LIV Golf

[Fore Right]

Comparing the PGA Tour and LIV Golf is complex because they operate under different structures, feature distinct course setups, and vary in field depth. The PGA Tour remains the deepest and most established circuit, primarily hosting events in the U.S., while LIV Golf competes globally with a smaller but highly concentrated field of elite players. These differences make direct comparisons challenging, but one thing is undeniable—winning on either tour is far from easy.


There’s a common misconception that a top PGA Tour player could transition to LIV Golf and start winning immediately, but history proves otherwise. Take Jon Rahm, for example—when he moved to LIV, he was widely regarded as one of the top three players in the world, yet it still took him time to secure his first victory. Similarly, Cameron Smith, ranked No. 2 in the world when he joined LIV, did not win straight away either. This isn't because they suddenly became worse golfers, but rather because the competition at the top of LIV is exceptionally strong. Players like Rahm, Bryson DeChambeau, Brooks Koepka, Cameron Smith, Sergio Garcia, and Joaquin Niemann are all major champions or world-class talents capable of winning on any given week.


The biggest distinction between the two tours is depth. The PGA Tour fields over 140 players per event, many (Not all) of whom are capable of winning, while LIV Golf has a fixed 54-player field. Because of this, PGA Tour events often demand a sustained level of play over four rounds to secure victory, whereas LIV’s three-round, no-cut format places greater emphasis on getting off to a strong start and maintaining momentum.
So yes I concede winning on the PGA Tour is (slightly) more difficult but winning on Liv should not be dismissed as easy and insignificant.


However, the idea that winning on LIV is significantly easier is a misconception. The top players on LIV are just as talented as the best on the PGA Tour, and you still have to beat them to win. Many LIV stars have continued to compete at the highest level in major championships, proving their abilities are still world-class. The fact remains—whether it’s on the PGA Tour or LIV Golf, winning at the highest level requires elite performance, and success on either tour is a testament to a player’s skill.


All of these top players are remarkable golfers and we should just celebrate their skills regardless of tour and pro golf politics. AMEN

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Again, no he didn't - and you've literally just posted what he actually said!!!

Why are you persistently embellishing and corrupting the facts? Or do you really not understand the difference?

Calm down and check edit

 

[Smigger79]

Gooch did say there would be an asterisk if Rory won the masters and he wasn’t in the field.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Comparing the PGA Tour and LIV Golf is complex because they operate under different structures, feature distinct course setups, and vary in field depth. The PGA Tour remains the deepest and most established circuit, primarily hosting events in the U.S., while LIV Golf competes globally with a smaller but highly concentrated field of elite players. These differences make direct comparisons challenging, but one thing is undeniable—winning on either tour is far from easy.


There’s a common misconception that a top PGA Tour player could transition to LIV Golf and start winning immediately, but history proves otherwise. Take Jon Rahm, for example—when he moved to LIV, he was widely regarded as one of the top three players in the world, yet it still took him time to secure his first victory. Similarly, Cameron Smith, ranked No. 2 in the world when he joined LIV, did not win straight away either. This isn't because they suddenly became worse golfers, but rather because the competition at the top of LIV is exceptionally strong. Players like Rahm, Bryson DeChambeau, Brooks Koepka, Cameron Smith, Sergio Garcia, and Joaquin Niemann are all major champions or world-class talents capable of winning on any given week.


The biggest distinction between the two tours is depth. The PGA Tour fields over 140 players per event, many (Not all) of whom are capable of winning, while LIV Golf has a fixed 54-player field. Because of this, PGA Tour events often demand a sustained level of play over four rounds to secure victory, whereas LIV’s three-round, no-cut format places greater emphasis on getting off to a strong start and maintaining momentum.
So yes I concede winning on the PGA Tour is (slightly) more difficult but winning on Liv should not be dismissed as easy and insignificant.


However, the idea that winning on LIV is significantly easier is a misconception. The top players on LIV are just as talented as the best on the PGA Tour, and you still have to beat them to win. Many LIV stars have continued to compete at the highest level in major championships, proving their abilities are still world-class. The fact remains—whether it’s on the PGA Tour or LIV Golf, winning at the highest level requires elite performance, and success on either tour is a testament to a player’s skill.


All of these top players are remarkable golfers and we should just celebrate their skills regardless of tour and pro golf politics. AMEN

Winning any golf tournament is hard

There are so many variables when any plays in any tour comp

The level of “hardness” is all subjective and most of the time it’s the course as opposed to the others

I found a lot of the PGAT tours on bland open courses set up for birdies

The recent DP event shows that it’s not always easy

It’s also why I will always like the US and The Open because that’s where the courses are the hardest to win on for varying reasons

 

[rksquire]

I would expect most top sports people to have a 'best of' attitude as part of their DNA, but actually achieving it or being regarded as such by fans/ peers is very difficult.... the criteria for Golf is also debatable; general consensus is it needs backed up by a Major, so Luke Donald, for example, spent quite a while as 'officially' the worlds no.1 golfer, but was he one of the best? Similarly, Darren Clarke won the Open - is he one of the best? I would imagine both thought for a period of time at least they could potentially be one of the very best. On Full Swing, Lowry basically admits he knows he's not as good as others and this doesn't seem to me to be right admission at this time in his career. Gooch, whilst blessed with a golf swing isn't blessed with braincells. Just like Monty and others though, he won't be the last to be deluded in their own wee world, albeit a delusion that makes millions.

 

[wjemather]

Gooch did say there would be an asterisk if Rory won the masters and he wasn’t in the field.

Close, and some certainly took his comments to mean that (still do), but it isn't what he actually said.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I would expect most top sports people to have a 'best of' attitude as part of their DNA, but actually achieving it or being regarded as such by fans/ peers is very difficult.... the criteria for Golf is also debatable; general consensus is it needs backed up by a Major, so Luke Donald, for example, spent quite a while as 'officially' the worlds no.1 golfer, but was he one of the best? Similarly, Darren Clarke won the Open - is he one of the best? I would imagine both thought for a period of time at least they could potentially be one of the very best. On Full Swing, Lowry basically admits he knows he's not as good as others and this doesn't seem to me to be right admission at this time in his career. Gooch, whilst blessed with a golf swing isn't blessed with braincells. Just like Monty and others though, he won't be the last to be deluded in their own wee world, albeit a delusion that makes millions.

How to judge as you point out. Do you go on
Majors
Tour wins (and if so what tour. Would a player only playing PGAT be seen as better for winning and a DP player only playing on that tour. Would a BMW winner at Wentworth be seen as better/worse/same as say the Shriners or other run of the mill event)
Order of merits. Clearly Monty did something right get so many in a row
Ryder cup appearances

It is impossible to decide although for many I am sure majors is a starting point.

 

[Slab]

Guys this is pretty simple, you all just have to agree what size the group of players is that make up 'the best in the world '

If it's 10 he's not in it
Is it 50, is it 500, is it more?

There's around 66 million play the game

What's your number?

 

[Mel Smooth]

You don't win a tour that contains Bryson, Brooks, Cam, DJ, Patrick Reed, Joaco Niemann, Sergio Garcia etc, without being one of the best players in the world over that time period. Period.

He definitely isn't up there right now, but Gooch was in 2023.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Guys this is pretty simple, you all just have to agree what size the group of players is that make up 'the best in the world '

If it's 10 he's not in it
Is it 50, is it 500, is it more?

There's around 66 million play the game

What's your number?

For me it’s someone who is a top ten player in the world consistently

Someone who is consistently winning or challenging for the big events

Consistent top 5/10 within the majors

A player who gets into the Ryder Cup team without too many issues

At the moment the best in the world imo

Scheffler
Rory
BDC
Rahm
Koepka
Schauffele
Morikawa


That’s the the top bunch - the real cream of the sport

Below them there is the likes of

Aberg
Hovland
Niemann
Lowry
Hatton
Clark
Thomas
Lee
Matsuyama
Fleetwood

 

[Fore Right]

For me it’s someone who is a top ten player in the world consistently

Someone who is consistently winning or challenging for the big events

Consistent top 5/10 within the majors

A player who gets into the Ryder Cup team without too many issues

At the moment the best in the world imo

Scheffler
Rory
BDC
Rahm
Koepka
Schauffele
Morikawa


That’s the the top bunch - the real cream of the sport

Below them there is the likes of

Aberg
Hovland
Niemann
Lowry
Hatton
Clark
Thomas
Lee
Matsuyama
Fleetwood

The problem is this is totally subjective so their is no definitive right answer.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

The problem is this is totally subjective so their is no definitive right answer.

Exactly that , it will always be opinion

It’s very hard to quantify unless you use the rankings but because of the tour split it’s hard to use them and majors are always a little bit varied at times but they do sort out the cream

 

[Dunesman]

It is subjective, but below the top half dozen LIV guys, the fall off in level is dramatic. Add in the small fields, and the fact that some are total non factors, and a LIV win tells very little if anything about a players level in the wider scheme. Its just too easy to win there. That Phil, at 54, fantastic all time player as he was, can still show up at the top of a leaderboard is an example of the weak field. Brooks and BdC can rightfully claim to be the peers of McIlroy, Scheffler etc. But those below them, are in no way peers of Lowry, Cantlay, McIntyre, Lee, Clark, Thomas. LIV just doesnt have that category of player.

 

[C7usk]

Maybe Niemann if he has a good start

Got a sneaky feeling about Lefty, he has been playing well on Liv and knows Augusta better than most

Did you get round to putting a bet on Phil?

 

[Fore Right]

Did you get round to putting a bet on Phil?

Yes each way at 250-1 as my punt

Also got money on Scottie and Niemann to win.

 

[evemccc]

Again, your words not his (or indeed anyone else's).
How about you try making your point without embellishing it with untrue statements in order to ridicule someone you don't know?

Well said

The conjecture, hyperbole, disingenuous misinformation and general outlandishnesss from ‘certain’ posters on this forum is really something..

 

[cleveland52]

The problem is this is totally subjective so their is no definitive right answer.

Of course, it's subjective, and that's why the OWGR was invented: so, people would stop using their gut feelings.

 

[cleveland52]

Comparing the PGA Tour and LIV Golf is complex because they operate under different structures, feature distinct course setups, and vary in field depth. The PGA Tour remains the deepest and most established circuit, primarily hosting events in the U.S., while LIV Golf competes globally with a smaller but highly concentrated field of elite players. These differences make direct comparisons challenging, but one thing is undeniable—winning on either tour is far from easy.


There’s a common misconception that a top PGA Tour player could transition to LIV Golf and start winning immediately, but history proves otherwise. Take Jon Rahm, for example—when he moved to LIV, he was widely regarded as one of the top three players in the world, yet it still took him time to secure his first victory. Similarly, Cameron Smith, ranked No. 2 in the world when he joined LIV, did not win straight away either. This isn't because they suddenly became worse golfers, but rather because the competition at the top of LIV is exceptionally strong. Players like Rahm, Bryson DeChambeau, Brooks Koepka, Cameron Smith, Sergio Garcia, and Joaquin Niemann are all major champions or world-class talents capable of winning on any given week.


The biggest distinction between the two tours is depth. The PGA Tour fields over 140 players per event, many (Not all) of whom are capable of winning, while LIV Golf has a fixed 54-player field. Because of this, PGA Tour events often demand a sustained level of play over four rounds to secure victory, whereas LIV’s three-round, no-cut format places greater emphasis on getting off to a strong start and maintaining momentum.
So yes I concede winning on the PGA Tour is (slightly) more difficult but winning on Liv should not be dismissed as easy and insignificant.


However, the idea that winning on LIV is significantly easier is a misconception. The top players on LIV are just as talented as the best on the PGA Tour, and you still have to beat them to win. Many LIV stars have continued to compete at the highest level in major championships, proving their abilities are still world-class. The fact remains—whether it’s on the PGA Tour or LIV Golf, winning at the highest level requires elite performance, and success on either tour is a testament to a player’s skill.


All of these top players are remarkable golfers and we should just celebrate their skills regardless of tour and pro golf politics. AMEN

While I mostly agree with you, would you say that LIVs top ten players match up with the PGAT top ten player?

We should easily be able to match the players up based on resumes and recent activities.

 

[Dunesman]

It is subjective, but below the top half dozen LIV guys, the fall off in level is dramatic. Add in the small fields, and the fact that some are total non factors, and a LIV win tells very little if anything about a players level in the wider scheme. Its just too easy to win there. That Phil, at 54, fantastic all time player as he was, can still show up at the top of a leaderboard is an example of the weak field. Brooks and BdC can rightfully claim to be the peers of McIlroy, Scheffler etc. But those below them, are in no way peers of Lowry, Cantlay, McIntyre, Lee, Clark, Thomas. LIV just doesnt have that category of player

Reactions:Fore Right, Beezerk and Mel Smooth

Nice that we are all on the same page on this one now, and I think the above does get to the crux of the matter for LIVs effective failure to launch.
Do we really foresee LIV having regular participation in a post PIF/PGAT agreement, of the 30 or so top level golfers that would be needed to make a LIV tournament viable ? Isnt that the fundamental problem ? Thats a lot of tournaments the golfers in the world top 60 or so would have to commit to. There just arent enough top rank golfer to have two high level tours. So far, they stayed with PGAT which left LIV stuck in this holding pattern limbo until it's fate is decided.

 

[Fore Right]

Reactions:Fore Right, Beezerk and Mel Smooth

Nice that we are all on the same page on this one now, and I think the above does get to the crux of the matter for LIVs effective failure to launch.
Do we really foresee LIV having regular participation in a post PIF/PGAT agreement, of the 30 or so top level golfers that would be needed to make a LIV tournament viable ? Isnt that the fundamental problem ? Thats a lot of tournaments the golfers in the world top 60 or so would have to commit to. There just arent enough top rank golfer to have two high level tours. So far, they stayed with PGAT which left LIV stuck in this holding pattern limbo until it's fate is decided.

How is the water today ?