Golfweek Proves 1 = 2!!!

[iacas]

Golfweek, August 5 2006 issue, Page 2 contains this gem:

When Pavin won the Greater Milwaukee Open in 1986, the Rat earned $72,000; his win July 30 at the U.S. Bank Championship in Milwaukee paid $720,000. Applying one zero per decade, the 2016 winner in Milwaukee should earn $7,200,000 - or just enough to keep his Tour card.

(2016 - 2006) = (2006 - 1986)?

10 = 20 10/10 = 20/10 1 = 2 Derrr.

[CusePhil]

:-d

[rembrandt]

Last place pays pretty well on the tour and has for some time. Who was the amature champion who headed the PGA for quiet a while and did a good job with the money spreading it out amongst the pros so they could survive on the tour?

[iacas]

Last place pays pretty well on the tour and has for some time. Who was the amature champion who headed the PGA for quiet a while and did a good job with the money spreading it out amongst the pros so they could survive on the tour?

Dean Beaman, who was a professional golfer, headed the PGA Tour for a number of years. I think that's what you mean... The PGA and the PGA Tour are very different things.

And last place doesn't pay as well as you'd think - supposedly, making the cut and finishing last barely covers your expenses for the week, and even pros that earn $600k/year to barely keep their card are barely clearing $30k or so when it's all said and done. Or something like that.

[allin]

I had this conversation with a former Journeyman pro from my area Tom Seikman, maybe mispelled, we have only spoken once. He said that if you weren't in the top 50 your golf tour earnings would not cover your expenses. Caddie, travel, etc. He said the off tour earnings from outings, endorsements and such was where he really made his living. He said the year he had a win on tour he probably made twice as much in off tour income as on. Only a 10-15 minute conversation, (he probably doesn't even remember), but kind of sounds possible to me. Especially if they are paying agents or staff, percentages to a teacher etc.

[prutkows]

Golfweek, August 5 2006 issue, Page 2 contains this gem:

if you add a 0 per decade.. and 1986 = 72,000. then 1996 = 720,000 and 2006 = 7,200,000 then 2016 would be 72million.. unless im reading this wrong?

[iacas]

if you add a 0 per decade.. and 1986 = 72,000. then 1996 = 720,000 and 2006 = 7,200,000 then 2016 would be 72million.. unless im reading this wrong?

I think you've missed the point... and the point was to make fun of GolfWeek's horrible math. I didn't mistype what GW said...