We've launched the new forums! Read more here

NEWS OWGR Says No to LIV Golf

In the majors I would like to see the best players in the world compete, and some of those players are on LIV. Not sure what the answer is.
 
70sSanO said:
It is not economically beneficial to award OWGR points LIV golfers. The term fair doesn’t exist in business, and this is a business. Life is not fair.

It doesn’t matter what percentage of LIV golfers are in the top 100, because not one of them moves the needle enough to make a change. There is no generational talent, in their prime, on LIV. If they had a 20 year old Tiger things would be different.

It remains to be seen if the Saudis involvement with the PGAT and DPWT actually comes to fruition. If it does, LIV will probably run its course and all parties received their compensation.

If the deal falls apart, then things might change for LIV and “upon further review” they might get points.

John
Click to expand...
OWGR is not supposed to be a business.
Its entire premise is to offer ranking across tours.

And I guess the rest of the post makes my point. If you dont believe DJ, Bryson, etc move the needle, there is no reason to continue. That is hysterical.
The entire notion that every LIV thread is filled with these same posts, says they absolutely move the needle :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
Sean said:
In the majors I would like to see the best players in the world compete, and some of those players are on LIV. Not sure what the answer is.
Click to expand...
LIV just needs (or wants?) to find away to open up their league to some sort of qualification/turnover. It seemed well spelled out in the decision to deny.
 
JB said:
OWGR is not supposed to be a business.
Its entire premise is to offer ranking across tours.

And I guess the rest of the post makes my point. If you dont believe DJ, Bryson, etc move the needle, there is no reason to continue. That is hysterical.
The entire notion that every LIV thread is filled with these same posts, says they absolutely move the needle :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I like Bryson. I would like to see him play. DJ used to move the needle, but he isn’t the same golfer, except for those rare occasions.

Heck for as much interest as Tiger gets he’s not close to the golfer that made him. Brooks is an embarrassment nearly every time he opens his mouth, with stuff like his should have won 9 majors.

I do hope Talor Gooch does well, as well as a few other young players.

Best case for LIV in the future would be to get Charlie Woods and Little John Daly. With the latter being more likely.

John
 
  • WTF
Reactions: JB


Is he right?
 
Kodi'aK said:
To rank players. I get and agree with that. The idea is to rank equally by equally comparable standards right.
Click to expand...
equally comparable standards are impossible. If some pros are playing PGA West and some are playing Albatross Golf Club in Prague and OWGR can still adjust and provide ratings then any argument against providing rankings is just ridiculous. This is no place for politics and turf protection, get the job done or resign and let someone else get it done.
 
CrashTestDummy said:
If you just look at the OWGR Governing Board, you can easily see how slanted it is. Not independent in the least. The conflicts of interests is just glaring. Lol.



OWGR Governing Board

Chairman - Peter Dawson CBE
Augusta National Golf Club - Will Jones, Executive Director
PGA European Tour - Keith Pelley, Chief Executive
PGA of America - Seth Waugh, Chief Executive Officer
PGA Tour - Jay Monahan, Commissioner
The R&A - Martin Slumbers, Chief Executive
USGA - Mike Whan, Chief Executive Officer
International Federation of PGA Tours - Keith Waters
Click to expand...
All old white guys, so much for the diversity in golf they’re always preaching about.
 
 
OWGR told LIV they needed to up their average player count and have relegation and promotion opportunities. They did that by either creating/modifying/acquiring that International Series/Asian Tour thing. Then OWGR said, "yeah, but that's not enough." They admittedly are degrading their results by not giving points to roughly 30% of the worlds best golfers based on other rankings, because they want LIV to not be able to let certain people keep playing despite playing poor. I still feel like if someone like GMac, Poulter or Garcia were be relegated and decide to play Asian/International/Austral-Asian events on a semi-regular basis and get OWGR points, they would dominate those tours and shoot up the rankings. Let the invitationals invite certain people, just like invitationals do, and give them points based on strength of field. Some will rise, some will fall, but it'll be based on the golf they're playing, not where.
 
So the OWGR is in cahoots with the PGAT...........and the OWGR is blocking LIV.............but the PGAT and LIV are planning a merger. What is missing?
 
LIV has done well in their media blast to send out a message and get folks to overlook the facts.

OWGR: Here’s a set of guidelines to qualify for points. You need to change a few things.
LIV: Nah. You’re obsolete, in cahoots, and this is a long game play.
 
I totally agree with Trevor Immelman: "“If I were going to start a pro golf tour, and I decided that I wanted my tour to have world ranking points available for the players, I’d probably at the outset make sure that my tour did whatever the world ranking organization required in order to comply,” Trevor Immelman tweeted late Wednesday. Immelman, of course, is the 2008 Masters champion who now serves as CBS Sports’ lead golf analyst."

I do the same thing in my field. I work with companies to insure their food processing is safe, so I perform microbial validation studies that they will submit my report to USDA-FSIS for approval of their process. However, so I don't get caught in the possibility that USDA does not agree with my procedures and methodology after I've done all that work, I submit to them my protocol before hand, and if they have issues with any part of it, we go over it; sometimes I include something additional that they want, sometimes they see my point and agree to my side of things. After we are in agreement with the protocol, then I do the work. The last thing I would want is for the company to submit my report to USDA and then be told they have a problem with what was done. Never have a problem doing it that way. That is, unless you are so full of yourself that you do whatever you want and expect others to accept whatever it is your throw at them. If they didn't dot-the "i"'s and cross the "t"s ahead of time to look into the likelihood that OWGR would/wouldn't give them ranking points for their exhibition tour, then they should accept the fate they've been handed, or make changes that comply. Sorry Phil (not really, but) but go cry somewhere else.

I'm curious....with over-the-hill-Phil getting the largest signing bonus among the LIV ex-PGA tour players, and he has been leading the charge of claims against PGA Tour (i.e., egregiously greedy, lawsuit initiation, got his lawyers in helping draw up the LIV tour, crying the most afterwards), I wonder if he over sold his hand that he "could deliver" the death blow to the PGA tour and get LIV established WITH OWGR points. He was so sure of himself early on, and still claims to be so.
 
Last edited:
bulls9999 said:
I totally agree with Trevor Immelman: "“If I were going to start a pro golf tour, and I decided that I wanted my tour to have world ranking points available for the players, I’d probably at the outset make sure that my tour did whatever the world ranking organization required in order to comply,” Trevor Immelman tweeted late Wednesday. Immelman, of course, is the 2008 Masters champion who now serves as CBS Sports’ lead golf analyst."

I do the same thing in my field. I work with companies to insure their food processing is safe, so I perform microbial validation studies that they will submit my report to USDA-FSIS for approval of their process. However, so I don't get caught in the possibility that USDA does not agree with my procedures and methodology after I've done all that work, I submit to them my protocol before hand, and if they have issues with any part of it, we go over it; sometimes I include something additional that they want, sometimes they see my point and agree to my side of things. After we are in agreement with the protocol, then I do the work. The last thing I would want is for the company to submit my report to USDA and then be told they have a problem with what was done. Never have a problem doing it that way. That is, unless you are so full of yourself that you do whatever you want and expect others to accept whatever it is your throw at them. If they didn't dot-the "i"'s and cross the "t"s ahead of time to look into the likelihood that OWGR would/wouldn't give them ranking points for their exhibition tour, then they should accept the fate they've been handed, or makes changes that comply. Sorry Phil (not really, but) but go cry somewhere else.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you if the OWGR board hadn't bent the guidelines so many times over the years to accommodate the PGAT.
 
bulls9999 said:
I totally agree with Trevor Immelman: "“If I were going to start a pro golf tour, and I decided that I wanted my tour to have world ranking points available for the players, I’d probably at the outset make sure that my tour did whatever the world ranking organization required in order to comply,” Trevor Immelman tweeted late Wednesday. Immelman, of course, is the 2008 Masters champion who now serves as CBS Sports’ lead golf analyst."

I do the same thing in my field. I work with companies to insure their food processing is safe, so I perform microbial validation studies that they will submit my report to USDA-FSIS for approval of their process. However, so I don't get caught in the possibility that USDA does not agree with my procedures and methodology after I've done all that work, I submit to them my protocol before hand, and if they have issues with any part of it, we go over it; sometimes I include something additional that they want, sometimes they see my point and agree to my side of things. After we are in agreement with the protocol, then I do the work. The last thing I would want is for the company to submit my report to USDA and then be told they have a problem with what was done. Never have a problem doing it that way. That is, unless you are so full of yourself that you do whatever you want and expect others to accept whatever it is. If they didn't dot-the "i"'s and cross the "t"s ahead of time to look into the likelihood that OWGR would/wouldn't give them ranking points for their exhibition tour, then they should accept the fate they've been handed, or makes changes that comply. Sorry Phil (not really, but) but go cry somewhere else.
Click to expand...
That parallel doesn’t work, because OWGR constantly evolves

They have a single goal, to rank players on various tours. I get it, those that dislike LIV just want LIV to go away. I do too. But this isn’t about LIV at its core. It’s about OWGR failing at their only goal.

If they had never changed, that would be different, but they change and alter all of the time “for the good of the rankings“
 
JB said:
That parallel doesn’t work, because OWGR constantly evolves

They have a single goal, to rank players on various tours. I get it, those that dislike LIV just want LIV to go away. I do too. But this isn’t about LIV at its core. It’s about OWGR failing at their only goal.

If they had never changed, that would be different, but they change and alter all of the time “for the good of the rankings“
Click to expand...
Huh, what did they change that accomodated anything that OWGR required? Nothing of consequence.
 
  • WTF
Reactions: JB
While hard to compare OWGR and USG regulations, there are similarities on the approach.

Having dealt with Government regulations for many years and while their interpretation can be asinine at times there is a simple approach to it.

You want to work toward getting an agreement on interpretation and the intent of the regulation that fits your business model. And the minimum required to meet them.

Saying your regulations are stupid, and go pound sand we will just keep you from getting any business. Having your employees sound off is equally as bad.

Generally it is possible to negotiate a way forward that fits the company’s business structure. It usually means implementing changes, but those changes may not significantly effect your processes.

For LIV, it might mean more positions on teams and allowing a way to qualify for those positions. It may not mean those trying to qualify will have a spot each week, but it will need to happen at times.

It just comes down to meeting a minimum requirement and demonstrating good faith even if the results are a minimum impact.

John
 
The question for me, is if LIV get points, is it possible due to their closed shop and guaranteed points for everyone every LIV tournament that it could artificially inflate the rankings of their members? It will take a while but once they start elevating surely it just continues to climb regardless of quality as strength of field will just continue to rise? Then you get Piot and Uhlein top 50 when theyre nowhere near that quality
 
funkysi said:
The question for me, is if LIV get points, is it possible due to their closed shop and guaranteed points for everyone every LIV tournament that it could artificially inflate the rankings of their members? It will take a while but once they start elevating surely it just continues to climb regardless of quality as strength of field will just continue to rise? Then you get Piot and Uhlein top 50 when theyre nowhere near that quality
Click to expand...
No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top