NEWS OWGR Says No to LIV Golf
Bucketsofjoy
Well-known member
Its just 100% political. I'd have so much more respect for them if they'd just come out and say it.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #28
You said it way more eloquently than I did. Its such a huge problem and continues to divide fans, which is awful for the game.
So they are basically saying because of contracts and team aspect they may not try as hard for themselves?
I can get on board with limited points and agree 100% about the hypocrisy. Tour is only one board seat though. R&A, ANGC also on board and are more likely to be impartial I would guess. They made their beds when they left the PGAT and knew this would happen. Will all be moot soon enough anyway
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #31
Dont forget the Euro Tour and the Intl Fed of PGA Tours. Thats a lot of seats.
jdlive
Well-known member
I haven't removed any facts.
And if you want rankings not tied to tours and the majors, there are others like Data Golf, Sagarin, etc.
Well LIV can't really make those changes since their basic reason to exist is to only have those top players playing. Kind of at an impasse there but again, if the merger happens seems like it'll fix itself.
Blame Muñoz for the team aspect piece. But really blame the Board because using that as a sticking point is a worse call than one from Angel Hernandez.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #34
I never said I didnt want rankings tied to majors. In fact the opposite. What I said was that Tours that benefit from rankings should NOT have board seats that decide the rankings.
I don't even understand an argument against it. This isnt about me wanting LIV to get points, I want LIV to go away. This is about basic understanding on rankings and how flawed the approach is to have the tours that benefit the most from other tours being left out, deciding on the rules that leave them out.
Interesting. So I guess what about the PGA tour where Rory has already said he only cares about winning, so he goes super aggressive for a putt on 18, putting it 10 feet past and three putts handing the lead to someone else? It’s the same thing, is it not? The reasoning the OWGR is providing is starting to sound like how my 4yo tries to get out of doing something wrong.
Really short and clear, I like it.
jdlive
Well-known member
From the AP article:
PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan, European tour CEO Keith Pelley and Keith Waters of the International Federation of PGA Tours previously recused themselves from the LIV Golf decision to avoid any conflict of interest.
I guess I equally don't understand why the tours that created and managed OWGR shouldn't enforce their criteria when a new tour applies. But we're back to the same spot again, not going to agree.
Whoa, whoa...lets not get carried away. There is simply nothing in sports that is comparably bad to AH
That's where I was going with it as well. If not, it's like an * next to it.
Does that mean someone else is going to do the same thing, except name it the officially official?
By their definition sure it is not, but is there room to change the definition so it would be an inclusive ranking of golf for things that would be considered professional events?
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Messages
- 20,310
- Reaction score
- 38,372
- Location
- Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Handicap
- 0.1
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #43
I was speaking to the event.
Im okay with OWGR points awarded to anything, but just don't believe you can have something called the Official World Ranking when half of the last x amount of years major winners are not included while still playing active golf.
Just call it something else. State the obvious that this ranking is about the PGA Tour and their associates only. The majors are also for PGA Tour and their associates only.
Dancing around with the nonsense that you need this or that, all the while players that win once can go forever, etc etc etc is just so weird and removes the competition part out of the sport.
Rename it to something like the “Major Championship Qualification List” and I’m good.
In theory I’d prefer LIV have more of a qualification process to get points, but given the politics/optics I think the OWGR decision lacks a little pragmatism.
In theory I’d prefer LIV have more of a qualification process to get points, but given the politics/optics I think the OWGR decision lacks a little pragmatism.
...that they earned their way into through regular OPEN competition?
See above, they earned their way in. It's part of the season. No guarantees for anyone trying to get there.
Rory was trying to win, can you not see the difference? He gave his putt a chance, the other example did not try to win (for himself, tho yes for his team - see the problem in trying to assign that points?)
Birdieputt
Well-known member
How do we know they are top players though? According to the OWGR they are just a bunch of dudes golfing.
Doesn’t matter the why, it’s still limited field. You can’t use that as a reason as a no for one and a yes for another.
And that one is a grey area, but in both cases the player ends up with less points and another earns more where someone who arguably “should” have won ends up not.
They are playing a slippery game, and they don’t make sense anymore.
Would it make sense to limit how far down the leaderboard a LIV player gets OWGR points? Say only the top 24 each week get points? That essentially would impose a "cut" on the field and solve one of the perceived issues.
Surely. I also think that if they had points, you wouldn’t get people giving into the team over self as much as discussed previously. But right now they don’t have that. There are many ways they could make this work, they just don’t want to.