Things turning for Tiger?

[TwoGlovesGarcia]

Phil Mickelson
Gary Woodland
Webb Simpson
Bill Haas
Jonathan Byrd
Keegan Bradley
Jeff Overton
Sergio Garcia
Anthony Kim
Tom Watson
Retief Goosen

At least half a dozen others I didn't even mention who have won majors ... I qualify that as a great field.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Tadashi70]

No, I'm arguing the opposite. By artificially pumping up the inferior events you named , you cheapen all of the other events.

The top events on tour got to that position by having the best courses, best dates, best weather, best sponsors. Why reward the worst events on tour (at the expense of the others), by forcing players to go there?

Would college football make a rule saying crappy bowls like the motor city bowl or liberty bowl should get to host a bcs bowl once every 5-10 years? Of course not.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Ok, this my opinion but Bayhill, Doral blue are not great courses and hold two of the elite events of the year. Guys are going to play these events 1. Tradition
2. Money
3. Perks that go along with the win

If you push guys to play the not so glamorous events they will draw crowds and profits. The top guys are going to miss the tip events ever. Two many world ranking points to many good names. But the Viking will be lucky to have a top 10 player. Just as world #1 played in Disney others should follow suit. Disney got new blood just by Luke playing. He will defend next year. Frys got a boost from TW and it will likely get him again in 2012. And by the way the Frys course is a beast

 

[JB]

There are decent names on the list (and every list). Much of that list to me does not equal a "great" field. Woodland, Overton, Byrd, etc...By the time the season ended, perhaps (Haas & Simpson & Bradley), but not at the time of the Greenbriar. The top talent outside of Phil was not around with a few exceptions. Above average maybe, but you take Mickelson out of that field and its below average for the consumer by a landslide in my opinion. Which further proves what I have been saying all along that the top talent dictates what makes a great event and getting the top 10-20 as well as big name stars to most events change everything.

I guess some just view the word "great" as different than others.

 

[SW]

Negative for the Tour? Unhappy players. And (this isn't a very good comparison at all, but) we know how it turned out for the NBA. Obviously the NBA is unionized while the Tour is not, but I don't think having unhappy players would be good, especially when those players are the top in the sport.

Plus. As I've said, I just don't think it's the right thing to do.

Ask yourself this. "Would I rather be unhappy and playing game while making millions, or being happy and helping to put a nail in the coffin of the very thing that made me wealthy?"

There is unabashedly, a duty to serve future generations. That's my take on it, like it or hate it. When the heritages or other smaller tournaments are gone and you can't take your son or daughter to watch the worlds best play a game you love, because other than a few select tournaments in the US the best didn't care to play here but instead decided to chase a dollar oversees. When that happens, ask yourself what could've been done.

 

[CharlieMoy]

Phil Mickelson
Gary Woodland
Webb Simpson
Bill Haas
Jonathan Byrd
Keegan Bradley
Jeff Overton
Sergio Garcia
Anthony Kim
Tom Watson
Retief Goosen

At least half a dozen others I didn't even mention who have won majors ... I qualify that as a great field.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

That's a terrible field if you're looking at it from the weekend of the greenbrier. Haas and Bradley were both nobody's until the end of this year.

 

[MWard]

The only thing that makes an event inferior is field. Adding talent to any event makes it no longer "inferior". The perfect example of this is Transitions. There arent too many guys on tour that would tell you Bay Hill or Doral are better courses than Copperhead. The dates are virtually identical and so is the weather. But due to being sandwiched between a WGC event and an invitational by the king, it has no chance to succeed. Yet if you had top talent play it once every five years, it becomes one of the better events in the swing because of the course.

Copperhead course doesn't get the love because it's a tough, tight course. It didn't get the love even when it was in the fall. Personally I rank that course right there with Harbour Town. Tight, tough, and not a course that will ever pull the top 10 pLayers in the world. Sucks too, cause I like that course from a viewing standpoint. Not sure from a playing standpoint cause it beats me a bit senseless

 

[JB]

Copperhead course doesn't get the love because it's a tough, tight course. It didn't get the love even when it was in the fall. Personally I rank that course right there with Harbour Town. Tight, tough, and not a course that will ever pull the top 10 pLayers in the world. Sucks too, cause I like that course from a viewing standpoint. Not sure from a playing standpoint cause it beats me a bit senseless

Hmmm.
Kaymer, Watney, Simpson, Furyk, Rose, Bradley, Woodland, Glover, Garcia, Snedeker, etc.
Ironically sounds like the same field the other member described as "great". Now quite a few of these were not in the top 10 at the time, but I know Kaymer was and I believe so was Watney and Furyk. However when speaking to most, being sandwiched in between 2 other must play events, it is too taxing and cutting out a WGC or the King's invitational is just not in the cards.

 

[2Shoes]

I've read through every post and would like to add this:

From the standpoint some have listed with regards to "globalization of the game" and using examples of the NFL, NHL, & NBA... Those leagues are reaching out to other countries themselves meaning the NFL takes 2 teams, officials, and key employees and plays in other countries, not another country paying millions of dollars to have Tom Brady skip a NE game and come QB for a makeshift team or paying multiple top NFL stars to participate as well.

I don't necessarily agree with 100% of any particular post here, but I did want to point this out. I agree with the viewpoint that PGA players should do a better job of shepherding their sport while they benefit. My stance would be to put rules in place to assure that the tour as a whole is getting the best possible field every week.

I agree with JB & Tadashi's point of view in that the players should know enough to support as many tournaments as they could. Yes these guys are smart enough to know it WOULD make a difference. But the top players who have been ultra successful in most cases won't once they feel they may not have to. Of course with great success comes greater demands and different pressures. In the end, I think it's still as basic as "if you want dessert, you need to eat your vegetables too", and IMO that's on the PGA Tour.

 

[bobgeorge]

Honest question. What's the negative?

The only negative I would see is that some tournaments that draw top 10 players now would be watered down because players are only going to play the same amount of tournaments a year. This would not be a big problem because say each event would be down one less top 10 player.

The hard part about the rule would be managing it. How would you do it & what would be the penalty to the player? Say for example, a player like Phil or Tiger don't show up to an event in the 5 year period...what is the PGA going to do? Take their PGA membership?

 

[Tadashi70]

The only negative I would see is that some tournaments that draw top 10 players now would be watered down because players are only going to play the same amount of tournaments a year. This would not be a big problem because say each event would be down one less top 10 player.

The hard part about the rule would be managing it. How would you do it & what would be the penalty to the player? Say for example, a player like Phil or Tiger don't show up to an event in the 5 year period...what is the PGA going to do? Take their PGA membership?

Here's how I see it, the majors, WGC and TPC have the best fields of the year. Then add Quailhollow, Bayhill, the memorial and AT&T of course the 4 playoff events. These events usually are not missed by the top guys collectively. There may be an exception from year to year.
Now holding the idea that field will be made up of a large % of the top 50 and add a two year two tournament push and you now spread the love and take their total from 17 to 19.

If they don't show them fine them and give that money to charities in the town of the event they missed. I'm talking serious fines of 6 figures.

TW plays in an event like the transitions in Tampa and they would sell out everyday. He makes the cut the area around the event tribe. Kids dreams get full filled and tournaments keep on chugging along. If he wins he is more apt to come back. The same holds try's for Phil, Rory, and lee or even a Gmac. People want to get close to these guys and say they where there when...

 

[CharlieMoy]

I wish Tiger would play in lesser fields. I think he'd win more, and I guess the tournament would benefit too. Id sure love watching Tiger putting the stomps on Brandt Snedeker on Sunday

 

[the_paulo]

It really bemuses me when I read posts from people who think these guys would still be millionaires without the professional tour.