LIV Golf

[WGCRider]

The OWGR letter explicitly stated that LIV could be accounted for mathematically.

Also, that isn't how OWGR calculations work. All the players SGWR and corresponding PP are available on the OWGR website - just add up the PP to get the field rating; for a LIV event it's currently a little over 105. How that would then possibly be adjusted (btw, no cut is irrelevant) and broken down is unknown, but first place would certainly be significantly more than 3.9.

No cut is very relevant. The total available points derive from all the players entered. Those cut get no points - so half the field miss out. So in a PGA field you could be +8 behind behind the winner after 38 holes and get nothing. I could be in a LIV field bogey every hole and shoot +54 and still get points?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

No cut is very relevant. The total available points derive from all the players entered. Those cut get no points - so half the field miss out. So in a PGA field you could be +8 behind behind the winner after 38 holes and get nothing. I could be in a LIV field bogey every hole and shoot +54 and still get points?

Will the new PGA designated events, no cuts, restricted field, get points? The answer is yes of course. Not really consistent though.

 

[wjemather]

No cut is very relevant. The total available points derive from all the players entered. Those cut get no points - so half the field miss out. So in a PGA field you could be +8 behind behind the winner after 38 holes and get nothing. I could be in a LIV field bogey every hole and shoot +54 and still get points?

No, it isn't - existing no-cut PGA Tour events demonstrate that. For example, the BMW Championship awards points to all 50 players regardless of how they score, without any adjustment or reduction - last place could be 100 strokes adrift and they would still get full points.

I'm not saying that should be the case with LIV. It would make more sense to only award points for the the top 24-36 (for example). However, without a reduction in the field rating, such a points breakdown increases the points at the top. There would also possibly be a field rating reduction due to 54-holes.

Perhaps this could be the catalyst for OWGR to stop rewarding failure in Mickey Mouse no-cut limited field events like the Hero.

 

[AussieKB]

Watching Live....yippee on free to air in OZ

 

[WGCRider]

No, it isn't - existing no-cut PGA Tour events demonstrate that. For example, the BMW Championship awards points to all 50 players regardless of how they score, without any adjustment or reduction - last place could be 100 strokes adrift and they would still get full points.

I'm not saying that should be the case with LIV. It would make more sense to only award points for the the top 24-36 (for example). However, without a reduction in the field rating, such a points breakdown increases the points at the top. There would also possibly be a field rating reduction due to 54-holes.

Perhaps this could be the catalyst for OWGR to stop rewarding failure in Mickey Mouse no-cut limited field events like the Hero.

BMW is not the best example as the structure of that tournament is that to qualify for that tournament you have to have made it through the previous week. So in essence there is a weekly cut - first after the St Jude, then the BMW and then then Tour championship
Either way, we agree on the wider point that in the hypothetical case that LIV events get points only half the field would be eligible.

 

[wjemather]

BMW is not the best example as the structure of that tournament is that to qualify for that tournament you have to have made it through the previous week. So in essence there is a weekly cut - first after the St Jude, then the BMW and then then Tour championship
Either way, we agree on the wider point that in the hypothetical case that LIV events get points only half the field would be eligible.

Look at the Hero then. An invitational and an even more egregious example of rewarding failure; >2 points for finishing dfl.

 

[Swango1980]

Would it not be a fair statement that those in charge of the golf world rankings are more likely to be experts in this area than any of us? And, if that is a fair statement, then are they not in a better position to determine what is and what is not acceptable in earning ranking points. And, if you do not accept their decision, is it because you think you know better than they do from a technical point of view. Or is your argument a conspiracy theory angle, where you essentially think the OWGR is a puppet of the PGAT and so just doing as they are told?

I don't believe the conspiracy angle element, in the sense that even if a way was found to give LIV ranking points, they'd probably be so few that it wouldn't exactly entice the world's best players to move to LIV. Knowing that their talent would earn far more points on the PGAT. Whereas there are so many already existing criteria for ranking points that LIV clearly do not meet, in pretty much every single event. They don't even come close. Assuming that criteria was there for a reason, then surely people should be able to see the difficulty here.

In summary, maybe, just maybe, the people involved with OWGR know a lot more than we do about fair and unfair ways of distributing ranking points. Hence their decision.

 

[Imurg]

I believe the decision was made by the Majors alone...the representatives of the Tours didn't have a vote...so it was either 3-1 or 4-0 against.
Wouldn't it be nice if one the LiV players came out and said "Yeah, ok, understand the reasons...let's hope the management can adjust things going forward so we can eventually get points" instead of moaning and whining about it when they don't meet enough of the criteria..

 

[wjemather]

Would it not be a fair statement that those in charge of the golf world rankings are more likely to be experts in this area than any of us? And, if that is a fair statement, then are they not in a better position to determine what is and what is not acceptable in earning ranking points. And, if you do not accept their decision, is it because you think you know better than they do from a technical point of view. Or is your argument a conspiracy theory angle, where you essentially think the OWGR is a puppet of the PGAT and so just doing as they are told?

I don't believe the conspiracy angle element, in the sense that even if a way was found to give LIV ranking points, they'd probably be so few that it wouldn't exactly entice the world's best players to move to LIV. Knowing that their talent would earn far more points on the PGAT. Whereas there are so many already existing criteria for ranking points that LIV clearly do not meet, in pretty much every single event. They don't even come close. Assuming that criteria was there for a reason, then surely people should be able to see the difficulty here.

In summary, maybe, just maybe, the people involved with OWGR know a lot more than we do about fair and unfair ways of distributing ranking points. Hence their decision.

The people on the OWGR board are not experts in ranking systems and don't pretend to be; they are corporate executives who routinely make decisions for business reasons, or for what they believe (or claim) to be in the best interests of the game. Like all executives and politicians, they garner input from subject matter experts to assess when making those decisions. Also, the tours may have recused themselves from the decision, but to believe they had zero input in the process would be naive at best.

Anyway, the letter made it clear that the board were advised (by the actual experts) that there are no mathematical (technical) obstructions to ranking LIV events. The actual reasons given for rejecting the application were philosophical, not technical.

And please, stop bleating on about criteria that are nothing more than woolly guidelines that have changed dozens of times over the years; their rigidity is entirely at the discretion of the board. They are nothing more than a list what the rankings have already accommodated (like 6s) - they are absolutely not an exhaustive list of everything they will ever accommodate.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Would it not be a fair statement that those in charge of the golf world rankings are more likely to be experts in this area than any of us? And, if that is a fair statement, then are they not in a better position to determine what is and what is not acceptable in earning ranking points. And, if you do not accept their decision, is it because you think you know better than they do from a technical point of view. Or is your argument a conspiracy theory angle, where you essentially think the OWGR is a puppet of the PGAT and so just doing as they are told?

I don't believe the conspiracy angle element, in the sense that even if a way was found to give LIV ranking points, they'd probably be so few that it wouldn't exactly entice the world's best players to move to LIV. Knowing that their talent would earn far more points on the PGAT. Whereas there are so many already existing criteria for ranking points that LIV clearly do not meet, in pretty much every single event. They don't even come close. Assuming that criteria was there for a reason, then surely people should be able to see the difficulty here.

In summary, maybe, just maybe, the people involved with OWGR know a lot more than we do about fair and unfair ways of distributing ranking points. Hence their decision.

Or maybe Lefty has correct information, and the PGAT is mortgaged to the hilt on a promise to deliver events that have a a minimum requirement on OWGR rankings in order to meet their contractual broadcast agreements.

Or to word it simply, they need the vast majority of the points going to PGAT players - which is undeniably the scenario now - or they don't get paid?

 

[Swango1980]

The people on the OWGR board are not experts in ranking systems and don't pretend to be; they are corporate executives who routinely make decisions for business reasons, or for what they believe (or claim) to be in the best interests of the game. Like all executives and politicians, they garner input from subject matter experts to assess when making those decisions. Also, the tours may have recused themselves from the decision, but to believe they had zero input in the process would be naive at best.

Anyway, the letter made it clear that the board were advised (by the actual experts) that there are no mathematical (technical) obstructions to ranking LIV events. The actual reasons given for rejecting the application were philosophical, not technical.

And please, stop bleating on about criteria that are nothing more than woolly guidelines that have changed dozens of times over the years; their rigidity is entirely at the discretion of the board. They are nothing more than a list what the rankings have already accommodated (like 6s) - they are absolutely not an exhaustive list of everything they will ever accommodate.

No need to get emotional, I know this latest decision has hurt your feelings

It is interesting that when others made similar arguments against WHS, you'd dismiss them out of hand. You mocked anyone daring to be critical of WHS, because the experts say this, and the authorities say that. But when it comes to ranking points, who cares what the authority on the subject says. They are just woolly guidelines anyway. Next you'll be saying they are arbitrary!?

Incidentally, I never stated that the current ranking points were perfect, and should remain in place for the rest of time. Improvements can and will always be made. But, the authority on the matter has refused at this point, and they'll have good reasons. But I suppose you are the type that only likes authority when it suits your argument, otherwise you know best. But then again, we're all keyboard warriors, so I guess it makes some of us feel good when we at least make it sound convincing when we pretend what we know we are talking about

 

[Swango1980]

Or maybe Lefty has correct information, and the PGAT is mortgaged to the hilt on a promise to deliver events that have a a minimum requirement on OWGR rankings in order to meet their contractual broadcast agreements.

Or to word it simply, they need the vast majority of the points going to PGAT players - which is undeniably the scenario now - or they don't get paid?

As I said, your welcome to believe in conspiracy theories. They can be fun.

 

[Mel Smooth]

As I said, your welcome to believe in conspiracy theories. They can be fun.

With respect, I'll take more notice of somebody who has been a member of the PGAT for over 3 decades, than some dude on the internet.

 

[Swango1980]

With respect, I'll take more notice of somebody who has been a member of the PGAT for over 3 decades, than some dude on the internet.

100% likewise. You are some dude on the internet, whereas there are plenty of people that have been members of the PGAT that completely disagree with you. You have demonstrated continuously that you have no respect for many people who ought to know better than you as well. But, I've no issue with that, as even these experts have opinions and disagree with each other.

But, remember this. Before any decision was made on world rankings my personal opinion was that LIV cannot get world rankings fairly. That was my opinion, but appreciate no final decision had been made by the experts. Had OWGR come out and said "from such and such a date, LIV will be awarded rankings using the following methodology...." I'd have respected that. After all, the experts have looked into it, and found an appropriate way to manage it. I suspect on one hand you'd have been initially happy, until you started complaining they didn't get enough points.

So, when you say you'll take more notice to PM than some dude on the internet (who, ironically, you've spent more time replying to on this thread over the last year than you've chatted to PM), it is irrelevant. Because this dude on the internet is not telling LIV that can't have ranking points. The OWGR are telling you that. So, best you take some notice of them, don't worry about me.

 

[wjemather]

No need to get emotional, I know this latest decision has hurt your feelings

It is interesting that when others made similar arguments against WHS, you'd dismiss them out of hand. You mocked anyone daring to be critical of WHS, because the experts say this, and the authorities say that. But when it comes to ranking points, who cares what the authority on the subject says. They are just woolly guidelines anyway. Next you'll be saying they are arbitrary!?

Incidentally, I never stated that the current ranking points were perfect, and should remain in place for the rest of time. Improvements can and will always be made. But, the authority on the matter has refused at this point, and they'll have good reasons. But I suppose you are the type that only likes authority when it suits your argument, otherwise you know best. But then again, we're all keyboard warriors, so I guess it makes some of us feel good when we at least make it sound convincing when we pretend what we know we are talking about

The substance of what I said is taken directly from the owgr website and their own comms. If you want to believe something else, that's on you.

 

[Bratty]

The actual reasons given for rejecting the application were philosophical, not technical.

See post #13,924. That's not a philosophical rejection, that's a practical and very relevant rejection.

 

[Swango1980]

The substance of what I said is taken directly from the owgr website and their own comms. If you want to believe something else, that's on you.

Ahhh, so you are happy to use OWGR statements when they suit, but if they do not fit your argument then happy to ignore them. Sounds reasonable...

If 10 golfers, ranked 11 to 20, suddenly left the main golfing world, and went to play their own little closed tour, how could they ever be ranked fairly again? On the day they leave, we'd all agree they are ranked 11-20 (insofar as ranking systems go, as they'll never be 100% accurate clearly). What about in a months time, or a year? Would they still be Ranked 11-20? Maybe they'd have got worse relative to everyone else, we'd struggle to know. Maybe they'd have got better, we'd still struggle to know. It seems obvious why people that know much more about ranking players than you do struggle to see there being an equitable way to do so with LIV.

Therefore, LIV players will still not be ranked. The only importance to this, anyway, is qualification to Majors. It seems the Majors are not bothered by missing out on LIV players, given that the bigger names still qualify through other means. And, as people have said, if there comes a point in the future where the organisers of Majors do think they are missing out on quality golfers, I'm sure they'll just provide another qualification route for LIV (of it still exists).

So whinging about not getting ranking points is probably pretty meaningless anyway. Unless it is an ego thing, were some LIV golfers or their fans can't face the fact they are dropping down the rankings list.

 

[doublebogey7]

Or maybe Lefty has correct information, and the PGAT is mortgaged to the hilt on a promise to deliver events that have a a minimum requirement on OWGR rankings in order to meet their contractual broadcast agreements.

Or to word it simply, they need the vast majority of the points going to PGAT players - which is undeniably the scenario now - or they don't get paid?

FFS how many times do you need telling, The PGAT and the DPWT withdraw themselves from having any involvment in this decision, stop trolling.

Mickleson cannot be right on this and his earlier claim that the PGAT was sitting on vast reserves.

 

[Mel Smooth]

FFS how many times do you need telling, The PGAT and the DPWT withdraw themselves from having any involvment in this decision, stop trolling.

Mickleson cannot be right on this and his earlier claim that the PGAT was sitting on vast reserves.

I’m not trolling buddy, I’m posting information that is being put out there by a guy who’s been extremely close to the PGAT for a very long time.
By all means, question the credibility of the info, just as I’ll question the trust you have placed in the integrity of the OWGR voting arrangements.

 

[wjemather]

Ahhh, so you are happy to use OWGR statements when they suit, but if they do not fit your argument then happy to ignore them. Sounds reasonable...

If 10 golfers, ranked 11 to 20, suddenly left the main golfing world, and went to play their own little closed tour, how could they ever be ranked fairly again? On the day they leave, we'd all agree they are ranked 11-20 (insofar as ranking systems go, as they'll never be 100% accurate clearly). What about in a months time, or a year? Would they still be Ranked 11-20? Maybe they'd have got worse relative to everyone else, we'd struggle to know. Maybe they'd have got better, we'd still struggle to know. It seems obvious why people that know much more about ranking players than you do struggle to see there being an equitable way to do so with LIV.

Therefore, LIV players will still not be ranked. The only importance to this, anyway, is qualification to Majors. It seems the Majors are not bothered by missing out on LIV players, given that the bigger names still qualify through other means. And, as people have said, if there comes a point in the future where the organisers of Majors do think they are missing out on quality golfers, I'm sure they'll just provide another qualification route for LIV (of it still exists).

So whinging about not getting ranking points is probably pretty meaningless anyway. Unless it is an ego thing, were some LIV golfers or their fans can't face the fact they are dropping down the rankings list.

Please tell us you're not basing your opinions on a scenario that only exists in Backsticks head.

LIV golfers haven't "left the main golfing world". The only place they have been excluded from is the PGA Tour. Away from that, there has, and continues to be, a lot of crossover with traditional tours (particularly the Asian Tour) and majors - more than sufficient to maintain the mathematical integrity of any rankings.