Would Snedeker Trade FEC for Green Jacket?

[Golfingdad]

I agree with Sean, Jamo and Shorty ... how could I possibly know whats more important to him?  But for the sake of playing the game, I'll say no.

If I was a pro and you asked me at the beginning of my career that I could have either one Masters win or one Fedex Cup win, I would probably say Masters  (Would definitely pick the major if it was the US or British Open)

But if you ask me after I already won the Fedex Cup if I'd rather have a Green Jacket right now, then I'm going to go ahead and stick with the Cup.  My thoughts are that I am playing good golf for the entire season, rather than just getting hot for one week, so that in itself is worth something.  Also, I certainly now have the confidence in my game (if I didn't already) that I am capable of a major in the future.  So, no thank you, I will not give up this cup to go get a green jacket.  I will keep this cup AND go get a green jacket.

[Golf Man]

As a follow on from the importance of the Fed Ex discussion, Colin Byrne, caddy with Tom Lewis, and formerly Goosen and Ed Molinari amongst others, has this article today

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0925/1224324359013.html

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by jamo

I have absolutely no clue what Snedeker would do, but for me it would all depend on the situation (financial, majors/tournaments won, etc.).

Here's the tipping point. Players of Snedeker's level and experience are all ready multi-millionaires. Sure $10M is a huge amount even for them but in reality what is it going to do for them other than add more to their already substantial retirement account? Also, his future earning potential would be substantially improved with a green jacket. Maybe not $10M worth but a lot.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I agree with Sean, Jamo and Shorty ... how could I possibly know whats more important to him?  But for the sake of playing the game, I'll say no.

If I was a pro and you asked me at the beginning of my career that I could have either one Masters win or one Fedex Cup win, I would probably say Masters  (Would definitely pick the major if it was the US or British Open)

But if you ask me after I already won the Fedex Cup if I'd rather have a Green Jacket right now, then I'm going to go ahead and stick with the Cup. My thoughts are that I am playing good golf for the entire season, rather than just getting hot for one week, so that in itself is worth something.  Also, I certainly now have the confidence in my game (if I didn't already) that I am capable of a major in the future.  So, no thank you, I will not give up this cup to go get a green jacket.  I will keep this cup AND go get a green jacket.

I said basically the same thing in a thread about the importance of majors...once a golfer has accomplished something, he is proud of that accomplishment.  To trade multiple good performances and $ for a single tourny result is likely not that appealing after the fact.

Originally Posted by Golf Man

As a follow on from the importance of the Fed Ex discussion, Colin Byrne, caddy with Tom Lewis, and formerly Goosen and Ed Molinari amongst others, has this article today

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0925/1224324359013.html

I disagree...One thing I have noticed is that the general public only finds it exciting when the big names are in contention on Sunday...that is the only case you could make for last years TC playoff with Haas and Mahan being boring.  I thought last years TC had a lot of drama while this years playoffs were great (with the big names duking it out) with the TC lacking drama only because the outcome was basically decided before the last hole and never really seemed that much in jeopardy.  The problem is, regardless of format, you are not always going to have a tight finish.  Had Rory played more inspired golf and been within a couple of shots of Sneds, then I think there would have been a lot more drama.

For Sneds, I imagine that there was plenty of drama and excitement as it was the first time he closed the deal having slept on the 54 hole lead.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Golf Man

As a follow on from the importance of the Fed Ex discussion, Colin Byrne, caddy with Tom Lewis, and formerly Goosen and Ed Molinari amongst others, has this article today

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0925/1224324359013.html

Sounds like sour grapes*. And yet it speaks to my comments (in the "other thread" or this one - lost track) that the "FedEx" bubble is sure to burst eventually. They just awarded ~ $30 million in that tournament. They're basically the title sponsor for the PGA Tour right now being mentioned every week (unlike poor Kodak and their season long  "ringer score" or whatever it's called) with constant FedEx updates non-stop from corporate schills like Dan Hicks.

*If Rory hadn't crumbled on Sunday, would the author have been whining about a large payday not capturing people's attention like the "Open Championship" does? Not likely. We'd probably be reading about how Rory triumphed in the most lucrative and glorious championship any Irishman has ever won.

[k-troop]

The Masters was just another tournament until Sarazen jarred his 2nd on the 15th hole.  Big competitors hitting big shots gets people interested.

The FedEx Cup has the cash, which means the big names will be there.  They've had some exciting finishes with Haas and Furyk both needing gutsy up-and-downs at the last for the double-win.  Haas' shot from the pond was epic; anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention to golf.

Honestly, we're 6 years into this thing, and it's already pretty huge.  All of the biggest names on the US Tour are there.  Tiger and Phil used to skip the TC pretty regularly; not anymore.  Look at the names on the trophy--no flukes there, every one a Ryder or Pres Cup player, all multiple winners, and 3/5 are major champions.  Pretty amazing for an event that's only been around six years.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Here's the tipping point. Players of Snedeker's level and experience are all ready multi-millionaires. Sure $10M is a huge amount even for them but in reality what is it going to do for them other than add more to their already substantial retirement account? Also, his future earning potential would be substantially improved with a green jacket. Maybe not $10M worth but a lot.

Reminds me of a scene from The Fugitive ('90's movie, not older TV show) courtesy of IMDB:

Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard : Why did Richard Kimble kill his wife?
Detective Kelly : He did it for the money.
Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard : What do you mean, he did it for the money? He's a doctor. He's already rich.
Detective Kelly : But she was more rich.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by k-troop

The Masters was just another tournament until Sarazen jarred his 2nd on the 15th hole.  Big competitors hitting big shots gets people interested.

The FedEx Cup has the cash, which means the big names will be there.  They've had some exciting finishes with Haas and Furyk both needing gutsy up-and-downs at the last for the double-win.  Haas' shot from the pond was epic; anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention to golf.

Honestly, we're 6 years into this thing, and it's already pretty huge.  All of the biggest names on the US Tour are there.  Tiger and Phil used to skip the TC pretty regularly; not anymore.  Look at the names on the trophy--no flukes there, every one a Ryder or Pres Cup player, all multiple winners, and 3/5 are major champions.  Pretty amazing for an event that's only been around six years.

I think the Sarazen double eagle makes the point that history and tradition is why the majors will always be far more important than the FedEx Cup. That was the second year of the Invitational and partly because it happened, partly because it was Bobby Jones' invitational and for various other reasons, The Masters evolved into what we now see. It was a natural and organic process unlike the FedEx Cup which is a made up process sponsored by a shipping company. Yes it's important but only for the money and the points it gives towards player of the year.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

The Masters was just another tournament until Sarazen jarred his 2nd on the 15th hole.  Big competitors hitting big shots gets people interested.

The FedEx Cup has the cash, which means the big names will be there.  They've had some exciting finishes with Haas and Furyk both needing gutsy up-and-downs at the last for the double-win.  Haas' shot from the pond was epic; anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention to golf.

Honestly, we're 6 years into this thing, and it's already pretty huge.  All of the biggest names on the US Tour are there.  Tiger and Phil used to skip the TC pretty regularly; not anymore.  Look at the names on the trophy--no flukes there, every one a Ryder or Pres Cup player, all multiple winners, and 3/5 are major champions.  Pretty amazing for an event that's only been around six years.

I think the Sarazen double eagle makes the point that history and tradition is why the majors will always be far more important than the FedEx Cup. That was the second year of the Invitational and partly because it happened, partly because it was Bobby Jones' invitational and for various other reasons, The Masters evolved into what we now see. It was a natural and organic process unlike the FedEx Cup which is a made up process sponsored by a shipping company. Yes it's important but only for the money and the points it gives towards player of the year.

The Sarazen double eagle meant more in the years following than it did at the time when barely anyone saw it or cared. The legend grew. No event created now has the opportunity to grow like that because within a couple years some other fabricated corporate event will have come along trying to outdo it. The Race to Dubai? Now that is lame!!!

Now of course this is all way OFF TOPIC and has nothing to do with Brandt Snedeker's fictional dilema. We should be asking Brandt and his family which he'd rather have in the next couple years - the money he plans on putting to good use in the Nashville area, or a green jacket that has to remain in Georgia.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

The Sarazen double eagle meant more in the years following than it did at the time when barely anyone saw it or cared. The legend grew. No event created now has the opportunity to grow like that because within a couple years some other fabricated corporate event will have come along trying to outdo it. The Race to Dubai? Now that is lame!!!

Now of course this is all way OFF TOPIC and has nothing to do with Brandt Snedeker's fictional dilema. We should be asking Brandt and his family which he'd rather have in the next couple years - the money he plans on putting to good use in the Nashville area, or a green jacket that has to remain in Georgia.

I agree.

So many of these modern tournaments are  a bit like the "world's tallest building" claim.

Who really cares any more?

No hideous skyscrapers in Seoul or Osaka or Dubai, or wherever have the romance simple beauty of something like the Empire State Building.

Nothing is going to change the way people FEEL, and it certainly isn't going to have anything to do with money.

Thera re 4 majors and will only ever be 4 majors, whether we like i or not.

Having said that, and back on topic, would Snedeker have broken down in tears had he not won this tournament, as he did 5 or so yaeras back at Augusta? I doubt it.

That's probably a fair indicator of how he feels. (Secretly, I'd take the money)

[Golf Man]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Sounds like sour grapes*. And yet it speaks to my comments (in the "other thread" or this one - lost track) that the "FedEx" bubble is sure to burst eventually. They just awarded ~ $30 million in that tournament. They're basically the title sponsor for the PGA Tour right now being mentioned every week (unlike poor Kodak and their season long  "ringer score" or whatever it's called) with constant FedEx updates non-stop from corporate schills like Dan Hicks.

*If Rory hadn't crumbled on Sunday, would the author have been whining about a large payday not capturing people's attention like the "Open Championship" does? Not likely. We'd probably be reading about how Rory triumphed in the most lucrative and glorious championship any Irishman has ever won.

Sounds like a crap point - Had McIlroy won it would have made news over here but nothing and I mean nothing like when he or any ofteh other Irish players have won majors recently. McIlroys two wins in the playoffs made the sports pages - Harringtons, GMac, Clarke and McIlroys wins have all been front page news, they end up on talk shows etc etc

The simple fact is that a very rich young kid would have won a lot of money - nobody would be talking about the "glorious" championship. The simple fact, whether you like it or not is that the Fed Ex Cup doesn't and will never (probably because it won't be around very often) capture the public attention (as oppoposed to teh golfing public attention)

There are certain, but very few single sports events (as opposed to the Olympics, World Cup etc)  that are iconic, known across the world - here I'd say the Grand National, Wimbledon, Superbowl, Melbourne Cup, Champions League Final, (we have the All-Irelands but they're not exactly international - ut all these events attract people that would never be interested in the sport. Golf has the Masters and the Open (and thats what its called by the way) and probably to an extent the Ryder Cup,  that are in this category - Fed Ex Cup (or Race to Dubai for that matter) will never ever be in that league

I'd be disgusted at any golfer who can qualify for the Fed Ex Cup (bearing in mind that all of those guys are multi millionaires as it is) choosing a Fed Ex over a major - I've no doubt that Snedeker would pick any of the majors over it (Similarly Montgomerie won 7 Order of Merits in Europe - but would give them all up for one major)

[ThominOH]

Majors are over-rated anymore..  In my opinion..  There are plenty of regular tournaments that have world class fields almost equal to that of a major.. Just as in the past there were many of tourney's that were considered of major quality by the players, but as golf history evolved, they were forgotten and ignored..  So sad.. In fact, Masters is a very over hyped weak field for a major.. It has approx 100 players invited, where 10 or more of the invited players are OLD past winners that have virtually no chance of winning, leaving only about 80-85 player field.. In the same breath we have players like Ernie Els that are not invited, and we all saw what happen this year..  The US Open and British Open are true majors with huge strong fields.. Now with the Fed Ex cup, some of the final four tourneys actually have a stronger field then the Masters..

[Golf Man]

Originally Posted by ThominOH

Majors are over-rated anymore..  In my opinion..  There are plenty of regular tournaments that have world class fields almost equal to that of a major.. Just as in the past there were many of tourney's that were considered of major quality by the players, but as golf history evolved, they were forgotten and ignored..  So sad.. In fact, Masters is a very over hyped weak field for a major.. It has approx 100 players invited, where 10 or more of the invited players are OLD past winners that have virtually no chance of winning, leaving only about 80-85 player field.. In the same breath we have players like Ernie Els that are not invited, and we all saw what happen this year..  The US Open and British Open are true majors with huge strong fields.. Now with the Fed Ex cup, some of the final four tourneys actually have a stronger field then the Masters..

The Tour Championship will by its nature have one of the strongest fields of the year, beacuse it only has 30 in it (and they have been reduced down from the Top 125 on the PGA Tour), but have a look at the World Golf Rankings - I would imagine that probably 25% of the Top 100 weren't even eligile for the Fed Ex Cup, which is one of its key weaknesses. For example 4 of Europes Ryder Cup team (Molinari, Lawrie, Hanson, Colsaerts) are in the Top 50, obviously on form, given they are in the Ryder Cup team, played all teh majors this year but not eligible for th eFed Ex

While the majors will have some weakness in their fields, be it the past winners in the Masters or the Club Pros in the USPGA, the general strength of the field is higher than say the first event of the Fed Ex.

The top end of the Fed Ex field is very high quality but the middle to lower end simply isn't. Els missing out on the Masters was unusual, the Fed Ex is by its very nature exclusionary and results in worse fields to start with

Fed Ex is fine for what it is, doesn't compare to the majors in any way

.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by ThominOH

Majors are over-rated anymore..  In my opinion..  There are plenty of regular tournaments that have world class fields almost equal to that of a major.. Just as in the past there were many of tourney's that were considered of major quality by the players, but as golf history evolved, they were forgotten and ignored..  So sad.. In fact, Masters is a very over hyped weak field for a major.. It has approx 100 players invited, where 10 or more of the invited players are OLD past winners that have virtually no chance of winning, leaving only about 80-85 player field.. In the same breath we have players like Ernie Els that are not invited, and we all saw what happen this year..  The US Open and British Open are true majors with huge strong fields.. Now with the Fed Ex cup, some of the final four tourneys actually have a stronger field then the Masters..

I disagree. The strength of field in The Masters may not be as strong as the Tour Championship but every great player in the world was there. This includes Woods, McIlroy, Watson, Westwood, Mickelson, Scott, Oosthuizen, McDowell, Garcia, Mahan, Snedeker, Jacobson, Dufner, Fowler, Singh, Donald, Cabrera, Watney, Haas, Kaymer, Schwartzel and Stricker. Els was not even close to being a great player at that time or he would have qualified for the tournament. That's his fault not the qualifying process. What makes a Major a Major is the prestige and pressure. How do you think Jim Furyk felt at Olympic? He was absolutely crushed and it was because of the pressure that he folded.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Golf Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Sounds like sour grapes*. And yet it speaks to my comments (in the "other thread" or this one - lost track) that the "FedEx" bubble is sure to burst eventually. They just awarded ~ $30 million in that tournament. They're basically the title sponsor for the PGA Tour right now being mentioned every week (unlike poor Kodak and their season long  "ringer score" or whatever it's called) with constant FedEx updates non-stop from corporate schills like Dan Hicks.

*If Rory hadn't crumbled on Sunday, would the author have been whining about a large payday not capturing people's attention like the "Open Championship" does? Not likely. We'd probably be reading about how Rory triumphed in the most lucrative and glorious championship any Irishman has ever won.

Sounds like a XXXX point - Had McIlroy won it would have made news over here but nothing and I mean nothing like when he or any ofteh other Irish players have won majors recently. McIlroys two wins in the playoffs made the sports pages - Harringtons, GMac, Clarke and McIlroys wins have all been front page news, they end up on talk shows etc etc

The simple fact is that a very rich young kid would have won a lot of money - nobody would be talking about the "glorious" championship. The simple fact, whether you like it or not is that the Fed Ex Cup doesn't and will never (probably because it won't be around very often) capture the public attention (as oppoposed to teh golfing public attention)

There are certain, but very few single sports events (as opposed to the Olympics, World Cup etc)  that are iconic, known across the world - here I'd say the Grand National, Wimbledon, Superbowl, Melbourne Cup, Champions League Final, (we have the All-Irelands but they're not exactly international - ut all these events attract people that would never be interested in the sport. Golf has the Masters and the Open (and thats what its called by the way) and probably to an extent the Ryder Cup,  that are in this category - Fed Ex Cup (or Race to Dubai for that matter) will never ever be in that league

I'd be disgusted at any golfer who can qualify for the Fed Ex Cup (bearing in mind that all of those guys are multi millionaires as it is) choosing a Fed Ex over a major - I've no doubt that Snedeker would pick any of the majors over it (Similarly Montgomerie won 7 Order of Merits in Europe - but would give them all up for one major)

I may have exaggerated for effect, but I stand by my statement. Had McIlroy not choked on Sunday I suspect that article would not have been printed, because it would have been a different article. You disagree as is your right. I think you're wrong.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by MSchott

I disagree. The strength of field in The Masters may not be as strong as the Tour Championship but every great player in the world was there. This includes Woods, McIlroy, Watson, Westwood, Mickelson, Scott, Oosthuizen, McDowell, Garcia, Mahan, Snedeker, Jacobson, Dufner, Fowler, Singh, Donald, Cabrera, Watney, Haas, Kaymer, Schwartzel and Stricker. Els was not even close to being a great player at that time or he would have qualified for the tournament. That's his fault not the qualifying process. What makes a Major a Major is the prestige and pressure. How do you think Jim Furyk felt at Olympic? He was absolutely crushed and it was because of the pressure that he folded.

So what constitutes a "great player" in your opinion?  And how was Els not even close?  The Masters takes the top 50 in the OWGR at the end of the prior year and again 10 days prior to the tournament.  Els did not play well in 2011, but had a lot of good finishes prior to the Masters in 2012 (a t2 to start the year and a t5, t4 & t12 the 3 weeks prior to the Masters with no missed cuts in 8 events).  So how long does a once great player who hit a rough patch need to play good to again be considered "great."  If Els was great enough to be included in the 2011 Masters when he was playing poorly (and to be inducted in the Hall of Fame) he was certainly great enough to be included in the 2012 Masters.

The OWGR look at a 2 year window and the Masters qualification criteria does not look enough at the current years results.  The funny/sad thing about using the year end rankings from December is that the OWGR give the most weight to the prior 13 weeks which means the year end rankings count the "silly season" more heavily than the major/summer season.  For 2012 prior to the Masters, Els was playing better than many of the "great" players you mentioned and should have been included in the field.

[Golf Man]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I may have exaggerated for effect, but I stand by my statement. Had McIlroy not choked on Sunday I suspect that article would not have been printed, because it would have been a different article. You disagree as is your right. I think you're wrong.

1. I don't really think you can say that McIlroy choked - he had won the last 2 events as well as winning the PGA a couple of weeks before that - practically impossible to keep at that level (how often do guys win 4 out of 5 events?)

2. If he had won there would have been a report on Monday about it, praising him I'm sure (no-one can deny that its a massive event) - there was obviously reports on Monday in any case. This was a column that came out the day after and is a comment piece - I read his stuff all the time and I thinl kit would have remained as it was

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by MEfree

So what constitutes a "great player" in your opinion?  And how was Els not even close?  The Masters takes the top 50 in the OWGR at the end of the prior year and again 10 days prior to the tournament.  Els did not play well in 2011, but had a lot of good finishes prior to the Masters in 2012 (a t2 to start the year and a t5, t4 & t12 the 3 weeks prior to the Masters with no missed cuts in 8 events).  So how long does a once great player who hit a rough patch need to play good to again be considered "great."  If Els was great enough to be included in the 2011 Masters when he was playing poorly (and to be inducted in the Hall of Fame) he was certainly great enough to be included in the 2012 Masters.

The OWGR look at a 2 year window and the Masters qualification criteria does not look enough at the current years results.  The funny/sad thing about using the year end rankings from December is that the OWGR give the most weight to the prior 13 weeks which means the year end rankings count the "silly season" more heavily than the major/summer season.  For 2012 prior to the Masters, Els was playing better than many of the "great" players you mentioned and should have been included in the field.

I don't think there is any method to please everyone when choosing the current top players in the world In reality Ernie has until recently not been competitive on the PGA Tour for a number of years. The Masters has certain criteria and some of these are based on a time limit after a non-Masters major win I believe. Ernie fell outside of that window and thus needed a special invite and it was not granted. I'm not judging that one way or the other but he was his own worst enemy based on his record. For the record I think the 2 year basis for the OWGR is fine and better than what was previously used.  The PGA Tour is not in the business of evaluating short term success.