Greg Norman Says Players Content with Top 20s over Wins

[Lastpick]

I think the European tour allows players to be paid appearance fees for playing.  The PGA tour prohibits this practice.  If a touring pro can get off to a good solid start, it does allow them to tweak their schedule.  I love watching the tournaments on tv and apparently the tour is still a good financial draw in spite of a sluggish economy.

[Golfingdad]

IMHO...He may be right, to an extent. Lets face it, there are a few pro's that make a Very good living placing in the top 20, year after year, and although it may not be that they aren't driven to win, I think the money they pay out for 1 PGA tourney may be too much, i.e. you place in the top 3, and make up to 1/2 million bucks, also imho, once a player gets what he considers enough money in the bank, he may, or may not think..Hey, I've 1.3 mill so far, so maybe I'll just kinda cruise in the next 2, 3 or 4 tourney's. I'm not saying this is Fact, just my thouhts. I would like to see the PGA, have pay outs a wee bit closer to the Euro tour pays, seems to keep most of the Pro's Hungry, as winning even a couple of  events won't put you in the million dollar category. Of course, there are exceptions. As far as I can figure, there's more than a few pro's on the PGA, who want nothing more, than to win, ya know, sorta like Tiger, Jack and other Pro's. I just think the money makes some players to relaxed about wanting to, or needing to win. Got my flame suit on, so...let'r rip....:-$

Just like Norman, I think your opinion is unfair and wrong. Think about how hard it is for these guys to even get to that level. The dedication it takes to become the best of the best of the best. You cannot possibly even become a pga tour player by "settling" or "coasting" so the assertion that there are sheep out there implies that they became that way after getting there. I don't believe people that are wired with that kind of dedication just lose it overnight. Further, with the quantity of younger hungry guys waiting to take you down, you're not hanging out there for very long if you don't have the drive. I think the idea is nonsense. All of these guys want it and want it bad or else they wouldn't be out there.

[jbishop15]

Just like Norman, I think your opinion is unfair and wrong. Think about how hard it is for these guys to even get to that level. The dedication it takes to become the best of the best of the best. You cannot possibly even become a pga tour player by "settling" or "coasting" so the assertion that there are sheep out there implies that they became that way after getting there. I don't believe people that are wired with that kind of dedication just lose it overnight. Further, with the quantity of younger hungry guys waiting to take you down, you're not hanging out there for very long if you don't have the drive. I think the idea is nonsense. All of these guys want it and want it bad or else they wouldn't be out there.

Sums it up perfectly. Also, I'm curious to why brought this up for Norman. What did he see that makes him think that some of the guys aren't driven to win?

[Aguirre]

"Players these days are content with top 20 finishes over wins.  I was content with runner-ups over wins."

--Greg Norman

[Aguirre]

, but only a rare few have the actual heart of a champion.

Skip Bayless is on the forum!

[Hammer 4]

I think the European tour allows players to be paid appearance fees for playing.  The PGA tour prohibits this practice.  If a touring pro can get off to a good solid start, it does allow them to tweak their schedule.  I love watching the tournaments on tv and apparently the tour is still a good financial draw in spite of a sluggish economy.

A win on the Euro tour is good for what, about 250k..? A win on most PGA tourney's are now about 1.5 mil..How much appearance money do Euro players get..?

I think the European tour allows players to be paid appearance fees for playing.  The PGA tour prohibits this practice.  If a touring pro can get off to a good solid start, it does allow them to tweak their schedule.  I love watching the tournaments on tv and apparently the tour is still a good financial draw in spite of a sluggish economy.

Just like Norman, I think your opinion is unfair and wrong. Think about how hard it is for these guys to even get to that level. The dedication it takes to become the best of the best of the best. You cannot possibly even become a pga tour player by "settling" or "coasting" so the assertion that there are sheep out there implies that they became that way after getting there. I don't believe people that are wired with that kind of dedication just lose it overnight. Further, with the quantity of younger hungry guys waiting to take you down, you're not hanging out there for very long if you don't have the drive. I think the idea is nonsense. All of these guys want it and want it bad or else they wouldn't be out there.

Drew, you need to read my post Carefully, and read between the lines... I understand what your saying, but, what if after say, 3 or 4 years, player XY and Z could only get a rare top 10 finish, now despite all of their hard work, and dedication, is there a "possibility" that some players could get to a point where finishing in the top 20 isn't so bad..? and the fact they are making a very nice living, may have an effect on their outlook. In my mind, there is a possibility it could happen. I would think nothing less of those players, and the fact they still have mad skills to even be on tour. Just for reference, I did say, Norman MAY be right, but calling anyone a sheep, well, maybe he got caught up in the moment..? I surely don't know.

[Silent]

A win on the Euro tour is good for what, about 250k..? A win on most PGA tourney's are now about 1.5 mil..How much appearance money do Euro players get..?

Depends on the tournament. Luiten winning the KLM Open was € 300K, winning the Wales Open was € 375K. So close to $ 500K I guess (at least back then it was). Ofcourse there are also smaller tournaments. Appearance money is really quite rare as far as I know; mostly (or maybe even only) at the desert swing tournaments, and only to a few top players  who otherwise wouldn't come (so sometimes they are US PGA players like Woods and Mickelson in the past...).

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer 4

IMHO...He may be right, to an extent. Lets face it, there are a few pro's that make a Very good living placing in the top 20, year after year, and although it may not be that they aren't driven to win, I think the money they pay out for 1 PGA tourney may be too much, i.e. you place in the top 3, and make up to 1/2 million bucks, also imho, once a player gets what he considers enough money in the bank, he may, or may not think..Hey, I've 1.3 mill so far, so maybe I'll just kinda cruise in the next 2, 3 or 4 tourney's. I'm not saying this is Fact, just my thouhts.

I would like to see the PGA, have pay outs a wee bit closer to the Euro tour pays, seems to keep most of the Pro's Hungry, as winning even a couple of  events won't put you in the million dollar category. Of course, there are exceptions. As far as I can figure, there's more than a few pro's on the PGA, who want nothing more, than to win, ya know, sorta like Tiger, Jack and other Pro's. I just think the money makes some players to relaxed about wanting to, or needing to win.

Got my flame suit on, so...let'r rip....

Just like Norman, I think your opinion is unfair and wrong. Think about how hard it is for these guys to even get to that level. The dedication it takes to become the best of the best of the best. You cannot possibly even become a pga tour player by "settling" or "coasting" so the assertion that there are sheep out there implies that they became that way after getting there. I don't believe people that are wired with that kind of dedication just lose it overnight. Further, with the quantity of younger hungry guys waiting to take you down, you're not hanging out there for very long if you don't have the drive. I think the idea is nonsense. All of these guys want it and want it bad or else they wouldn't be out there.

Agree totally.  Let's have Greggy ask Padraig Harrington if he was fine with being a sheep.

[iacas]

A win on the Euro tour is good for what, about 250k..? A win on most PGA tourney's are now about 1.5 mil..How much appearance money do Euro players get..?

Paddy won < $1.1M, FWIW.

[RussUK]

IMHO...He may be right, to an extent. Lets face it, there are a few pro's that make a Very good living placing in the top 20, year after year, and although it may not be that they aren't driven to win, I think the money they pay out for 1 PGA tourney may be too much, i.e. you place in the top 3, and make up to 1/2 million bucks, also imho, once a player gets what he considers enough money in the bank, he may, or may not think..Hey, I've 1.3 mill so far, so maybe I'll just kinda cruise in the next 2, 3 or 4 tourney's. I'm not saying this is Fact, just my thouhts.

I would like to see the PGA, have pay outs a wee bit closer to the Euro tour pays, seems to keep most of the Pro's Hungry, as winning even a couple of  events won't put you in the million dollar category. Of course, there are exceptions. As far as I can figure, there's more than a few pro's on the PGA, who want nothing more, than to win, ya know, sorta like Tiger, Jack and other Pro's. I just think the money makes some players to relaxed about wanting to, or needing to win.

Got my flame suit on, so...let'r rip....

I think if you make your living playing golf on tour then there needs to be more incentive to go for the win (or less incentive to "make do with a top 20"). I dont know if anyone agrees but it seems that many of the players on both tours have the mentatliy of "cool, i've made the cut, thats my pay check sorted"

Sure, it may not be a huge sum of money but if you were a journeyman golfer would you turn your nose up at $10k or whaterver for their finish place for 4 days work?

Some of these guys get more for 4 days of, in their books, poor golf than i get in a year.

Yes they could make the gap between top 3 and last place bigger but on the other hand how many of the lower ranked pros would quit as a result.

Hard one to call

[Lastpick]

As far as appearance money on the European tour I could find nothing definitive.  A few years ago an article said that Tiger received $1.5 million for a Middle East appearance.  The few big names receive a sizable amount, but I have no actual information on how much money is out there.

[RussUK]

Not to mention the appearance fee's the top players command. Get rid of that for a start

[MrDC]

I know nothing of the pressure so maybe it is that crazy, but I have a hard time believing any player would avoid the contention, because besides the enormous difference in paycheck for a win you get all the other perks, including off the course, it can pay dividends for a lifetime, it's nuts to think a Pro would avoid such a thing, so I'm not so sure I'm buying this.

[Golfingdad]

The more I think about this, the more absurd the comments appear to me and the more of a jerk Norman looks in my eyes.  There are a finite number of tournaments and majors every year, and as far as it appears to me, there isn't any exceptional amount of multiple winners out there right now.  Reed and Walker have, I think, the most in the last couple of years, and they have, what, 3 apiece?  And nobody has more than 2 or 3 majors in the last several years either.  Kaymer is winning that race, I think.

So, it's real annoying for some douchebag to sit back and just run his mouth and say these guys that aren't winning aren't trying enough because no matter which way you slice it, there are going to be the same amount of guys not winning.  Whoever he's talking about, were they to have been winning more in these past few years, those wins would be taken away from whoever did win, and he could just say his shitty comments about those guys instead.

These guys are all good the best.  They've all worked their asses off to get where they are today, and if I was one of them, I'd happily tell Norman to go you-know-what himself.  What a prick.

[Fourputt]

I'm having a tough time believing a pro doesn't want to win and collect the top money because it's just easier to finish Top 20.

I can understand not going for the win by taking a high risk shot that could drop them down a few slots in a tight tournament.  I don't call that being a sheep, I call it smart decision making.

I've felt like this was the case for some time now.  It's not that recent a phenomenon either.  Bruce Lietske and Scott Hoch were classic "journeyman" players.  They were good enough to make a good living - even win on rare occasions, but were never stars.  Lietske took weeks off from the Tour when he didn't even practice, then came back and almost always seemed to pick up a decent paycheck.  I can't see it as any different now, except that there is more opportunity for a similar approach, because there is more money to be made, even if you compare 1985 dollars to 2015 dollars.  I'm not saying that there is no interest in winning, but that there are many players out there now who become "comfortable" with the money and realize that they can be wealthy without having to make the same effort that they would make to actually contend at the top.

The more I think about this, the more absurd the comments appear to me and the more of a jerk Norman looks in my eyes.  There are a finite number of tournaments and majors every year, and as far as it appears to me, there isn't any exceptional amount of multiple winners out there right now.  Reed and Walker have, I think, the most in the last couple of years, and they have, what, 3 apiece?  And nobody has more than 2 or 3 majors in the last several years either.  Kaymer is winning that race, I think.

So, it's real annoying for some douchebag to sit back and just run his mouth and say these guys that aren't winning aren't trying enough because no matter which way you slice it, there are going to be the same amount of guys not winning.  Whoever he's talking about, were they to have been winning more in these past few years, those wins would be taken away from whoever did win, and he could just say his shitty comments about those guys instead.

These guys are all good the best.  They've all worked their asses off to get where they are today, and if I was one of them, I'd happily tell Norman to go you-know-what himself.  What a prick.

No, really - I want to know what you really think!  I guess I'm a jerk in your eyes too, because I tend to agree with Norman.

There are a lot of guys who work their asses off to get into the money, then they find that they can stay there without working quite so hard.  The money is good, they get to play golf and make a few million and not work quite as hard as they did getting there.  The fire to win burns a bit less brightly for some as they reach a certain level of financial stability.  If you don't believe that then you are denying human nature.  That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be happy to win a tournament or two, but winning is no longer mandatory for that type of person to feel successful.  One time winners are no less obscure in the golf history books than non winners who still made a full career on Tour.

[newtogolf]

I've felt like this was the case for some time now.  It's not that recent a phenomenon either.  Bruce Lietske and Scott Hoch were classic "journeyman" players.  They were good enough to make a good living - even win on rare occasions, but were never stars.  Lietske took weeks off from the Tour when he didn't even practice, then came back and almost always seemed to pick up a decent paycheck.  I can't see it as any different now, except that there is more opportunity for a similar approach, because there is more money to be made, even if you compare 1985 dollars to 2015 dollars.  I'm not saying that there is no interest in winning, but that there are many players out there now who become "comfortable" with the money and realize that they can be wealthy without having to make the same effort that they would make to actually contend at the top.

No, really - I want to know what you really think!  I guess I'm a jerk in your eyes too, because I tend to agree with Norman.

There are a lot of guys who work their asses off to get into the money, then they find that they can stay there without working quite so hard.  The money is good, they get to play golf and make a few million and not work quite as hard as they did getting there.  The fire to win burns a bit less brightly for some as they reach a certain level of financial stability.  If you don't believe that then you are denying human nature.  That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be happy to win a tournament or two, but winning is no longer mandatory for that type of person to feel successful.  One time winners are no less obscure in the golf history books than non winners who still made a full career on Tour.

I'm having a tough time believing a guy who busted his butt to make it to the PGA Tour suddenly becomes complacent because he realizes he can make a decent living without winning.  I might believe there are a few older guys that have made a good living on the tour and are willing to coast into retirement or the Champions Tour but I can't see this being the thought process among younger kids or those in their prime.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm having a tough time believing a pro doesn't want to win and collect the top money because it's just easier to finish Top 20.

I can understand not going for the win by taking a high risk shot that could drop them down a few slots in a tight tournament.  I don't call that being a sheep, I call it smart decision making.

I've felt like this was the case for some time now.  It's not that recent a phenomenon either.  Bruce Lietske and Scott Hoch were classic "journeyman" players.  They were good enough to make a good living - even win on rare occasions, but were never stars.  Lietske took weeks off from the Tour when he didn't even practice, then came back and almost always seemed to pick up a decent paycheck.  I can't see it as any different now, except that there is more opportunity for a similar approach, because there is more money to be made, even if you compare 1985 dollars to 2015 dollars.  I'm not saying that there is no interest in winning, but that there are many players out there now who become "comfortable" with the money and realize that they can be wealthy without having to make the same effort that they would make to actually contend at the top.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

The more I think about this, the more absurd the comments appear to me and the more of a jerk Norman looks in my eyes.  There are a finite number of tournaments and majors every year, and as far as it appears to me, there isn't any exceptional amount of multiple winners out there right now.  Reed and Walker have, I think, the most in the last couple of years, and they have, what, 3 apiece?  And nobody has more than 2 or 3 majors in the last several years either.  Kaymer is winning that race, I think.

So, it's real annoying for some douchebag to sit back and just run his mouth and say these guys that aren't winning aren't trying enough because no matter which way you slice it, there are going to be the same amount of guys not winning.  Whoever he's talking about, were they to have been winning more in these past few years, those wins would be taken away from whoever did win, and he could just say his shitty comments about those guys instead.

These guys are all good the best.  They've all worked their asses off to get where they are today, and if I was one of them, I'd happily tell Norman to go you-know-what himself.  What a prick.

No, really - I want to know what you really think!  I guess I'm a jerk in your eyes too, because I tend to agree with Norman.

There are a lot of guys who work their asses off to get into the money, then they find that they can stay there without working quite so hard.  The money is good, they get to play golf and make a few million and not work quite as hard as they did getting there.  The fire to win burns a bit less brightly for some as they reach a certain level of financial stability.  If you don't believe that then you are denying human nature.  That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be happy to win a tournament or two, but winning is no longer mandatory for that type of person to feel successful.  One time winners are no less obscure in the golf history books than non winners who still made a full career on Tour.

How can you know this Rick?  To get to the tour, they have to have been incredibly competitive.  Many just don't have the talent to win. It doesn't mean they are not trying.  It is like saying the other 7 guys in the 100 meter final just want to coast and let Usain Bolt win.

[Quadhole]

The more I think about this, the more absurd the comments appear to me and the more of a jerk Norman looks in my eyes.  There are a finite number of tournaments and majors every year, and as far as it appears to me, there isn't any exceptional amount of multiple winners out there right now.  Reed and Walker have, I think, the most in the last couple of years, and they have, what, 3 apiece?  And nobody has more than 2 or 3 majors in the last several years either.  Kaymer is winning that race, I think.

So, it's real annoying for some douchebag to sit back and just run his mouth and say these guys that aren't winning aren't trying enough because no matter which way you slice it, there are going to be the same amount of guys not winning.  Whoever he's talking about, were they to have been winning more in these past few years, those wins would be taken away from whoever did win, and he could just say his shitty comments about those guys instead.

These guys are all good the best.  They've all worked their asses off to get where they are today, and if I was one of them, I'd happily tell Norman to go you-know-what himself.  What a prick.

Of course, that is what all the HIGH ROAD members here would state. Go along the high road and you can't be wrong, can't be called out, can't look bad in the eyes of other fellow high road takers... I would expect this position from all country club golfers, guys that sell products into the business, or those that have a great deal of money. I can't afford to play, or at least won't spend my extra money on golf as I enjoy other things too. I am guessing that if I made 500K a year, lived at PGA VIllage (even in Port Saint Lucie) and sold golf towels for a living, my view would be the same. The same as in "never say a bad word about anything to do with golf"

Because he put a label on it "SHEEP" doesn't mean he dislikes the players, or where the game is headed. He is stating a fact and it can be seen. Many guys at that level or in general (the high road type) don't like the limelight, don't like to fight for what they want or need unless pinned in a corner. Tell them all you dont get paid unless you win and things would be dramatically different.  Nothing wrong with what they are doing, I am glad someone had the nads to state it in public. What does he get for telling the truth "bashed by those who would never do it" You guys are mostly right in that most things that are true don't need to be talked about. Like what most of you do in Vegas, or did in your 20s.

I said the same thing a month ago. Most also want the "ONE WIN" to solidify the fact that they can win out here... I think it is top 50 by the way, not top 20... Nail yourself  5 30 place finishes and a top 10 and you in... the money.

I have to get back to work, I could work overtime and make more, but not going to because what I make is enough for now ....