LIV Golf

[BubbaP]

So let's try and make some sense of this. Nothing is currently certain for the 2023 majors - is everyone agreed on that? (yes the Open have indicated no ban, and hinted but nothing more)

Each major can make some decisions along the lines of:
A) ban players who have turned out for LIV
B) alter their criteria to acknowledge LIV
C) no ban, but leave the criteria as previous years

IMO,
if A (ban), then there is an argument for the asterisk
for B & C in reality the wider golf watching public will likely have differing options depending on how they view the players who just make it in or out & the rights and wrongs of decisions made. Either way there are likely be disappointed players around the "cusp positions".

 

[Swango1980]

Well, it’s true, it matters not what I think anymore than it does you. What matters is the thoughts of those in charge of the majors, and they will want the best players in the world, in their events, to appease their backers. Pelley has already confirmed the position of The Open, and I’d expect the others to follow suit.

So, you are still telling us what you think, by telling us what you think the people in charge of the Majors think. Are you giving your own opinion, or the opinion of others? Have you spoken to them?

At any rate, 100% of people in here are fully aware that those responsible for the Majors want the best players playing (in fact, you could say that for any tournament organiser to be honest). So, that is not a point that really needs to be made. The question is, will they change their qualification criteria to suit LIV players? And, if they do, what reaction would all players, other than the 48 playing LIV, feel? Outside those 48, golfers have to effectively play for their career, and elevate themselves amongst their peers. So, if someone just misses out on a Major, but someone from LIV just squeezes in, having played in limited field sizes, limited rounds and no real risk of losing their LIV tour card, will all the golfers outside LIV be comfortable with that?

I'm sure someone has done the research (maybe even mentioned it), how many of the LIV golfers still qualify for Majors based on their performances pre-LIV (i.e. how many will be able to tee it up next year, event if they plummet down the world rankings)? Who are the big names that don't qualify, and need the ranking points?

 

[Backsticks]

IF, and a big IF the majors refused to admit the best players for say 20 years then yes maybe they would lose their "major" tag. But not for one year, especially as most of the LIV top players are already qualified

Yes, fair enough. The situation would be recoverable if it were only for a year or two. The 'winners' in those years though would still be lame duck champions, and wouldnt have real major winner status in the eyes of posterity.

 

[Aztecs27]

So, you are still telling us what you think, by telling us what you think the people in charge of the Majors think. Are you giving your own opinion, or the opinion of others? Have you spoken to them?

At any rate, 100% of people in here are fully aware that those responsible for the Majors want the best players playing (in fact, you could say that for any tournament organiser to be honest). So, that is not a point that really needs to be made. The question is, will they change their qualification criteria to suit LIV players? And, if they do, what reaction would all players, other than the 48 playing LIV, feel? Outside those 48, golfers have to effectively play for their career, and elevate themselves amongst their peers. So, if someone just misses out on a Major, but someone from LIV just squeezes in, having played in limited field sizes, limited rounds and no real risk of losing their LIV tour card, will all the golfers outside LIV be comfortable with that?

I'm sure someone has done the research (maybe even mentioned it), how many of the LIV golfers still qualify for Majors based on their performances pre-LIV (i.e. how many will be able to tee it up next year, event if they plummet down the world rankings)? Who are the big names that don't qualify, and need the ranking points?

This is an excellent point. If I play on the PGA Tour (because I choose to play there), why should I miss out on a place in a major because someone who's playing exhibition golf on 3-round, no-cut tournaments gets a spot instead?

I genuinely think if the LIV format followed a more traditional competition (4 rounds with cut), but with their own tweaks, there wouldn't be half the debate about exclusions from majors and it would make it a lot simpler to implement earning OWGR points.

 

[cleveland52]

This is an excellent point. If I play on the PGA Tour (because I choose to play there), why should I miss out on a place in a major because someone who's playing exhibition golf on 3-round, no-cut tournaments gets a spot instead?

I genuinely think if the LIV format followed a more traditional competition (4 rounds with cut), but with their own tweaks, there wouldn't be half the debate about exclusions from majors and it would make it a lot simpler to implement earning OWGR points.

Right! LIV series should follow the criteria to play in the majors.

 

[BubbaP]

This is an excellent point. If I play on the PGA Tour (because I choose to play there), why should I miss out on a place in a major because someone who's playing exhibition golf on 3-round, no-cut tournaments gets a spot instead?

I genuinely think if the LIV format followed a more traditional competition (4 rounds with cut), but with their own tweaks, there wouldn't be half the debate about exclusions from majors and it would make it a lot simpler to implement earning OWGR points.

Just on the highlighted item, see this on social media a lot.
Raises the question - what actually is "exhibition golf"? Is there an agreed definition?
I searched the internet and found this....

-----------
The two blockbuster exhibition matches the last two weeks have shown that televised golf at a high level can be safely played -- with four competitors.

Tiger Woods and Peyton Manning defeated Phil Mickelson and Tom Brady 1-up on Sunday at the Medalist Golf Club in Hobe Sound in the “Champions for Charity” match that pitted the two major golf champions and the two Super Bowl quarterbacks.

Last week, Rory McIlroy and Dustin Johnson beat Rickie Fowler and Matthew Wolff in a skins game that lasted 19 holes and was won by McIlroy on a closest-to-the-pin tiebreaker, with six skins on the line.
------------
People are more than entitled to dislike LIV golf of course, but I don't currently follow the exhibition label for a strokeplay competition where every shot counts.

The no cut, 3 round stuff isn't really worth re-visiting - as that has been done to death already, and everyone knows neither matter to the OWGR.

 

[Swango1980]

Just on the highlighted item, see this on social media a lot.
Raises the question - what actually is "exhibition golf"? Is there an agreed definition?
I searched the internet and found this....

-----------
The two blockbuster exhibition matches the last two weeks have shown that televised golf at a high level can be safely played -- with four competitors.

Tiger Woods and Peyton Manning defeated Phil Mickelson and Tom Brady 1-up on Sunday at the Medalist Golf Club in Hobe Sound in the “Champions for Charity” match that pitted the two major golf champions and the two Super Bowl quarterbacks.

Last week, Rory McIlroy and Dustin Johnson beat Rickie Fowler and Matthew Wolff in a skins game that lasted 19 holes and was won by McIlroy on a closest-to-the-pin tiebreaker, with six skins on the line.
------------
People are more than entitled to dislike LIV golf of course, but I don't currently follow the exhibition label for a strokeplay competition where every shot counts.

The no cut, 3 round stuff isn't really worth re-visiting - as that has been done to death already, and everyone knows neither matter to the OWGR.

What about WGC match-play competitions then?

I'd liken LIV with exhibition golf, primarily because it is effectively an invitational. Golfers get paid (handsomely), no matter how badly they play, so there is no real jeopardy to playing. This extends to the entire tour, rather than just even the individual competitions within the tour.

 

[Aztecs27]

What about WGC match-play competitions then?

I'd liken LIV with exhibition golf, primarily because it is effectively an invitational. Golfers get paid (handsomely), no matter how badly they play, so there is no real jeopardy to playing. This extends to the entire tour, rather than just even the individual competitions within the tour.

Exactly this. It's not like they're being paid a couple of £1000 per tournament to appear. They're invited and paid A LOT to play golf. If they win, then they win EVEN MORE and if they don't win, they can still fund their kids and grandkids through University. Win-Win.

 

[BubbaP]

What about WGC match-play competitions then?

I'd liken LIV with exhibition golf, primarily because it is effectively an invitational. Golfers get paid (handsomely), no matter how badly they play, so there is no real jeopardy to playing. This extends to the entire tour, rather than just even the individual competitions within the tour.

Thanks. Yes I agree the matchplay you mentioned is not exhibition. I was meaning it isn't skins or 4BBB.
I acknowledge you inserted the "handsomely", is that to differentiate from the variations of "paid no matter" on the other tours. I.e. is there a specific value cut off?

 

[cleveland52]

Just on the highlighted item, see this on social media a lot.
Raises the question - what actually is "exhibition golf"? Is there an agreed definition?
I searched the internet and found this....

-----------
The two blockbuster exhibition matches the last two weeks have shown that televised golf at a high level can be safely played -- with four competitors.

Tiger Woods and Peyton Manning defeated Phil Mickelson and Tom Brady 1-up on Sunday at the Medalist Golf Club in Hobe Sound in the “Champions for Charity” match that pitted the two major golf champions and the two Super Bowl quarterbacks.

Last week, Rory McIlroy and Dustin Johnson beat Rickie Fowler and Matthew Wolff in a skins game that lasted 19 holes and was won by McIlroy on a closest-to-the-pin tiebreaker, with six skins on the line.
------------
People are more than entitled to dislike LIV golf of course, but I don't currently follow the exhibition label for a strokeplay competition where every shot counts.

The no cut, 3 round stuff isn't really worth re-visiting - as that has been done to death already, and everyone knows neither matter to the OWGR.

People can explain Exhibition golf to you.....but the question is "Would you believe them"

 

[cleveland52]

Exactly this. It's not like they're being paid a couple of £1000 per tournament to appear. They're invited and paid A LOT to play golf. If they win, then they win EVEN MORE and if they don't win, they can still fund their kids and grandkids through University. Win-Win.

Plus, I liken LIV golf to a traveling circus ......in which the outcome could be manipulated if the owner chose to do so. Players are hand chosen in a closed shop.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Surely the circus is where the Tiger is wheeled out to entertain the gullible spectators every now and again.

 

[BubbaP]

Exactly this. It's not like they're being paid a couple of £1000 per tournament to appear. They're invited and paid A LOT to play golf. If they win, then they win EVEN MORE and if they don't win, they can still fund their kids and grandkids through University. Win-Win.

Thank, so if I have followed you have two angles - the amount of money, and the invite piece.
Liv Boston:
1st prize $4,000,000
Last spot $120,000
To cherry pick an extreme example - the Tour Championship
1st prize $18,000,000
Last spot $500,000
Certainly agree, all that is money I struggle to comprehend.
The invite side I can follow more easily - it is a weak spot for LIV, a mixed bag. Some players have qualified, Vincent Harding, Otaegui etc. And some have been the high profile start up names. I follow that not being liked.
Going back to the majors, if they aren't playing well then they wouldn't qualify would they?

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Rocco’s take:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588505131980570624

 

[BubbaP]

People can explain Exhibition golf to you.....but the question is "Would you believe them"

Seems an odd question. It isn't about whether the world is flat or not - I asked a genuine question try better understand someones opinion.
I have "no skin in this game".

 

[Ian_George]

...
The no cut, 3 round stuff isn't really worth re-visiting - as that has been done to death already, and everyone knows neither matter to the OWGR.

Except that's exactly what will prevent LIV from getting OWGR accreditation, so it does matter! And there are good reasons why! There's no reason - except ego or deliberate policy - why LIV can't comply with OWGR and continue with the current format as their main style.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Rocco’s take:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588505131980570624

I always liked Rocco, and now I like him a little bit more.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I still struggle to to understand how people do not want the best players to appear in the Majors.....

I struggle to understand how people don't understand the LIV players brought it on themselves; no one forced them to go. They're like people who buy a house near an airport because it's cheap and then try to get the airport shut because of the noise of the planes; do your homework & see what you're jumping into, don't just look at the money.

 

[BubbaP]

Except that's exactly what will prevent LIV from getting OWGR accreditation, so it does matter! And there are good reasons why! There's no reason - except ego or deliberate policy - why LIV can't comply with OWGR and continue with the current format as their main style.

Maybe I didn't word it quite right, what meant was the OWGR already gives points to 3 round comps, and points to comps with no cuts - that's just facts.
Many pages ago, thought there was a consensus (not that any of us can know for sure), that the qualifying entry piece & the length of time has been in existence were the main prevent reasons. (Probably some posts from LPhil).

 

[Imurg]

Maybe I didn't word it quite right, what meant was the OWGR already gives points to 3 round comps, and points to comps with no cuts - that's just facts.
Many pages ago, thought there was a consensus (not that any of us can know for sure), that the qualifying entry piece & the length of time has been in existence were the main prevent reasons. (Probably some posts from LPhil).

The 3 round/no cut tours that get points are development tours where there is a distinct upward path to join bigger tours.
What's the step up from LIV?
And don't say the Korn Ferry