Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Starting in 1970 here were your multiple winners on TOUR… 70 – Casper (3) 71 – Trevino (5), Nicklaus (4), Palmer (3) 72 – Nicklaus (7), Trevino (3) 73 – Nicklaus (7), Weiskopf, Crampton (4) 74 – Miller (8), H. Green, Stockton (3) 75 – Nicklaus (5), Miller (4), Littler (3) 76 – H. Green, Crenshaw (3) 77 – T. Watson (4), Nicklaus (3) 78 – T. Watson (5), Player, Bean, Nicklaus (3) 79 – T. Watson (5), L. Graham (3) 80 – T. Watson (6), Trevino (3) 81 – Lietzke, T. Watson, Floyd, Rogers (3) 82 – Peete, Stadler (4), T. Watson, Floyd, L. Wadkins, Gilder (3) 83 – No multiple winners 84 – T. Watson, D. Watson (3) 85 – Strange, L. Wadkins (3) 86 – Tway (4), Zoeller (3) 87 – Strange, Azinger (3) 88 – Strange (4), Lyle (3) 89 – Kite (3) 90 – Levi (4) 91 – No multiple winners 92 – Couples, Love III, Cook (3) 93 – Price (4), Azinger (3) 94 – Price (5), McCumber (3) 95 – Janzen, Norman (3) 96 – Mickelson (4), Brooks (3) 97 – Woods (4), Duval (3) 98 – Duval (4) There’s two ways to look at this. One is to note that in more recent years, there aren’t as many multiple winners per year. In the ’70s and early ’80s, it was common for there two be more than two multiple winners each….. In fact, though the players who do dominate seem to do so for a shorter period of time than they did back in the "good ol’ days,"
This is the key point. Look at your own data; look at the number of multiple winner years Watson had, Nicklaus had; Palmer had; Trevino had. Multiple win years are still possible, even for older golfers. So why do we only get great golf from a "star" for just a couple of years? Look at Fred Couples. Would his attitude be the same if he had to work to stay on the PGA tour? I don’t mind the incessant hype over someone who IS winning. The Woods stuff got out of hand AFTER he stopped winning more than once in a while. The Duval hype is well deserved. I will boldly predict that Woods will NEVER be dominant. He will finish high, but fall short most of the time. I know I am contradicting a prediction made earlier that he will have a great year this year, but looking at him play, he doesn’t have any fire on Sunday. Duval at least gave it a shot, and finished ahead of Woods in the Masters. We shall see, however; but if the World Golf Championships get big ratings, the formula will be set! I liked the Anderson, not becasue there were big names in the finals, but because the finalists were clearly playing intense high pressure golf…not what you see in a typical PGA Tour event. Rob
Response:
How many more tournaments do you think Tiger or Duval would win if they played an additional 10-12 tournaments a year? One more win? Two more wins?
Based on Duval’s winning percentage over the last 18 months, he would win at least two more tounaments. Woods would probably not win any. In each of the last three years (counting ‘99), one of them has won four tournaments. Add another win or two, and now you’re starting to get into "dominant" win totals. But their theory is that the burn-out of the constant travel would take away their edge and they’d actually win less. Maybe yes, maybe no. We’ll probably never find out.
Burn out is a huge factor over the length of a season and career. These guys travel a lot and have to play top notch golf all of the time. I was really tired just flying back from Florida to Germany last week 
But if there’s a reason why there’s less domination today, it’s my opinion the reason isn’t the all-exempt TOUR. It’s that there are too darn many tournaments, and the best players can’t play in ‘em all, so some of the lesser-known guys bust through, thereby spreading the wealth — both of money and of wins.
I think that the all-exempt tour has had a detrimental affect on the tour. Monday qualifying was an arduous task. You had to play very well just to get in to a tournament. These days, you shoot one good round in a tournament and you have made a bunch of money. Having to qualify for a tournament would have meant that many golfers would not have had this opportunity. I have no problem with the tour spreading the wealth, and I really do not have any big gripe with the all-exempt tour. I do fell, though, that some of the drive has been reduced to perform at a top level wekk in and week out. David – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Randy
Response:
It would help if you think of golfers on the PGA Tour as what sells the TV rights and attracts the tournament sponsor money and corporate tents and sells tournament tickets, clubs, and apparel etc. Mid-ranked pros make as much by "endorsements" as they do by tournament winnings, and top-ranked pros make much much more from deals than from playing. The PGA Tour eligibility rules may not be COMPLETELY structured to keep baby-faced Fred and sweet-swingin’ Nicko around, even if their games are off, but they sure won’t change them if it adversely affects the lifeblood of the purses and other revenue streams for the players and PGA Tour brass. The compromise so far has been for things like the Tour Championship, limited to the season’s top-30 money winners, the Masters by invitation only, and funny-money specials like the Shoot-out, Skins, and Andresen. Your problem stems from the second-tier guys winning? or having to watch them win? If they win, well, that’s because they played better (and had a little good luck) better than everyone else in the tournament. If you don’t want them to win, shoot them. If you don’t want them to win SO OFTEN, then give your favorite pros a handicap. If you don’t like having to watch them win so often and feel deprived of the opportunity of watching your favorites, that’s a problem of tv braodcasting, following the leaders and trying to present the tournament as a dramatic conflict between contenders, with the result that they IGNORE everyone who is out of the running at least on Sunday, except for a few cameos of "notables." Wouldn’t you have the same problem if you reduced the field, unless the field was comprised only of your favorites? I say the extent to which favorites win is just how it goes, and Glory Be!! Hosannah! for the grinders who can whip such excellent golfers!!
Response:
I can’t disagree with your comments. The main thing that bothers me is that there has not been a real star emerge from the PGA Tour era. The only one they could claim is Watson, who really started in the PGA era. IMHO, what is happening now is that the really great golfers have a couple of good years, make the big bucks, get content, and just play out the rest of their career on the PGA Tour.
But then that is what separates the good players from the really great players – those golfers who were able to stay at the pinnacle of the game for longer than two or three good seasons. To be considered one of the best you must have had some longevity to your game. In the last two decades few players have stood out from the rest in this regard. The only players who have had any sort of domination in world golf (IMO) are Ballesteros, Norman and Faldo. Two of them aren’t PGA Tour regulars. Also none of them are American. Whether that says something about the PGA Tour and its effect on the players, I don’t know. At the end of the day the best barometer for greatness is still performance in the majors. The cream then does tend to rise to the top but every dog can have its day. If an "inferior" player beats the best players then his victory is all the more impressive. The US has been desperate for some home-grown talent to come along and dominate the game again. Of course when two candidates suddenly appear (DD and Tiger) all that happens is you start to squabble over who is the best rather than looking forward to their combined successes. Jim
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry, Robert, but I have to disagree with you on this one. But maybe our disagreement lies primarily in our definition of the term "star." It could be argued that there haven’t been as many "dominant" players as there were back in the days of Hogan and Snead and Nelson. But let’s examine the record… The exact date of origin of the PGA TOUR is a little hard to pinpoint, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s look at 1968 as the date. That’s when the Association of Professional Golfers (APG), an autonomous tournament players’ organization formed in breakaway from the PGA. As a compromise, the Tournament Players Division of the PGA was formed under the aegis of a 10-man policy board. A year later, Joseph Dey was named first Commissioner of the Tournament Players Division. Dey is also generally recognized as the first commissioner of the PGA TOUR. Starting in 1970 here were your multiple winners on TOUR… 70 – Casper (3) 71 – Trevino (5), Nicklaus (4), Palmer (3) 72 – Nicklaus (7), Trevino (3) 73 – Nicklaus (7), Weiskopf, Crampton (4) 74 – Miller (8), H. Green, Stockton (3) 75 – Nicklaus (5), Miller (4), Littler (3) 76 – H. Green, Crenshaw (3) 77 – T. Watson (4), Nicklaus (3) 78 – T. Watson (5), Player, Bean, Nicklaus (3) 79 – T. Watson (5), L. Graham (3) 80 – T. Watson (6), Trevino (3) 81 – Lietzke, T. Watson, Floyd, Rogers (3) 82 – Peete, Stadler (4), T. Watson, Floyd, L. Wadkins, Gilder (3) 83 – No multiple winners 84 – T. Watson, D. Watson (3) 85 – Strange, L. Wadkins (3) 86 – Tway (4), Zoeller (3) 87 – Strange, Azinger (3) 88 – Strange (4), Lyle (3) 89 – Kite (3) 90 – Levi (4) 91 – No multiple winners 92 – Couples, Love III, Cook (3) 93 – Price (4), Azinger (3) 94 – Price (5), McCumber (3) 95 – Janzen, Norman (3) 96 – Mickelson (4), Brooks (3) 97 – Woods (4), Duval (3) 98 – Duval (4) There’s two ways to look at this. One is to note that in more recent years, there aren’t as many multiple winners per year. In the ’70s and early ’80s, it was common for there two be more than two multiple winners each year. In the 90’s, there’s never been more than two (though I think my reference book may be in error — I’d swear Lehman won 3 in ‘96). But in any case, it’s rare that more than two players win multiple titles in recent years. That would seem to fly in the face of your theory. In fact, though the players who do dominate seem to do so for a shorter period of time than they did back in the "good ol’ days," it’s noteworthy to recall some of the champions on this list who have emerged in the PGA TOUR era. Clearly they are stars of the game… Nicklaus, Trevino, T. Watson, Miller, Strange, Price. And who knows how many years Duval will sit atop the list? And what about some others who, though they’ve never been regular PGA TOUR players (they play in Europe), are/were dominant in world golf — Faldo, Ballesteros, Langer. The ironic thing about what you’re implying — that golf needs dominant stars — is that every time TV tries to build up a player (they realize the drawing power of a "star," too), folks like those in RSG go apoplectic over their incessant hyping of the player. Another thing you haven’t factored in is that today, there are roughly 40 tournaments each year on the TOUR schedule. Back in Hogan’s day, there were maybe 25. It was easier for a player to make the majority of TOUR stops, whereas today, what with all the sponsor commitments, banquets to attend and other non-golf related schmoozing that’s become a part of the business side of a TOUR player’s life, it’s easy to understand why the guys who perennially finish in the top 25 don’t want to play in more than about 20-25 events a year. It’s too much of a drain. And that gives the Joe Durants of the world an opportunity to break through and win occasionally. But when you have a gathering of the top players in the world, such as at The Players Championship, it’s rare that you don’t see the cream rise to the top. I think the real culprit in creating the perception that there’s no dominant player today is that the schedule is too long. Too many tournaments means all of the top players will skip a percentage of those events, which will weaken the overall field. The sponsors know it, the TOUR knows it. That’s why they’re constantly tweaking the schedule, moving tournaments around — trying to make it as enticing as possible to attract the best players to each event. But there’s no way around it — Tiger’s gonna play 18-22 tournaments a year come hell or high water, Duval’s gonna make about 24-28, Love will play about 25, etc. All the big names limit their play, it’s just too much of a drain to be out there for 30-40 weeks a year. And when those guys aren’t in the field, the other lesser-known guys are gonna get their chances. How many more tournaments do you think Tiger or Duval would win if they played an additional 10-12 tournaments a year? One more win? Two more wins? In each of the last three years (counting ‘99), one of them has won four tournaments. Add another win or two, and now you’re starting to get into "dominant" win totals. But their theory is that the burn-out of the constant travel would take away their edge and they’d actually win less. Maybe yes, maybe no. We’ll probably never find out. But if there’s a reason why there’s less domination today, it’s my opinion the reason isn’t the all-exempt TOUR. It’s that there are too darn many tournaments, and the best players can’t play in ‘em all, so some of the lesser-known guys bust through, thereby spreading the wealth — both of money and of wins. Randy
Great post Randy. You summed up the problem correctly. Andy
Response:
I can’t disagree with your comments. The main thing that bothers me is that there has not been a real star emerge from the PGA Tour era. The only one they could claim is Watson, who really started in the PGA era. IMHO, what is happening now is that the really great golfers have a couple of good years, make the big bucks, get content, and just play out the rest of their career on the PGA Tour. They really don’t have to do much to keep their PGA Tour status. Thus we NEVER see a tournament where two or more great golfers are duking it out down the back nine on Sunday. Hogan/Sneed, Palmer/Nicklaus, Trevino/Nicklaus, Watson/Nicklaus…and that’s the end of the line, 20 years ago. As it is now, PGA Tour status is a given for the better golfers…they don’t really HAVE to work all that hard at it to stay in the top 125, which was NOT the case for Hogan, Snead or Palmer, who had to be in the top 10 or so every year. I think the top golfers will somehow be separated from the rest, as tournaments that do this get more attention (ie generate more income), and when money talks in modern golf, everyone listens (E. F. Hutton is out of business!). Rob
some other stuff snipped out….. What I think *is* interesting about your premise is how a superbly talented player, like David Duval, can rise above what is clearly a raised bar. It makes his accomplishments of the past two years all the more admirable. Randy
– http://www.mc.edu/~rhamilto
Response:
Robert Hamilton wrote … I can’t disagree with your comments. The main thing that bothers me is that there has not been a real star emerge from the PGA Tour era.
Sorry, Robert, but I have to disagree with you on this one. But maybe our disagreement lies primarily in our definition of the term "star." It could be argued that there haven’t been as many "dominant" players as there were back in the days of Hogan and Snead and Nelson. But let’s examine the record… The exact date of origin of the PGA TOUR is a little hard to pinpoint, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s look at 1968 as the date. That’s when the Association of Professional Golfers (APG), an autonomous tournament players’ organization formed in breakaway from the PGA. As a compromise, the Tournament Players Division of the PGA was formed under the aegis of a 10-man policy board. A year later, Joseph Dey was named first Commissioner of the Tournament Players Division. Dey is also generally recognized as the first commissioner of the PGA TOUR. Starting in 1970 here were your multiple winners on TOUR… 70 – Casper (3) 71 – Trevino (5), Nicklaus (4), Palmer (3) 72 – Nicklaus (7), Trevino (3) 73 – Nicklaus (7), Weiskopf, Crampton (4) 74 – Miller (8), H. Green, Stockton (3) 75 – Nicklaus (5), Miller (4), Littler (3) 76 – H. Green, Crenshaw (3) 77 – T. Watson (4), Nicklaus (3) 78 – T. Watson (5), Player, Bean, Nicklaus (3) 79 – T. Watson (5), L. Graham (3) 80 – T. Watson (6), Trevino (3) 81 – Lietzke, T. Watson, Floyd, Rogers (3) 82 – Peete, Stadler (4), T. Watson, Floyd, L. Wadkins, Gilder (3) 83 – No multiple winners 84 – T. Watson, D. Watson (3) 85 – Strange, L. Wadkins (3) 86 – Tway (4), Zoeller (3) 87 – Strange, Azinger (3) 88 – Strange (4), Lyle (3) 89 – Kite (3) 90 – Levi (4) 91 – No multiple winners 92 – Couples, Love III, Cook (3) 93 – Price (4), Azinger (3) 94 – Price (5), McCumber (3) 95 – Janzen, Norman (3) 96 – Mickelson (4), Brooks (3) 97 – Woods (4), Duval (3) 98 – Duval (4) There’s two ways to look at this. One is to note that in more recent years, there aren’t as many multiple winners per year. In the ’70s and early ’80s, it was common for there two be more than two multiple winners each year. In the 90’s, there’s never been more than two (though I think my reference book may be in error — I’d swear Lehman won 3 in ‘96). But in any case, it’s rare that more than two players win multiple titles in recent years. That would seem to fly in the face of your theory. In fact, though the players who do dominate seem to do so for a shorter period of time than they did back in the "good ol’ days," it’s noteworthy to recall some of the champions on this list who have emerged in the PGA TOUR era. Clearly they are stars of the game… Nicklaus, Trevino, T. Watson, Miller, Strange, Price. And who knows how many years Duval will sit atop the list? And what about some others who, though they’ve never been regular PGA TOUR players (they play in Europe), are/were dominant in world golf — Faldo, Ballesteros, Langer. The ironic thing about what you’re implying — that golf needs dominant stars — is that every time TV tries to build up a player (they realize the drawing power of a "star," too), folks like those in RSG go apoplectic over their incessant hyping of the player. Another thing you haven’t factored in is that today, there are roughly 40 tournaments each year on the TOUR schedule. Back in Hogan’s day, there were maybe 25. It was easier for a player to make the majority of TOUR stops, whereas today, what with all the sponsor commitments, banquets to attend and other non-golf related schmoozing that’s become a part of the business side of a TOUR player’s life, it’s easy to understand why the guys who perennially finish in the top 25 don’t want to play in more than about 20-25 events a year. It’s too much of a drain. And that gives the Joe Durants of the world an opportunity to break through and win occasionally. But when you have a gathering of the top players in the world, such as at The Players Championship, it’s rare that you don’t see the cream rise to the top. I think the real culprit in creating the perception that there’s no dominant player today is that the schedule is too long. Too many tournaments means all of the top players will skip a percentage of those events, which will weaken the overall field. The sponsors know it, the TOUR knows it. That’s why they’re constantly tweaking the schedule, moving tournaments around — trying to make it as enticing as possible to attract the best players to each event. But there’s no way around it — Tiger’s gonna play 18-22 tournaments a year come hell or high water, Duval’s gonna make about 24-28, Love will play about 25, etc. All the big names limit their play, it’s just too much of a drain to be out there for 30-40 weeks a year. And when those guys aren’t in the field, the other lesser-known guys are gonna get their chances. How many more tournaments do you think Tiger or Duval would win if they played an additional 10-12 tournaments a year? One more win? Two more wins? In each of the last three years (counting ‘99), one of them has won four tournaments. Add another win or two, and now you’re starting to get into "dominant" win totals. But their theory is that the burn-out of the constant travel would take away their edge and they’d actually win less. Maybe yes, maybe no. We’ll probably never find out. But if there’s a reason why there’s less domination today, it’s my opinion the reason isn’t the all-exempt TOUR. It’s that there are too darn many tournaments, and the best players can’t play in ‘em all, so some of the lesser-known guys bust through, thereby spreading the wealth — both of money and of wins. Randy
Response:
Medullosa wrote .. Tournament golf has declined in quality since the PGA Tour came into being; not becasue the AVERAGE tour golfer is worse, the average tour golfer is clearly better. The problem with current PGA Tour practice is that the cream does not rise to the top.
To be truthful, it never has. Though our recollection of the past brings to mind the great champions — the Nelsons and Hogans and Sarazens and Sneads and Hagens — the fact of the matter is, if you looked at a week-by-week, tournament-by-tournament run-down of who the winners were, week in and week out, you’d discover a good many names you’ve never heard of. Quite a few more than you think, which explains why you don’t remember them. But one thing you said is right on the mark — the overall level of play is better today than it’s ever been. It could be argued that the "best" players today aren’t quite at the level that the "best" players of all-time were at (there are good arguments on both sides of that debate, and I’m not looking to start that debate), but there’s no doubt about this — the lower-tier players on TOUR are better today than the lower-tier players of yesteryear. It’s not that the cream doesn’t rise to the top, it’s just that there’s more cream out there. We don’t get to see best against best too often because of all the clearly inferior (to the very best) golfers on the PGA Tour. We don’t get to see pairings of top players anymore because you always get a Mize, Pate, Brown or Durant getting in there week after week.
Same thing was true "back in the day." Though you can certainly point to a classic duel here and there in which a Hogan and a Snead came down the final few holes neck-and-neck, for every Hogan/Snead pairing, there were five Palmer/Nobody pairings when Arnie was in his prime. That hasn’t changed. It’s just that we tend to remember the headlines, not the specifics. These guys are good players, but clearly not in the same league as a Norman or a Woods or a Duval. However, in golf, a good enoigh player can be great from time to time, and with so many such players, the cream gets emulsified.
It’s a little disingenuous of you, as one of the consistent Tiger-bashers in the group, to assert that a player, or group of players, is inherantly "better" without having to measure up to the weekly test. The great thing about golf is that each player needn’t rely on his wide receiver, or his pitcher, or his goalie, to make a play. His destiny is in his own hands. If he wants to prove he’s the best, there’s one way to do it — go out and shoot the lowest number. That’s been the argument against Tiger — stop hyping the guy and let him prove it or not. Whether any player is, as you said, "clearly not in the same league" as another player is merely a judgement — it is clearly not relavent. The players who are "clearly better" that week are the ones whose names are at the top of the leaderboard. That’s how they measured it in the days of Old Tom Morris, and that’s how they measure it in the days of David Duval. And it’ll be the way they measure it in the days of Leroy Jetson. I imagine when those days arrive, somebody will reminisce about the good ol’ days when those old farts, Duval and Woods used to march up the 72nd hole dueling it out. But to date, that’s never happened on a Sunday. I think it would be better to require some sort of consistent performance from a player to let them get a shot at the big time, the big guys. After all, it is the interest in the big guys that make the money for them all. So heres a solution! Only 72 exempt players on the PGA tour; only 72 exempt
Sorry, [snipped] lengthy suggestion. My eyes glazed over… Fewer exempt players would, without a doubt, insure more of a "star system." But it ain’t gonna happen. But that’s sort of what they’ve tried to create with the World Golf Championship series. Only the world’s top players are invited. The lesser-known guys are belly-aching over it — meanwhile, they’re playing for a $400,000 top prize the same week at a Tucson Open or somesuch. So their complaints fall on deaf ears. What I think *is* interesting about your premise is how a superbly talented player, like David Duval, can rise above what is clearly a raised bar. It makes his accomplishments of the past two years all the more admirable. Randy
Response:
Just remember, two years ago you would have included Duval in the list of "nobodies" as you want to call them. He hadn’t won until then so why give him a chance to make your list. How would anyone ever get into your list if they didn’t get the chance to play with the so called "quality" players. Maybe we should do this for all sports. Lets see we could only have the Chicago Bulls in basketball, Yankees in baseball etc. But then they would not have anybody to play. What makes golf such a great sport is that anyone can play on any given day with the so called Big guys. Ever notice TV shows Tiger regardless where he is in the standings. Not that he is so much better but $$$$$$$, that’s the only reason. Why be so elitist? Enjoy!!!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tournament golf has declined in quality since the PGA Tour came into being; not becasue the AVERAGE tour golfer is worse, the average tour golfer is clearly better. The problem with current PGA Tour practice is that the cream does not rise to the top. We don’t get to see best against best too often because of all the clearly inferior (to the very best) golfers on the PGA Tour. We don’t get to see pairings of top players anymore because you always get a Mize, Pate, Brown or Durant getting in there week after week. These guys are good players, but clearly not in the same league as a Norman or a Woods or a Duval. However, in golf, a good enoigh player can be great from time to time, and with so many such players, the cream gets emulsified. I think it would be better to require some sort of consistent performance from a player to let them get a shot at the big time, the big guys. After all, it is the interest in the big guys that make the money for them all. So heres a solution! Only 72 exempt players on the PGA tour; only 72 exempt players maximum in any given tournament. 36, and only 36 play the weekend. Rounds wed, thur. Firday for cut playoff and rounds again sat and sun. PGA Tour events once every two weeks Each exempt PGA tour player guaranteed $250K; payout at end of year to those who don’t make $250K. 36 lowest players each year lose their card, but get a full Nike card. Top 36 from Nike to PGA Tour the following year. Nike has 144 exempt players. 72 fully exempt; guaranteed $100K. These 72 are 36 from previous years PGA Tour that got sent down and 2nd 36 from previous years Nike. Other 72 fully exempt, no money guarantee. Add more money to Nike purses. Nike events every two weeks, alternate with PGA Tour events. Bottom 36 on Nike lose Nike card. Top 36 from Q school to Nike. By alternating PGA Tour and Nike Tour events, you should generate more interest in the Nike Tour. Having players like Zoeller and Faldo on the Nike Tour should also make it a better tour. If players like Nike and Faldo don’t want to be in the second violins, they need to play better!…not insist that the level of the orchestra be brought down by their lack of consistency and ability. (I chose these guys based on rankings only). Bottom line is that if you want to stay on the big tour consistently, you need to be in the top 36 consistently. Doesn’t matter who you are. Only a few players could do this year after year, and we know who they are for that reason. The rest are the rest and live off of the attention drawn by the quality of play of the BEST. The best should always get the lions share of the proceeds. I think there would be more interest in tournaments, and not too many players could slough off a tournament without risking their playing privileges. Won’t happen, of course. Can’t have Fred Couples on the Nike Tour. He’s made too much money from golf…er, ahh correct that, contributed too much to the game <g. Pro golfers want security, but in a competitive sport, security breeeds complacency which produces lower levels of play and lower quality AT THE TOP..on AVERAGE! The odd tournament, like the Masters, essentially tries to choose only the top pros from the previous year, plus a few amateurs and revered older players…so we get a good, competitive tournament. Of course, complacency is harming all pro sports..ever try to watch a pro basketball regular season game…yawn…..most pro football games….yawn….I can’t get through the intro to a baseball game! Rob.
Response:
Tournament golf has declined in quality since the PGA Tour came into being; not becasue the AVERAGE tour golfer is worse, the average tour golfer is clearly better. The problem with current PGA Tour practice is that the cream does not rise to the top. We don’t get to see best against best too often because of all the clearly inferior (to the very best) golfers on the PGA Tour. We don’t get to see pairings of top players anymore because you always get a Mize, Pate, Brown or Durant getting in there week after week. These guys are good players, but clearly not in the same league as a Norman or a Woods or a Duval. However, in golf, a good enoigh player can be great from time to time, and with so many such players, the cream gets emulsified. I think it would be better to require some sort of consistent performance from a player to let them get a shot at the big time, the big guys. After all, it is the interest in the big guys that make the money for them all. So heres a solution! Only 72 exempt players on the PGA tour; only 72 exempt players maximum in any given tournament. 36, and only 36 play the weekend. Rounds wed, thur. Firday for cut playoff and rounds again sat and sun. PGA Tour events once every two weeks Each exempt PGA tour player guaranteed $250K; payout at end of year to those who don’t make $250K. 36 lowest players each year lose their card, but get a full Nike card. Top 36 from Nike to PGA Tour the following year. Nike has 144 exempt players. 72 fully exempt; guaranteed $100K. These 72 are 36 from previous years PGA Tour that got sent down and 2nd 36 from previous years Nike. Other 72 fully exempt, no money guarantee. Add more money to Nike purses. Nike events every two weeks, alternate with PGA Tour events. Bottom 36 on Nike lose Nike card. Top 36 from Q school to Nike. By alternating PGA Tour and Nike Tour events, you should generate more interest in the Nike Tour. Having players like Zoeller and Faldo on the Nike Tour should also make it a better tour. If players like Nike and Faldo don’t want to be in the second violins, they need to play better!…not insist that the level of the orchestra be brought down by their lack of consistency and ability. (I chose these guys based on rankings only). Bottom line is that if you want to stay on the big tour consistently, you need to be in the top 36 consistently. Doesn’t matter who you are. Only a few players could do this year after year, and we know who they are for that reason. The rest are the rest and live off of the attention drawn by the quality of play of the BEST. The best should always get the lions share of the proceeds. I think there would be more interest in tournaments, and not too many players could slough off a tournament without risking their playing privileges. Won’t happen, of course. Can’t have Fred Couples on the Nike Tour. He’s made too much money from golf…er, ahh correct that, contributed too much to the game <g. Pro golfers want security, but in a competitive sport, security breeeds complacency which produces lower levels of play and lower quality AT THE TOP..on AVERAGE! The odd tournament, like the Masters, essentially tries to choose only the top pros from the previous year, plus a few amateurs and revered older players…so we get a good, competitive tournament. Of course, complacency is harming all pro sports..ever try to watch a pro basketball regular season game…yawn…..most pro football games….yawn….I can’t get through the intro to a baseball game! Rob.
Response:
There are plenty of discussions here about the PGA TOUR. Have at it. Randy Troll intolerant. I took the RSG 2002 Pledge. "Smoke ‘em out … dead or alive, I don’t care." - G. Bush I do not patronize those who advertise in RSG. RSG-ATLANTA 2002 – www.YouGoGolf.com/rsga.org Golf on the web – www.YouGoGolf.com
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is this group about the PGA Tour Golf or is there another NG specifically for that?
Response:
What is the best news group or websites to get the happenings day by day on the PGA tournaments. not the scores , comments on form , and reports of play etc regards terry p
Response:
What is the best news group or websites to get the happenings day by day on the PGA tournaments. not the scores , comments on form , and reports of play etc regards terry p
Terry: Put up your feet, grab a cold one and hang out for a while. -Mother T-
Response:
What is the best news group or websites to get the happenings day by day on the PGA tournaments. not the scores , comments on form , and reports of play etc
I’m not bashing you Terry, but… Group, this is the reason I was so harsh to the guy that asked about computer golf games. This PGA Tour question was asked less than a week ago. If people knew of the google archives, we could eliminate a lot of this. Wayne — Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=huffordw
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the best news group or websites to get the happenings day by day on the PGA tournaments. not the scores , comments on form , and reports of play etc I’m not bashing you Terry, but… Group, this is the reason I was so harsh to the guy that asked about computer golf games. This PGA Tour question was asked less than a week ago. If people knew of the google archives, we could eliminate a lot of this. Wayne — Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=huffordw
Response:
I’m not bashing you Terry, but… Group, this is the reason I was so harsh to the guy that asked about computer golf games. This PGA Tour question was asked less than a week ago. If people knew of the google archives, we could eliminate a lot of this. Wayne — Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=huffordw
To make more room for cable modem discussions?
Response:
Is this group about the PGA Tour Golf or is there another NG specifically for that?
Response:
For whatever reason the professional tours don’t generate as much interest here as in the past…3 or 4 year ago? If you like the "PGA Tour" feel free to start a thread/discussion on a topic and people will respond to you. The pro tour threads usually are a lot of fun and generate a lively discussion when they appear here. You can also try: www.thegolfchannel.com and join the discussion board there.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is this group about the PGA Tour Golf or is there another NG specifically for that?