LIV Golf (Saudi PIF), "Mergers," and More

[Shindig]

58 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why? He gets into all the majors for the next five years at least, and the British until he's 60.

Does the win earlier today get him that, or is it that each British Open has a qualification criteria that includes "be a past British Open champion and still sixty or fewer years old?"  In other words, could he possibly be stripped of that if he goes to LIV?

 

1 hour ago, JetFan1983 said:

It's been foreshadowed for weeks but...

 

Well, he'll get to play in Portland with Talor Gooch, that's like playing in the Ryder Cup according to one incredibly stupid source. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Friz said:

I always figured the next big exodus would be following the British Open now that all majors for the year are done.

I think it may be after the FedExCup. That's not too far away.

19 minutes ago, Shindig said:

Does the win earlier today get him that, or is it that each British Open has a qualification criteria that includes "be a past British Open champion and still sixty or fewer years old?"  In other words, could he possibly be stripped of that if he goes to LIV?

Exemptions | The 150th Open

---

Keep up to date with which players have secured exemptions for The 150th Open, which will be held at St Andrews from 10-17 July 2022.

Open Champions aged 60 or under on 17 July 2022

[Shindig]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Exemptions | The 150th Open

---

Keep up to date with which players have secured exemptions for The 150th Open, which will be held at St Andrews from 10-17 July 2022.

Open Champions aged 60 or under on 17 July 2022

Right;  that's why they were eligible to play this past week.  Unless the official criteria for the 151th British Open have been announced, the R&A could change the first line in next year's qualification to say "Open Champions aged 60 or under on 23 July 2023 who are not currently ineligible to play on the PGA Tour or the DP World Tour."  That would allow Ben Curtis, who I don't think has his tour card but also isn't ineligible (I suppose he could attempt to Monday qualify for next year's Hawaii Open, and be in the field if successful, if he wanted), but not Phil Mickelson.  It appears winners don't get a promise of future eligibility, instead previous winners are typically invited.  But they don't get to spray paint "I do not like my parents" on the garage door and then ask for allowance. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Shindig said:

Right;  that's why they were eligible to play this past week.  Unless the official criteria for the 151th British Open have been announced, the R&A could change the first line in next year's qualification to say "Open Champions aged 60 or under on 23 July 2023 who are not currently ineligible to play on the PGA Tour or the DP World Tour."

Why would they? The Opens I mean.

[Hardluckster]

8 hours ago, Shindig said:

Right;  that's why they were eligible to play this past week.  Unless the official criteria for the 151th British Open have been announced, the R&A could change the first line in next year's qualification to say "Open Champions aged 60 or under on 23 July 2023 who are not currently ineligible to play on the PGA Tour or the DP World Tour."  That would allow Ben Curtis, who I don't think has his tour card but also isn't ineligible (I suppose he could attempt to Monday qualify for next year's Hawaii Open, and be in the field if successful, if he wanted), but not Phil Mickelson.  It appears winners don't get a promise of future eligibility, instead previous winners are typically invited.  But they don't get to spray paint "I do not like my parents" on the garage door and then ask for allowance. 

At that point it is no longer “The Open” and becomes “The Closed”. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Hardluckster

[saevel25]

59 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

At that point it is no longer “The Open” and becomes “The Closed”. 

Not being exempted into a tournament doesn't mean it is closed. They could still go through qualifiers, which makes it an open tournament.

[Hardluckster]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Not being exempted into a tournament doesn't mean it is closed. They could still go through qualifiers, which makes it an open tournament.

I suppose that you could view it in that regard. In my opinion when you deny certain players who have earned exemptions while allowing others with the same exemptions, you have become exclusionary. That, imo, would make it anything but an open tournament. 

[chriskzoo]

I find the morality police almost comical when PGA Tour sponsors are entangled with "bad regimes" all over the place, so let's completely ignore that issue and only talk about format.

I've watched the first 2 LIV events and my issue is with the format itself, but I think it is bringing some potentially good changes to table, so I won't ignore those.

The Good

• Thursday/Friday shotguns.  I hate it for the weekend when you need the element of chasing the leader for drama, but for the first two rounds, I think it actually brings a little excitement all around the course.  
• Reduced schedule with premium fields. I think 8 events plus 4 majors isn't quite enough, but if 4-5 more events like WGC events are built in and attract all the guys, that pretty much replicates the kind of schedule the top guys play.
• Guys don't have to play pro-ams on Wednesdays.  Every guy on Tour hates those pro-ams - even to the point that the Tour said they can just play 9 holes if they want.

The Bad

• Shotguns go against any flow an architect tried to build into a course.  Putting something like The Bear Trap early in the round just doesn't have the same pressure as knowing you have to play those holes to make a cut or hold a lead.
• Team play (as currently implemented) is dumb.  With varying fields, guys getting injured, it's nothing more than a bonus pool every week. 
• 54 holes just doesn't feel like a full tournament and the weekend needs tee times.  There is an element of pressure that I feel gets lost making the leader wait to tee off last.

The Future

• With the Tour upping their prize money in 8 tournaments, I'd like to see a relegation setup like European Soccer has (maybe this is the plan) - give guys outside the top 50 a chance to claw into those tournaments, but also force guys not performing down into the bottom 150-50 tournaments, or wherever that cut is.
• Best case, IMO, is a dually successful PGA and LIV Tour - and replace the President's Cup with a LIV vs. PGA Cup.  
• The big loser will be the European Tour. 

[ChetlovesMer]

5 minutes ago, chriskzoo said:

so let's completely ignore that issue and only talk about format.

Sorry, can't do it. 

The money for this tour was put up by the same folks who put up the money for 9/11. I'm not over the fact that 3000 innocent people some of which were friends of mine were senseless killed in cold blood during a useless and stupid terrorist attack by a bunch of cowards.  

If you can look past that, I give you credit for being able to forgive and/or forget. I'm not there yet. So, no I can't ignore that issue. 

[chriskzoo]

4 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

Sorry, can't do it. 

The money for this tour was put up by the same folks who put up the money for 9/11. I'm not over the fact that 3000 innocent people some of which were friends of mine were senseless killed in cold blood during a useless and stupid terrorist attack by a bunch of cowards.  

If you can look past that, I give you credit for being able to forgive and/or forget. I'm not there yet. So, no I can't ignore that issue. 

I didn't want this argument, but OK.  PGA Tour Title sponsors do $40-50B in business with Saudi Arabia.  You can't make the argument as Jay Monahan that defecting players are doing business with reprehensible people for money when many of the very companies that make your own tour happen are doing business with the very same people.  

So let's move on to the format. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by chriskzoo

[ssbn611]

British Open champion Smith and Ryder Cup captain Stenson to join LIV Golf, reports say

British Open champion Smith and Ryder Cup captain Stenson to join LIV Golf, reports say

---

Newly-crowned British Open champion Cameron Smith reacted angrily when asked if he was on the verge of joining the highly-lucrative LIV Golf Invitational Series but reports suggest the Australian is among many...

 

 

[ChetlovesMer]

23 minutes ago, chriskzoo said:

I didn't want this argument, but OK.  PGA Tour Title sponsors do $40-50B in business with Saudi Arabia.  You can't make the argument as Jay Monahan that defecting players are doing business with reprehensible people for money when many of the very companies that make your own tour happen are doing business with the very same people.  

So let's move on to the format. 

Nope, Not the same thing.
But as I said. You are welcome to discuss the format. 

I think the format is Sh!t. No cut, everyone gets paid huge money before they even tee it up. It's crap. 

Players who play in it are in for them money and that's fine with me. If you want a ton of money that's one way to get it. But don't give me any of that BS about trying to grow the game. Also, I'd like the media to quit telling me everyone in that situation would take the money. I wouldn't. There are plenty of others who wouldn't either. 

I won't click on anything to do with the LIV tour. I want no mistaking that I don't support it. 

I'm simply not over 9/11. 

[dennyjones]

1 minute ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I'm simply not over 9/11. 

This should be true for every American.

[Darkfrog]

32 minutes ago, chriskzoo said:

I didn't want this argument, but OK.  PGA Tour Title sponsors do $40-50B in business with Saudi Arabia.  You can't make the argument as Jay Monahan that defecting players are doing business with reprehensible people for money when many of the very companies that make your own tour happen are doing business with the very same people.  

So let's move on to the format. 

PGA Tour title sponsors doing business with Saudi Arabia in a financial world where everything is interconnected is quite different than a murderous and human rights abusing regime starting a rival golf league. I don't think the two things are remotely comparable.

The format sucks too.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, chriskzoo said:

I find the morality police almost comical when PGA Tour sponsors are entangled with "bad regimes" all over the place, so let's completely ignore that issue and only talk about format.

…

I didn't want this argument, but OK.  PGA Tour Title sponsors do $40-50B in business with Saudi Arabia.

Glad you find it amusing. Me putting gas in my car is not the same thing at all as what LIV Golf is doing. FedEx doing business to ship packages and so on with other citizens and businesses in Saudi Arabia is not the same thing as the Saudi Arabian government themselves directly funding a global sportswashing effort.

It's really simple-minded to pretend they're the same.

1 hour ago, chriskzoo said:

The Good

• Thursday/Friday shotguns.  I hate it for the weekend when you need the element of chasing the leader for drama, but for the first two rounds, I think it actually brings a little excitement all around the course.

One could argue there's more drama because players near the lead are putting at the same time or something.

Plus the leaders start on 1 or 2, so…

1 hour ago, chriskzoo said:

• Guys don't have to play pro-ams on Wednesdays.  Every guy on Tour hates those pro-ams - even to the point that the Tour said they can just play 9 holes if they want.

No, that's not correct. Plenty of the guys actually enjoy and get a lot out of the pro-ams. They make business connections, establish relationships, etc. Know who one of the players who liked them the most was? Phil Mickelson.

1 hour ago, chriskzoo said:

• Shotguns go against any flow an architect tried to build into a course.  Putting something like The Bear Trap early in the round just doesn't have the same pressure as knowing you have to play those holes to make a cut or hold a lead.

They're not exactly playing sterling gems of architecture.

47 minutes ago, chriskzoo said:

You can't make the argument as Jay Monahan that defecting players are doing business with reprehensible people for money when many of the very companies that make your own tour happen are doing business with the very same people.

Again, you can, because they're literally not the same.

16 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

PGA Tour title sponsors doing business with Saudi Arabia in a financial world where everything is interconnected is quite different than a murderous and human rights abusing regime starting a rival golf league. I don't think the two things are remotely comparable.

The format sucks too.

Yep.

[Friz]

53 minutes ago, chriskzoo said:

I find the morality police almost comical when PGA Tour sponsors are entangled with "bad regimes" all over the place, so let's completely ignore that issue and only talk about format.

The morality piece can not be completely ignored when you're literally talking about the people who own the entire thing.  Huge difference between that and anything else.  But I don't care to go down that rabbit hole again any further and can comment only on the format from here on.

 

57 minutes ago, chriskzoo said:

The Good

• Thursday/Friday shotguns.  I hate it for the weekend when you need the element of chasing the leader for drama, but for the first two rounds, I think it actually brings a little excitement all around the course.  
• Reduced schedule with premium fields. I think 8 events plus 4 majors isn't quite enough, but if 4-5 more events like WGC events are built in and attract all the guys, that pretty much replicates the kind of schedule the top guys play.
• Guys don't have to play pro-ams on Wednesdays.  Every guy on Tour hates those pro-ams - even to the point that the Tour said they can just play 9 holes if they want.

First, LIV has pro ams too.

Second, the reduced schedule is in no way a positive to me.  There are already plenty of events on the PGA Tour that bring all the big names out in addition to Majors and the Players - Memorial, Arnold Palmer, Genesis, Wells Fargo, all the Tour Playoffs....just to name a few.  The big names don't HAVE to play every week, and they don't, but there are plenty of times to see them all in the same tournament, and having weekly tournaments is infinitely better for the fan even if there are weaker fields in there as well.

And finally, I would never see a shotgun start as a positive in any round.  You alluded to it in the bad as well, and thats the only point I think that should be made on shotguns.  Someone starting a round on the Bear Trap vs. ending there changes so much, and anyone trying to follow a leaderboard can not easily tell if they have easy holes upcoming or about to enter a difficult stretch.  Two guys could be through 16 holes and 3 strokes apart, but could swing wildly just because of what holes they haven't played yet.  So much harder to follow as a fan.

1 hour ago, chriskzoo said:

The Bad

• Shotguns go against any flow an architect tried to build into a course.  Putting something like The Bear Trap early in the round just doesn't have the same pressure as knowing you have to play those holes to make a cut or hold a lead.
• Team play (as currently implemented) is dumb.  With varying fields, guys getting injured, it's nothing more than a bonus pool every week. 
• 54 holes just doesn't feel like a full tournament and the weekend needs tee times.  There is an element of pressure that I feel gets lost making the leader wait to tee off last.

 

Yes.  Also add in no cuts, players paid before even showing up, multi-year contacts provide little incentive to perform well....this list can keep going.

 

1 hour ago, chriskzoo said:

The Future

• With the Tour upping their prize money in 8 tournaments, I'd like to see a relegation setup like European Soccer has (maybe this is the plan) - give guys outside the top 50 a chance to claw into those tournaments, but also force guys not performing down into the bottom 150-50 tournaments, or wherever that cut is.
• Best case, IMO, is a dually successful PGA and LIV Tour - and replace the President's Cup with a LIV vs. PGA Cup.  
• The big loser will be the European Tour. 

They've spent 9 figures bringing certain guys in on multi-year deals, I can't imagine they'd ever risk their golden geese being relegated.  I don't see it having a positive impact on golf in the future, and I certainly don't want to see any partnering events with the PGA Tour.  From a purely format standpoint, I don't like anything about the LIV, and if its going to exist I'd prefer it to exist like the XFL did to the NFL.  Let me ignore it completely if I choose and don't overlap at all.

[ssbn611]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No, that's not correct. Plenty of the guys actually enjoy and get a lot out of the pro-ams. They make business connections, establish relationships, etc. Know who one of the players who liked them the most was? Phil Mickelson.

Are there any sports books taking bets on the pro-ams?

[JetFan1983]

 

2 hours ago, chriskzoo said:

I find the morality police almost comical when PGA Tour sponsors are entangled with "bad regimes" all over the place, so let's completely ignore that issue and only talk about format.

Awww, can't you at least whataboutism us like a gentleman?

And yea LIV does have pro-ams. Sorry to say I still enjoy Bryson Dechaumbeau's channel because I do like the (heavily edited) insight into that life. Timestamped link.

 

Edit: I know you didn't mention this, but people want to use a place like Augusta as a whataboutism but it's not like ANGC is murdering Golf Digest journalists because they wrote a story they didn't like. They're not rounding up and torturing detractors for the stuff they said on Twitter about them, etc. There are so many clear differences between why LIV shouldn't be whataboutism'd when justifying it all. The people who are running the "business" LIV Golf literally have direct blood on their hands. I feel like it's totally normal to have a problem with that. It's not like the CIA runs American golf or something like that. I'd have a problem with that too.

Edited July 18, 2022 by JetFan1983
removed earlier draft