2012 Arnold Palmer Invitational Discussion Thread

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Isn't that the point he was making?

Since you quoted three different points from three different people, you need to be a little more specific about which point and which person you mean.

Should I have pared it down or multiquoted?

[k-troop]

Arnold Palmer is the King.  Anyone who doesn't think he has earned, and duly deserves, to be treated with only the utmost respect has questionable judgment in my opinion.

I think that all players should do their best to play in both Bay Hill and Memorial to honor two of the greatest men--not just players--to ever play our game.

If Arnie wanted to invite his housekeeper to play in his tournament that would be just fine with me.  He's Arnold Palmer.  But wait--he invited his grandson to play, who has also played in events on both the Nationwide and PGA Tours, has made cuts, and is a multi-time club champion at Bay Hill.  And I'm sure Sam is a fine young man.  I certainly have heard nothing to make me think otherwise.

[brocks]

People are saying that his tournament is not the equal of the British Open and that he has no right to be critical of Donald or McIlroy.

And that was exactly *my* point. Of course Bay Hill is not the British Open, although you could make a good case that the British Open wasn't the BRITISH OPEN before Arnie revived it. But Arnie is Arnie, so it's out of respect to him personally, rather than Bay Hill, that guys should play his event. Obviously, that's a matter of opinion, and reasonable people can disagree. Unlike, say, the fact of whether it was Nobilo or Arnie who brought up Saunders.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by brocks  There is no fidgeting, rolling of eyes, or any other body language that implies anything but interest in what he's saying. They occasionally smile and nod in agreement; that's it.

In an ebarrassed and awkward way and as soon as Palmer drew breath they moved the conversation on. It was as if they were humouring an old man.

Who gives a damn about Sam Saunders? He is Palmers' grandson. He gets invited every year. Every year Palmer craps on about how he's making his way unassisted and that he has to find his own way. Look at his results. I wish him well, but if he is the highlight of the tournament, then I feel sorry for everyone involved.

Yes it's a slightly interesting side note - but I don't want to watch him bogey holes whilst good players are out there.

You don't have to see it that way. That's fine.

And...of course the commentators bring up the subject of Saunders, not Palmer. That's the point!!

[brocks]

Should I have pared it down or multiquoted?

I don't care how you quote it, but when the antecedent is ambiguous, you should use a specific name instead of "he," and a specific point instead of "that."

[scottyjoe145]

Look, this is the result of the format/point sytem the PGA tour created.  When players (McIlroy & Donald) can take off a week/weeks at their choosing, they will do it every time.  Where is the motivation to play every week?  Whats making them stay and participate?  Take a look at the NASCAR points system for exapmle...  if you miss a race, you can basically kiss the cup goodbye.  I dont know of any other sport that has such limited participation by the greatest in the game.

This is exactly what makes me want to scream at guys like Ricky Fowler & Gary Woodland.  They pick and choose which tournaments they play as if they're Tiger or Phil.  If you honestly want me to beleive they need time off to rest...   please...  they play freakin golf for a living!  Maybe the traveling gets old, but I dont hear the commentators bitchin.  It's the ones that have too much cushion that get comfortable.

A rule stating that at least "X" amount of tournaments have to be played per year in order to be eligable for MAJORS and the FEDEX CUP.  I think it exist now, but its obviously too low.

[brocks]

A rule stating that at least "X" amount of tournaments have to be played per year in order to be eligable for MAJORS and the FEDEX CUP.  I think it exist now, but its obviously too low.

Nope, there is no minimum. Jack went several years where the majors were just about the only events he played. None of the majors is controlled by the PGA Tour. The FedEx Cup is a little trickier. You have to be a PGA tour member to be eligible, and the tour has a minimum number of events for healthy players. But I'm pretty sure that if you don't meet the minimum, it affects your card for the following year, not the current year, so there's no effective minimum for the current year's FedEx Cup. I also don't know if players who have a lifetime exemption (by virtue of 20 PGA wins) can keep full membership without playing the minimum. Just as a data point, in 2008, Tiger played only six events before taking the rest of the season off for surgery and rehab. But he was still in first place in the FedEx points list by the time the playoffs began, and remained eligible for all of the playoff events up to the Tour Championship.

[Shindig]

I also don't know if players who have a lifetime exemption (by virtue of 20 PGA wins) can keep full membership without playing the minimum.

It can affect their ability the next year to vote on matters, and possibly in priority order for getting into tournaments. [quote name="brocks" url="/t/56505/2012-arnold-palmer-invitational-discussion-thread/36#post_691452"]Just as a data point, in 2008, Tiger played only six events before taking the rest of the season off for surgery and rehab. But he was still in first place in the FedEx points list by the time the playoffs began, and remained eligible for all of the playoff events up to the Tour Championship. [/quote] Up to but not including. IIRC, he finished 70th that year -- with Rory Sabbatini, true to his word, beating Tiger (he finished 69th).

[brocks]

(shaking fist) Damn you, Sabbatini!

[iacas]

Can we talk about the tournament now?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Should I have pared it down or multiquoted?

I don't care how you quote it, but when the antecedent is ambiguous, you should use a specific name instead of "he," and a specific point instead of "that."

I was referring to the comment made by you, the poster, in your post which I quoted. The other post which you quoted was left intact to maintain the context of your comments. I thought that was standard polite practice to quote someone in the proper context without them having to trudge backward through the thread post by post to make the connection. Clearly I stand corrected.

[brocks]

I was referring to the comment made by you, the poster, in your post which I quoted.

Then why say "he" instead of "you?" But you know what, I don't care any more. I asked for clarification; I got snark and indignation at the idea that one of your posts could possibly be unclear, and I still have no idea what you were asking. If that makes me an idiot, so be it.

[Golfingdad]

Anyways ...

I see jason Dufner is at the top of the leaderboard.  I am starting to become a fan of his.  Love his demeanor.

[brocks]

I see jason Dufner is at the top of the leaderboard.  I am starting to become a fan of his.  Love his demeanor.

At least he gives hope to the guys who don't have time to spend 3 hours a day in the gym.

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by brocks

Then why say "he" instead of "you?"

But you know what, I don't care any more. I asked for clarification; I got snark and indignation at the idea that one of your posts could possibly be unclear, and I still have no idea what you were asking. If that makes me an idiot, so be it.

Please start a new thread so you guys can bicker over there.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Kieran123

Quote:

Originally Posted by brocks

Then why say "he" instead of "you?"

But you know what, I don't care any more. I asked for clarification; I got snark and indignation at the idea that one of your posts could possibly be unclear, and I still have no idea what you were asking. If that makes me an idiot, so be it.

Please start a new thread so you guys can bicker over there.

You haven't posted in a month, and you go with that? Nothing about Palmer? Saunders? Sonders?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I was referring to the comment made by you, the poster, in your post which I quoted.

Then why say "he" instead of "you?"

But you know what, I don't care any more. I asked for clarification; I got snark and indignation at the idea that one of your posts could possibly be unclear, and I still have no idea what you were asking. If that makes me an idiot, so be it.

BTW - the "he" v. "you" was more clear in the original post before it was taken out of context.

Regardless of who said what and how or who was quoting whom, Arnie is losing his marbles if he thinks his event is on par with the British Open. If that's not what he meant, then we can add another misinterpreted quote to the list.

[k-troop]

Tiger had a decent score, but I didn't get to watch yet.  14/18 greens, but 2.0 putts/GIR and 32 total putts.  His strokes gained/putting was 43rd (0.48), so I'm guessing he wasn't very close to the hole today?

Still, if he gets his putts below 30, he's leading the tournament.  Again.