LIV Golf

[Backsticks]

And the definition of "top rank"?

Golfers from the top 30 or 40 in the world. They effectively define the sporting credibility of a tournament as a sporting contest. With the limited field, LIV needed a high proportion of such golfer to make that grade, and as yet, are very short of the 20+ they would need. The rest can be Casey level players, but filler like McDowell just drags down the level. You can have McDowell in a 140 man field, but not in 48. The ones they are missing are a sizable portion of the Schauffele, Homa, Hovland, Spieth, Morikawa, Fleetwood, etc level. If they can get them, they win on two fronts : add high level golfers, flush out the Chase Koepkas that are Kornferry material.



Edit : Sorry, I see the Chase wasnt making Kornferry level. Is he still on LIV ? If so, surely that is the definition of their failure to provide a world class field.

 

[wjemather]

I suspect top ranked means the players that have won majors in recent years and still have the ability to win them in the future

BDC , Smith , Koepka and DJ would be the ones I would suggest

That's a (deliberately) very exclusive definition; one which I suspect would be very different if asked for a list of PGA Tour "top rank" players.

Anyway, let's roll with it... Given you have excluded Reed and Mickelson, the only logical conclusion is that you are limiting to major champions during the last 4 years under the age of 40-something. As such, you have discarded McIlroy, Spieth, Cantlay, Schauffele, Hovland, Homa, Zalatoris, Finau, Burns, Young, Hatton, Fleetwood, Rose, Im, etc. from the PGA Tour list, which leaves just 6 of your "top rank" defined players: Rahm, Fitzpatrick, Thomas, Scheffler, Morikawa and Matsuyama. LIV have 4.

 

[Swango1980]

That's a (deliberately) very exclusive definition; one which I suspect would be very different if asked for a list of PGA Tour "top rank" players.

Anyway, let's roll with it... Given you have excluded Reed and Mickelson, the only logical conclusion is that you are limiting to major champions during the last 4 years under the age of 40-something. As such, you have discarded McIlroy, Spieth, Cantlay, Schauffele, Hovland, Homa, Zalatoris, Finau, Burns, Young, Hatton, Fleetwood, Rose, Im, etc. from the PGA Tour list, which leaves just 6 of your "top rank" defined players: Rahm, Fitzpatrick, Thomas, Scheffler, Morikawa and Matsuyama. LIV have 4.

You are sounding really ridiculous here, a pathetic attempt at points scoring.

Everyone knows what was meant by "top rank". The only unknown was who those 5 golfers were. Somewhat subjective, but we all know pretty much who they are. Mickleson is clearly no longer in that bracket, just as Woods is not. In the past, they were very much in that bracket. Reed is debatable.

You're last paragraph is garbage to be honest. If you genuinely have concluded this based on logic, then there are serious flaws in your thinking

 

[Deleted member 15344]

That's a (deliberately) very exclusive definition; one which I suspect would be very different if asked for a list of PGA Tour "top rank" players.

Anyway, let's roll with it... Given you have excluded Reed and Mickelson, the only logical conclusion is that you are limiting to major champions during the last 4 years under the age of 40-something. As such, you have discarded McIlroy, Spieth, Cantlay, Schauffele, Hovland, Homa, Zalatoris, Finau, Burns, Young, Hatton, Fleetwood, Rose, Im, etc. from the PGA Tour list, which leaves just 6 of your "top rank" defined players: Rahm, Fitzpatrick, Thomas, Scheffler, Morikawa and Matsuyama. LIV have 4.

Just to help you

This is what I posted earlier


“There are some serial winners on LIV - Koepka being the big one and it’s no surprise that he will challenge for the majors , same with BDC , Smith and maybe DJ if he wakes up - they are golfers that have won majors recently and have shown themselves to have the ability to win - it’s not going to be a surprise to anyone when their names appear within the top tens etc of the majors.

You can add them to the likes of Rory , Speith , Thomas , Rahm , Morikawa , Scheffler

Those level of players can play on the Jamega Tour for a couple of events and still challenge.

The next group coming through that will challenge those players will be the likes of Young , Conners , Fitzpatrick , Burns ? Cantlay , Hovland , Homa , Schauffele maybe Finau and hopefully some of the South Korean guys - but look at the LIV players it’s hard to see anyone behind those 3/4 guys that will challenge at a major consistently”


How people define players will always be subjective and no “right or wrong” answer- what some person sees as top ranked might be different to what the next person sees

For me there are players that have won multiple majors and have the ability to win more - they are the players you see around Leaderboards at the big events

 

[wjemather]

Golfers from the top 30 or 40 in the world. They effectively define the sporting credibility of a tournament as a sporting contest. With the limited field, LIV needed a high proportion of such golfer to make that grade, and as yet, are very short of the 20+ they would need. The rest can be Casey level players, but filler like McDowell just drags down the level. You can have McDowell in a 140 man field, but not in 48. The ones they are missing are a sizable portion of the Schauffele, Homa, Hovland, Spieth, Morikawa, Fleetwood, etc level. If they can get them, they win on two fronts : add high level golfers, flush out the Chase Koepkas that are Kornferry material.

A convenient definition that enables you to deride LIV for not having a full roster of "top rank" players - an impossible demand for a roster of 48 when only 30-40 can ever be "top rank".

Current owgr rankings are obviously not an accurate reflection of LIV players standing in the world game (especially with many being hit by the minimum divisor), so let's look at rankings at the point players were signed/first played (i.e. the last time their ranking could be regarded as remotely accurate).

13 of LIVs 2023 roster were ranked in the owgr top-40 when they signed/first played (i.e. within the last year). Casey was ranked 31 (despite his injuries) - seems like he is actually "top rank".

 

[Deleted member 21445]

I'm just made up for Brooks the golfer.

Been through a lot with injury and now has worked his way back to the top of the golf world again

What a player when he is in full flow..

 

[wjemather]

You are sounding really ridiculous here, a pathetic attempt at points scoring.

Everyone knows what was meant by "top rank". The only unknown was who those 5 golfers were. Somewhat subjective, but we all know pretty much who they are. Mickleson is clearly no longer in that bracket, just as Woods is not. In the past, they were very much in that bracket. Reed is debatable.

You're last paragraph is garbage to be honest. If you genuinely have concluded this based on logic, then there are serious flaws in your thinking

Really, because we've just had 2 very different definitions, neither of which, when analysed, actually support the narrative it's being used to support.

It that the same Reed who pushed McIlroy all the way in Dubai, finished tied for 4th at the Masters and tied for 18th in the PGA? Not sure it's all that debatable.

 

[Swango1980]

Really, because we've just had 2 very different definitions, neither of which, when analysed, actually support the narrative it's being used to support.

It that the same Reed who pushed McIlroy all the way in Dubai, finished tied for 4th at the Masters and tied for 18th in the PGA? Not sure it's all that debatable.

And yet, we are debating it.....

 

[Backsticks]

A convenient definition that enables you to deride LIV for not having a full roster of "top rank" players - an impossible demand for a roster of 48 when only 30-40 can ever be "top rank".

Current owgr rankings are obviously not an accurate reflection of LIV players standing in the world game (especially with many being hit by the minimum divisor), so let's look at rankings at the point players were signed/first played (i.e. the last time their ranking could be regarded as remotely accurate).

13 of LIVs 2023 roster were ranked in the owgr top-40 when they signed/first played (i.e. within the last year). Casey was ranked 31 (despite his injuries) - seems like he is actually "top rank".

No, I am not making that definition with any agenda or goal. But the gist of it nevertheless is what the general golfing public views as top rank too. Hence why there is little to no real interest in LIV despite all the exposure it has gotten simply by its existance. But there is no golfing substance or sustainability in that. Without the talent, its is a touring exhibition not sport. It has some stars - no one is disputing that. But that just puts in the ranks of The Match, or the tournament in Ireland each summer that Tiger went to. Definitions are arbitrary and can be debated endlessly - but it be distilled to an essence that the quality of the LIV players on average - serious stars notwithstanding - is too low.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm just made up for Brooks the golfer.

Been through a lot with injury and now has worked his way back to the top of the golf world again

What a player when he is in full flow..

I agree. Was never a fan, tho my opinion changed when watching Full Swing. He no longer seemed arrogant and cocky, but full of self doubt and frustration.

So, it was good to see him get back to his best.

 

[Red scorpion]

That's a (deliberately) very exclusive definition; one which I suspect would be very different if asked for a list of PGA Tour "top rank" players.

Anyway, let's roll with it... Given you have excluded Reed and Mickelson, the only logical conclusion is that you are limiting to major champions during the last 4 years under the age of 40-something. As such, you have discarded McIlroy, Spieth, Cantlay, Schauffele, Hovland, Homa, Zalatoris, Finau, Burns, Young, Hatton, Fleetwood, Rose, Im, etc. from the PGA Tour list, which leaves just 6 of your "top rank" defined players: Rahm, Fitzpatrick, Thomas, Scheffler, Morikawa and Matsuyama. LIV have 4.

 

[Beezerk]

Hence why there is little to no real interest in LIV despite all the exposure it has gotten simply by its existance.

Yet it's rent free in yours and LPL's heads

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Yet it's rent free in yours and LPL's heads

Do you think maybe I live “rent free” inside your head ? Along with some other peoples heads

I thought I only had one sad obsessive stalker but seems to be growing

 

[wjemather]

No, I am not making that definition with any agenda or goal. But the gist of it nevertheless is what the general golfing public views as top rank too. Hence why there is little to no real interest in LIV despite all the exposure it has gotten simply by its existance. But there is no golfing substance or sustainability in that. Without the talent, its is a touring exhibition not sport. It has some stars - no one is disputing that. But that just puts in the ranks of The Match, or the tournament in Ireland each summer that Tiger went to. Definitions are arbitrary and can be debated endlessly - but it be distilled to an essence that the quality of the LIV players on average - serious stars notwithstanding - is too low.

Glad to hear you have no agenda or goal.
However, it does leave me wondering why you persistently attack LIV with fallacious arguments; e.g. running down the quality of the players (contrary to all evidence of the recent rankings and records in major championships - you say only 5 are 'top rank' despite more than double that number meeting your own arbitrary definition), comparing it to a retirement tour (when 3/4 of the roster is aged 40 or younger), claiming there is no real interest (patently untrue), etc.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Traction..

Will Brooks Koepka's brilliance earn LIV Golf the respect it craves?

Brooks Koepka's desire for more major glory hasn't wilted since moving to LIV Golf, and the same can be said for some of his colleagues

www.nationalclubgolfer.com

 

[Backsticks]

Yet it's rent free in yours and LPL's heads

Cheap personal insults suggest a lack of genuine rebuttals to the points we are making.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Liv Golf must be ecstatic they have Koepka 2.0 for the next 4 years.

What a prospect for them and what he could do in the majors in those 4 years.

Why specify “next 4 years”?
Is that how long the LIV contract is?

 

[Backsticks]

Glad to hear you have no agenda or goal.
However, it does leave me wondering why you persistently attack LIV with fallacious arguments; e.g. running down the quality of the players (contrary to all evidence of the recent rankings and records in major championships - you say only 5 are 'top rank' despite more than double that number meeting your own arbitrary definition), comparing it to a retirement tour (when 3/4 of the roster is aged 40 or younger), claiming there is no real interest (patently untrue), etc.

This is where the size of the field is key, and why LIV fields are so weak. A quarter of golfer being competitively past it does not matter in a 140 man field - there are still 105 serious contenders. A quarter being filler material, or legends of the past in a 48 man field leaves only 36 golfers really competing. That is weak. And when that 36 includes Chase Koepka and the likes, well, that is where the lack of competition charge really stands up.
48 man could be good - but it needs to be very rich in top golfers. If they had 15 or 20 of Fitzpatrick, Cantlay, Hovland, Rahm etc, then its claim to not being a low grade exhibition tour would have grounds.

 

[BubbaP]

Why specify “next 4 years”?
Is that how long the LIV contract is?

TBH I thought he had about 2.5 years left

 

[sweaty sock]

TBH I thought he had about 2.5 years left

Be interesting to too how / if the pga welcome them back....