Aguirre

My handicap is deez. It's right there in my profile. Nobody I play with wants to play matches at this point. I didn't say I was not fan of the USGA, I just don't give a f*** about the USGA. I own my enjoyment of golf. Why would I possibly care about what a bunch of out-of-touch white guys in suits have to say about how I consume the game on a participation level? Anymore than I would care about some random poster on the internet who regularly engages in pedantry and gets confirmation from his army of sock puppets?

Because it's a rollback of distance as opposed to allowing it to expand, you pedantic pain in the ass.

Zero. If they attempt to apply this to amateurs I'll simply buy illegal equipment. Like I give a f*** about the USGA.

So long as there is a clear and not highly difficult path to a player getting into the eligible status, I'm fine with it. Like, I just don't want some 42 year old who last had success seven years prior still getting in because of his accumulation of points/money/WGR, etc. because they can keep cashing and accumulating points because they are simply in these fields.

That's somebody's opinion somewhere? That shorts would "ruin the tour?"

I'll have to find it, but I read an article by one of these golf insiders who did some back testing on how the purses would be distributed and estimated that the golfers in the range of like 100-150 would actually earn less. Something like 60-100 about break even. Top 60 more. I'll see if I can find it but it was awhile ago and I do not remember who wrote the article or blog post at all.

Did they not guarantee a salary floor? I thought that was part of the deal.

Also something that's being missed in the coverage of PGA Tour purses is that it's just a reallocation. The bottom players get more in guarantees, the top players will get more in bigger money events, and the middle class will get squeezed a bit.

USGA balloon over Saudi Arabia

Kind of hard to ignore that it's the same f*** over and over again, no?

Ok. I agree.

The rankings could have a predictive element about them, like metrics in other sports. There's enough data that this can be accomplished. But I don't know if that's their goal.

It's far better. Here's what I think the OWGR needs to set straight. 1. Ranking points based on pure merit of the strength of the field 2. Ranking points based on accomplishment. (ie, tournament strength, placement in field (1 vs 2, 5 vs 25, 40 vs mc, etc)). I think this new system does a better job of both. It's never going to be perfect. But it would probably help the OWGR is they explicitly labeled their rankings in terms of merit vs probability of future results. Like, what are they aiming for? Or which of the two do they think is more important in determining the rankings? And to what extent? That would help clear the air a bit.

Of course three of the LIV events this coming year are at Trump properties. Okay after saying that I've watched a ton of PGA Tour golf. Maybe it's just that it's January in PA, maybe I just fooled myself on how much on how much I'm interested.

Seriously. I don't want to call that c--t names, either.