and make a worthwhile ranking (in terms of major qualification) now, is on the PGA tour. It’s not just LIV where OWGR points would be insignificant.

 

[Ian_George]

OWGR is now defunct as a professional world golf ranking system - There are players, playing pro tournaments, that it doesn’t rank, so it’s obsolete in that respect.

And yes, under this defunct system, the points awarded to LIV players will be small, but at least the system would be more accurate.

The only place you can play golf and make a worthwhile ranking (in terms of major qualification) now, is on the PGA tour. It’s not just LIV where OWGR points would be insignificant.

Flawed, perhaps; Defunct, definitely not!
As for the last sentence; DPWT could boost their ratings simply by having larger field sizes!

 

[Mel Smooth]

Flawed, perhaps; Defunct, definitely not!
As for the last sentence; DPWT could boost their ratings simply by having larger field sizes!

I’m sorry, it’s defunct. Dustin Johnson 38th best golfer in the world?
Nope.



And as for my last sentence, yes they could, how many do we want in the field - 300?

 

[Ian_George]

I’m sorry, it’s defunct. Dustin Johnson 38th best golfer in the world?
Nope.

Flawed then (perhaps)! If it was defunct, there'd be no ranking for him at all! Nor anyone else!