Is the PGA Tour Good for Golf?

[iacas]

56 minutes ago, Bucki1968 said:

showcasing great golf courses

Big disagreement from me there. The Tour visits like two great golf courses, and the rest… meh.

[HJJ003]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

Big disagreement from me there. The Tour visits like two great golf courses, and the rest… meh.

This. So this. 

[phillyk]

2 hours ago, GolfLug said:

The PGA, like any other prof sport fuels so many secondary industries and as discussed on another thread the charity activity pound for pound is at least at par with the best. 

This is one of the big ones for me why it is a good thing.  I think every event has some sort of charity giving, and millions every time.  Other tours follow suit, sure, but the PGA Tour definitely is setting the bar.  The amount of people it helps beats out PoP concerns every time.

52 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

If the players are independent contractors, how come there is a minimum number of tournaments they have to play each year? If they are independent, how come they have to get tour permission to play in conflicting events? If they are independent, how come they have to pay a rights fee to the tour when they appear on TV in a non-tour event? I guess I’m assuming there is going to be some entity to present the players, give them a platform. I just don’t know how much control  the PGA TOUR should have on the talent if they do at all. I probably don’t know enough about the details to be commenting.😗

I think this is where the tension is at the moment, with the Premier Golf League thing.  The PGA Tour has control over what tournaments their members play in.  It's a pickle.  One side, it's a fraternity, these guys travel around together, pull pranks, do things outside of golf.  There are tournaments nearly every week throughout the year so that any level of member has a chance to play.  Most of the time, the members can play in other events, I assume so long as other commitments are fulfilled.  But there comes the other side of which, how much control should there be.  Rory recently said that he doesn't want to be told what to do and have autonomy, over why he won't go to PGL.  But the PGA Tour can tell him what to do in a way.  Lose membership or pay a fine for doing something or not doing something, like playing in a specific number of events each year.  But, then, I go back and think that the PGA Tour has provided so many opportunities for these guys to showcase themselves and play with and against the best players routinely.  I don't think the PGA Tour is asking for a lot from these guys.  

PGA Tour is a good thing. Every organization has a few flaws, but they can also grow and improve. 

[gbogey]

I have mixed sentiments.  I totally agree that the tour itself is good for golf by showcasing the best talents in the world.  I think it definitely builds interest in golf.

On the other hand, there's a lot of the tour's actions that aren't good for golf.  The PGA Tour is essentially a union of sorts that seeks to maximize it's members income - period.  There's little evidence that the tour cares about growing the game or making golf viable down the road - it's all about today.  The tour chooses not to do anything about pace of play - why, it would have to be tough on it's members.  Same thing about drug screening.  The tour chooses to play smash it long and birdie fest courses - why, because they believe it provides entertainment value and that it's good for its members.  They could set up every course like Riviera (which I personally think would be better) but choose not to.  TPC courses - not sure how those are good for the game - they all seem to be the same birdie fest tournaments to me -  but they help the tour's pocketbooks.  Emphasis on The Player's (trying to be a 5th major), President's cup, Fedex Cup - all things the tour owns and wants to promote.  Grand Slam events and Ryder Cup - the tour doesn't own and wants in on more of the money.

I know the R&A and USGA get lots of grief, sometimes deservedly so, but I do think that most of what they do is out of legitimate concern for preserving and growing golf.  I don't see any of that coming out of the PGA tour.

[phillyk]

5 minutes ago, gbogey said:

I know the R&A and USGA get lots of grief, sometimes deservedly so, but I do think that most of what they do is out of legitimate concern for preserving and growing golf.  I don't see any of that coming out of the PGA tour.

Arnie's army, Tiger Woods... I mean even if they don't directly try to grow the game, they have most definitely grown the game by a significant amount by providing the platform for these needle moving players.

[Bucki1968]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Big disagreement from me there. The Tour visits like two great golf courses, and the rest… meh.

Rivera, TPC Sawgrass, Pebble Beach, Murfield (Ohio),? Just off the top of my head. Bay Hill, Quail Hollow?

[mcanadiens]

The big problem with this question is to conceive of what things would be like without a PGA Tour or its equivalent.

Is it not reasonable to think that demand created the PGA Tour rather than the PGA Tour creating demand? To not have the PGA Tour or something much like it, would be to say that there was no demand for its creation. 

If there were no demand, isn't it reasonable to think that golf as a whole would be a much more marginal sport?

 

[Cantankerish]

Dig deep enough into any successful organization and you will find skeletons.  Try to imagine golf without the PGA or some analogue.

I saw darts on ESPN once.  I have seen fencing a few times.  There are a bunch of video game tournaments, and some even on television now.  I saw a silly documentary on beard competitions. Professional weightlifting.  Trading card games.  Rock climbing.  Cheerleading. They all have competitions - in trivial venues with champions whose names I do not know.  Any of those groups would trade body parts to get the exposure that the PGA gets for this game.

But golf gets that exposure. Exposure breeds more players.  More players means golf courses stay solvent.  That means that golf is available for a wider financial range of players who then aspire to be PGA stars.  Some do...and you get a virtuous cycle.

 

EDIT:  Oh heck.  Ninja'd by mcanadiens

Edited February 20, 2020 by Cantankerish

[CarlSpackler]

If not for the PGA Tour, I would likely be watching cars drive around in circles on cold Sunday afternoons before it warms up enough to play. That makes it a yes for me.

[leftybutnotPM]

4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

 

If the players are independent contractors, how come there is a minimum number of tournaments they have to play each year? If they are independent, how come they have to get tour permission to play in conflicting events? menting.😗

 

 

By your logic, a doctor is not self employed because he/she has to abide by the rules of the AMA or its equivalent.

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by leftybutnotPM

[leftybutnotPM]

2 hours ago, Bucki1968 said:

Rivera, TPC Sawgrass, Pebble Beach, Murfield (Ohio),? Just off the top of my head. Bay Hill, Quail Hollow?

That's the point. You really think these are great golf courses? Sawgrass? Really? Bay Hill?

People think that these are great golf courses. By and large they aren't. Some of them have some interesting/quirky holes, are good for spectators, are superbly conditioned come tournament time  or have spectacular backdrops. Or people are just used to seeing them and think they must be "great" courses.

You will pretty much NEVER see a PGATour event played on a truly great golf course.

Edited February 20, 2020 by leftybutnotPM

[boogielicious]

7 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

That's the point. You really think these are great golf courses? Sawgrass? Really? Bay Hill?

People think that these are great golf courses. By and large they aren't. Some of them have some interesting/quirky holes, are good for spectators, are superbly conditioned come tournament time  or have spectacular backdrops. Or people are just used to seeing them and think they must be "great" courses.

You will pretty much NEVER see a PGATour event played on a truly great golf course.

So Pebble Beach, Torrey Pines, etc. are bad golf courses?

[HJJ003]

15 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

So Pebble Beach, Torrey Pines, etc. are bad golf courses?

Pebble Beach no, but it is desperate need of a restoration. Torrey pines is extremely overrated IMO. Keep in mind also that just because someone says a course isn't great...it doesn't mean its bad. There are many shades in between. 

[Bucki1968]

1 hour ago, leftybutnotPM said:

That's the point. You really think these are great golf courses? Sawgrass? Really? Bay Hill?

People think that these are great golf courses. By and large they aren't. Some of them have some interesting/quirky holes, are good for spectators, are superbly conditioned come tournament time  or have spectacular backdrops. Or people are just used to seeing them and think they must be "great" courses.

You will pretty much NEVER see a PGATour event played on a truly great golf course.

Well...I like Bay Hill....I like Pebble Beach...I liked Quail Hollow. I thought they were pretty great. I thought Rivera was pretty great. I guess it's all about perspective. I'll tell you what, I played Winged Foot.....meh....it's good but there are others I like much more. Same with Oakland Hills in Detroit. I would rather play Detroit Country Club. 

[boogielicious]

2 hours ago, HJJ003 said:

Pebble Beach no, but it is desperate need of a restoration. Torrey pines is extremely overrated IMO. Keep in mind also that just because someone says a course isn't great...it doesn't mean its bad. There are many shades in between. 

 

38 minutes ago, Bucki1968 said:

Well...I like Bay Hill....I like Pebble Beach...I liked Quail Hollow. I thought they were pretty great. I thought Rivera was pretty great. I guess it's all about perspective. I'll tell you what, I played Winged Foot.....meh....it's good but there are others I like much more. Same with Oakland Hills in Detroit. I would rather play Detroit Country Club. 

You all play better courses than I do!😀

[mcanadiens]

6 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

You all play better courses than I do!😀

You and Koepka both. 

Those poor-bastard pros would be green with envy if they saw the magnificence that I get to play on regularly

[Vinsk]

3 hours ago, leftybutnotPM said:

By your logic, a doctor is not self employed because he/she has to abide by the rules of the AMA or its equivalent.

 

Most doctors are not self employed. And we don’t have to follow rules by the AMA even if we are.  Our rules are to do no harm. No entity ‘controls’ us. The AMA have zero control over us. Sorry, poor example.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Vinsk

[Missouri Swede]

19 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Most doctors are not self employed. And we don’t have to follow rules by the AMA even if we are.  Our rules are to do no harm. No entity ‘controls’ us. The AMA have zero control over us. Sorry, poor example.

A little off topic:

Spoiler

Not the AMA, but the state(s) in which we are licensed have requirements for continued licensure (such as how many CME hours, and what topics must be included). And the health facilities I have contracts with have requirements for me. So even though I’m self employed, I have requirements I have to fulfill, even if I don’t think a particular requirement is useful.