On the tour, but never a winner. Would you accept?

[Wally Fairway]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Understood. I guess if you were to ask Tiger the question he would say hell no.

Man, I just looked at that money list - Briny Baird has made twelve million dollars without ever winning. Wow.

I would not want to bounce around the fringe tours and eek out a living; but he question was make millions & not win; and the $12MM for Baird is his prize money, I'm sure he gets some lucrative sponsorship deals (not winner money, but still)....hell to the yeah, and I would still take a few weeks off and go play golf with my buddies and I would give them all 4 a side and still win.

And finally, I could land a head pro job at some resort that wanted to have a Tour Pro as a figurehead....I could deal with that.

[lumpuckeroo]

I would do it, as Wally Fairway said, not on the fringe tours eeking out a living, but on the big tour.  Last year DJ Trahan finished 125th, made $668,166 in prize money.  That's a pretty good living, even if you have to spent half of that on expenses, like paying a caddie and a swing coach.

[Righty to Lefty]

The fact is that any pro in any sport is looking to be secure financially FIRST.  The fact that the amount of money that a golfer makes directly determines whether or not they will be on tour the next year is a clear sign that the money is most important.  Once money is no longer an option then they look to build a legacy because that stress is gone.  Pro athletes have a small window in which to earn their income and so they have to get as much as they can as fast as they can because they never can be sure when it will end.

I have a friend who played pro baseball and he was only in the league for 53 games and he didn't make nearly enough to be financially secure so now that he's almost 30 and didn't make enough to secure his families future so he's basically the equivilent of a college dropout.  If he was offered the chance to be a backup for the next 10 years and told he would never start I garauntee he would take it.

[robrey85]

Originally Posted by darkhunter139

Make a ton of money playing golf? Hell yea.

Amen, even second place winners are making more in one tourney than I make in ages. You could straight up be a Happy Gilmore where he continuously puts together his earnings and boom has enough to buy a has in no time.

[preisman]

As long as I never finish second, I would. It would hurt to finish often and never win. I would be happy keeping my card and earning enough to live nicely until I am able to retire or play on the Champions tour.

[NM Golf]

Hell, I would settle with finishing 125th on the money list each year. Playing golf for a living, is there anything better?

[WUTiger]

joekelly,

John Paul Newport of the Wall Street Journal has an article for you...

Grinding It Out on the PGA Tour

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577482693346049440.html

JPN writes about Jerry Kelly and Chris DiMarco, 40-something journeymen with three PGA tour wins each and no majors. As all-time money winners, Kelly ranks 25th and DiMarco 27th (around $23 Mm each), just ahead of Fred Couples, Tom Lehman and Paddy Harrington.

joekelly's premise for the thread is a bit sticky: how does one know ahead of time if they will never win a PGA tourney?

The theme appears ever so often - would golf be more competitive if more of the prize money went to the top 10 in each tourney? A more "winner take all" emphasis works against tour economics, however. Everyone who makes a PGA tour cut gets $10K or so to help meet expenses. This business model modestly subsidizes new talent coming in from colleges and the Nationwide for a try at the bigtime. Also, you don't want newbies struggling to eat, because they would tend to be grouchy during the pro-am events which precede the tournaments.

[x129]

Money for top 10 only would increase the variance a lot.  I don't know if that would be a good or bad thing.

125th on the total money list made 768k. Lets say you only get to keep 400k after paying caddies,coaches and travel expenses. I don't know a lot of people that would turn down that job assuming they could do it from 25-45.  Have a couple of years were you finish in the top 50 of the money list and the money goes way up. I am not sure if anyone makes it 20 years without winning but you get the idea.

Originally Posted by WUTiger

joekelly,

John Paul Newport of the Wall Street Journal has an article for you...

Grinding It Out on the PGA Tour

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577482693346049440.html

JPN writes about Jerry Kelly and Chris DiMarco, 40-something journeymen with three PGA tour wins each and no majors. As all-time money winners, Kelly ranks 25th and DiMarco 27th (around $23 Mm each), just ahead of Fred Couples, Tom Lehman and Paddy Harrington.

joekelly's premise for the thread is a bit sticky: how does one know ahead of time if they will never win a PGA tourney?

The theme appears ever so often - would golf be more competitive if more of the prize money went to the top 10 in each tourney? A more "winner take all" emphasis works against tour economics, however. Everyone who makes a PGA tour cut gets $10K or so to help meet expenses. This business model modestly subsidizes new talent coming in from colleges and the Nationwide for a try at the bigtime. Also, you don't want newbies struggling to eat, because they would tend to be grouchy during the pro-am events which precede the tournaments.

[Daniel Watkins]

I wouldn't do it. I play to win, and knowing i could never win would be totally miserable for me.  I know this probably puts me in the minority, but its just the way im wired

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Daniel Watkins

I wouldn't do it. I play to win, and knowing i could never win would be totally miserable for me.  I know this probably puts me in the minority, but its just the way im wired

Yeah, sure. Sounds cool, but you know it's BS.

Many, many Tour pros are lucky to win more than once in a career, and win millions a year in the process.

Do you think Briny Baird and his ilk are "totally miserable"?

Also, they are all playing to win, but are smart enough to knbow that there is only one winner every tournament.

Also - if that's the way you are "wired", how can you be anything other than totally miserable now and considerably poorer than a successful but winless tour pro?

How are you succeeding at golf more than they are.

There are players out there who even people on this site have never heard of who have won more than Nicklaus, Palmer and Player combined.

[Zeph]

I don't know, it depends. I've seen some documentaries about players on some players that never win anything. Many struggle with making enough money and have to travel [b]a lot[/b] all year long. They don't have the luxury of Tiger and Phil to drop tournaments here and there. They have to play to make the ends meet. It's not an ideal family situation. If I made a decent amount of money it is probably a life I could've lived for some years, but not too long. To me, golf is fun and a hobby. I think it becomes a different animal once it becomes your job. Having to practice all the time to keep all parts of the game in check.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Zeph

I don't know, it depends. I've seen some documentaries about players on some players that never win anything. Many struggle with making enough money and have to travel a lot all year long. They don't have the luxury of Tiger and Phil to drop tournaments here and there. They have to play to make the ends meet.

It's not an ideal family situation. If I made a decent amount of money it is probably a life I could've lived for some years, but not too long.

The OP wrote:

" on the money list you would see you name with millions added yearly "

He's not asking about journeymen living out of the cars, he's asking about guiys winning millions every year but not winning.

[Daniel Watkins]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Yeah, sure. Sounds cool, but you know it's BS.

Many, many Tour pros are lucky to win more than once in a career, and win millions a year in the process.

Do you think Briny Baird and his ilk are "totally miserable"?

Also, they are all playing to win, but are smart enough to knbow that there is only one winner every tournament.

Also - if that's the way you are "wired", how can you be anything other than totally miserable now and considerably poorer than a successful but winless tour pro?

How are you succeeding at golf more than they are.

There are players out there who even people on this site have never heard of who have won more than Nicklaus, Palmer and Player combined.

First off all, I'm not Briny Baird. And frankly i don't know or care if he is happy with his position in life. As i previously stated, that's the way *I* am wired. So please stop with the red herrings. Briny Baird has nothing to do with how i feel on the subject.
Secondly, i didn't say i was or wasn't miserable. I simply said playing 20 years on the PGA tour knowing i was never ever going to win would be miserable for me. So again, please stop with the red herrings

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Daniel Watkins

First off all, I'm not Briny Baird. And frankly i don't know or care if he is happy with his position in life. As i previously stated, that's the way *I* am wired. So please stop with the red herrings. Briny Baird has nothing to do with how i feel on the subject.

Secondly, i didn't say i was or wasn't miserable. I simply said playing 20 years on the PGA tour knowing i was never ever going to win would be miserable for me. So again, please stop with the red herrings

I am very glad not to be "wired" in such a way that makes misery inevitable.

There are also different definitions of "winning".

Poor old Tim Clark has only won once on the PGA Tour - how wretched his life could have been......

[Daniel Watkins]

Originally Posted by Shorty

I am very glad not to be "wired" in such a way that makes misery inevitable.

There are also different definitions of "winning".

Poor old Tim Clark has only won once on the PGA Tour - how wretched his life could have been......

Actually it doesnt. I go through life believing i at least have a shot at winning whatever im doing. So im not miserable at all. Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that if you asked Tim Clark if he believed he had a shot to win the tournament he is currently playing in, he would vehemently say yes.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Daniel Watkins

Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that if you asked Tim Clark if he believed he had a shot to win the tournament he is currently playing in, he would vehemently say yes.

Exactly. But he would not call himself a failure if he never won. And he would not describe himself as "totally miserable", as you did.

[Kapanda]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Exactly. But he would not call himself a failure if he never won. And he would not describe himself as "totally miserable", as you did.

Tim Clark believes he can win, and he works to win.

The hypothetical in this thread eliminates the possibility of ever winning altogether.

[Daniel Watkins]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Exactly. But he would not call himself a failure if he never won. And he would not describe himself as "totally miserable", as you did.

i said i would be totally miserable. What does Tim Clark have to do with anything? If you cant prove your point without using red herrings, then just dont try. Please