Money isn't the issue IMO its game reps. Playing only one tourney a month won't keep you that sharp. Agree top guys might be ok but I bet there's a dip.

It's interesting...Tiger commented on something similar.

After the tournament this weekend, he said he was happy he was striking the ball well, like he does back home, but the difference is, when he hit a bad shot, it wasn't a matter of dropping a ball and doing it better, but having to play from the lie you just created.

That seems obvious, but at the same time, I can see that being a potential tripping point, if you haven't been playing all practice rounds to tournament rules.

While I like to watch golf on TV no matter what it is, I think LIV might have an issue drawing enough eyeballs to pay the bills. I love watching some of the players on LIV but my interest has waned a bit since I have only had the opportunity to watch them a few times. Folks like Bryson have been able to keep some interest with YouTube stuff. The PGATs response with the elevated events has been pretty successful IMO. It will be interesting how LIV plays out this year and what changes actually get implemented.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Deluxe said:

---

Not sure if you read my post but that's what I was saying. I don't have any doubt they'll be competitive in the majors.

---

The only guys from LIV who will play in majors any time soon are guys with exemptions/past winners.

I guess I just dont' understand what you mean by 'objectively the case' that they won't be competitive in LIV tournaments or DP World tour events/any other area where blended fields exist? Why would these guys not go chase all the extra money that comes with winning LIV events in any different way than Rahm is doing right now in the elevated PGAT events?

---

You're rebutting points that I never made. My point was that I think LIV guys will be competitive in majors this year, even though LIV isn't as competitive as the PGAT. The guy before me was suggesting that the decreased competition level on LIV would hinder their major chances and I was disagreeing with that.

Yeah, the question is whether playing less competitive golf ultimately takes a toll on competitiveness in majors. I think that answer will vary player to player. Nothing sharpens a player for elite competitive golf like playing elite competitive golf, and a lot of these guys will be playing 1/3 to 1/2 less. Then you factor in that some guys made this choice because they want to work less. "More money, less work." Those were DJ's exact words. So you do wonder what all that entails, and if the work and the grind put in behind the scenes will measure up to before.

I responded to wrong guy

My bad

All good sir

Deluxe said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Deluxe said:

---

Not sure if you read my post but that's what I was saying. I don't have any doubt they'll be competitive in the majors.

---

The only guys from LIV who will play in majors any time soon are guys with exemptions/past winners.

I guess I just dont' understand what you mean by 'objectively the case' that they won't be competitive in LIV tournaments or DP World tour events/any other area where blended fields exist? Why would these guys not go chase all the extra money that comes with winning LIV events in any different way than Rahm is doing right now in the elevated PGAT events?

---

You're rebutting points that I never made. My point was that I think LIV guys will be competitive in majors this year, even though LIV isn't as competitive as the PGAT. The guy before me was suggesting that the decreased competition level on LIV would hinder their major chances and I was disagreeing with that.

---

My bad. Misread your post. I see what you're saying now.

I fully expect Cam Smith to be in the hunt for every major this year. Not so sure about the other guys but it's not necessarily because of LIV. Just hard to know what you were gonna get out of Brooks, Bryson, etc. even before they left.

Cam smith will win the masters this yr

Aggie369 said:

---

I responded to wrong guy

My bad

---

I brought it up and mentioned DJ and Poulter as guys that both mentioned less work, their legacy already cemented, what did they have left to prove.

One of the things I previously didn't comment much about in this whole thread is the 'legacy' aspect. In my view, golf has undermined a lot of the value of any legacy discussion for current and younger players.

No matter what anyone does, they are constantly compared to Tiger. Brooks and Spieth had some dominant points, and now their game isnt as strong as it was at one time. So despite their amazing accomplishments, its a mere footnote or more of an asterisk to how much of an outlier Tiger was.

so true. I mean there is technically a golf hall of fame, but does anyone really give a **** about it? Especially considering so many guys who are in it are still playing competitively it kind of loses its luster. When everyone after Tiger is compared to Tiger it's almost unreachable to even have half the career he has had.

AustinCountyAg said:

---

Cam smith will win the masters this yr

---

I'll take that bet.

jonj101 said:

---

One of the things I previously didn't comment much about in this whole thread is the 'legacy' aspect. In my view, golf has undermined a lot of the value of any legacy discussion for current and younger players.

No matter what anyone does, they are constantly compared to Tiger. Brooks and Spieth had some dominant points, and now their game isnt as strong as it was at one time. So despite their amazing accomplishments, its a mere footnote or more of an asterisk to how much of an outlier Tiger was.

---

They really do need to establish a new baseline, and of, if not THE, greatest ever can't be the standard.

Kind of like the suggestion that they have a regular schmuck compete in events at the olympic games, just to give you some frame of reference to how difficult it is to even participate, let alone compete at the top level.

I always lump Tom Watson (8 majors) with the Jack, Lee, Gary generation even though he was a little younger. So if we're talking the last 40 years or so, the number of majors to beat would be 6 IMO. Phil and Faldo have that many. then you have Els and Rory with 4; Harrington and Speith with 3; JT and DJ have 2. So if Rory and Jordan can get going again and get past 6 that would be pretty damn good. they both are also 1 away from the career grand slam which would put them in another category of greatness if they can get it done.

Crap totally forgot Koepka with 4 too.

in LIV related news DJ is parting ways with Adidas.

https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/35707040/liv-dustin-johnson-adidas-end-15-year-sponsorship-deal

Interesting

Either his contract was up or someone is about to buy his team sponsorship. I'm pretty sure DJ negotiated for equity in his team as well

AustinCountyAg said:

---

so true. I mean there is technically a golf hall of fame, but does anyone really give a **** about it? Especially considering so many guys who are in it are still playing competitively it kind of loses its luster. When everyone after Tiger is compared to Tiger it's almost unreachable to even have half the career he has had.

---

The same was said about Jack and Arny. And the same before them. Foolhardy at best.

What I'm about to ask is unthinkable to many in the golf world but here goes:

In the modern era, should majors still be considered the standard for greatness, or should it be other variables?

I mean, one of my favorite classic players was Billy Casper. He didn't have a ton of majors, but I think he's like ranked 7th in wins all time. The hope for the elite of modern day golfers would be just to crack the top 10 of wins all time. I can't see either of those as not having a legacy of greatness.

Also, considering the strength of fields like the WGC events, fedex playoffs, tour championship, etc, the majors have the historical prestige status. But degree of competition can be close in other events.

To me if you want younger players to care about their legacies in connection with the game and not chase cash grabs, it needs to be associated with something attainable/substantial if that makes sense.

Golf has a huge mental component and the increased pressure/stress/etc that comes with a major just makes it different, even when the fields are relatively the same. To me at least, that's a big reason why majors are different. A 6 footer to win the Masters isn't the same thing as a 6 footer to win the Waste Management, even if the fields are identical. Just my 2 cents.

It's interesting fodder for us fans to discuss what makes a player great at this juncture of golf history. Various tours have taken their stab at what players should care about if they want to be great (ie The Players, the Tour Championship, the Race to Dubai, etc). Statistical agencies have tried to determine greatness via mathematical formula.

But at the end of the day, standard of greatness in golf evolved organically for many years among the players themselves. The best of each generation battle to win the prizes that the previous generation valued most. That's not to say that things can't change over time. The US Amateur used to be a "major" until the game was redirected toward the professionals.

I don't think the inertia around greatness being defined at The Masters, The Open Championship and the US Open (and PGA championship to a slightly lesser extent) is going to change anytime soon. Those are the events that the best players of each generation wants to win most and everything else trickles down from there.

I agree. The majors……..the majors……….the majors. The Players to a slightly lesser extent.

If I was a professional, I'd take two major wins in a given year (probably one) over winning 4-5 regular tournaments and the Tour Championship.

Majors put you in with the golfing Gods.

Deluxe said:

---

It's interesting fodder for us fans to discuss what makes a player great at this juncture of golf history. Various tours have taken their stab at what players should care about if they want to be great (ie The Players, the Tour Championship, the Race to Dubai, etc). Statistical agencies have tried to determine greatness via mathematical formula.

But at the end of the day, standard of greatness in golf evolved organically for many years among the players themselves. The best of each generation battle to win the prizes that the previous generation valued most. That's not to say that things can't change over time. The US Amateur used to be a "major" until the game was redirected toward the professionals.

I don't think the inertia around greatness being defined at The Masters, The Open Championship and the US Open (and PGA championship to a slightly lesser extent) is going to change anytime soon. Those are the events that the best players of each generation wants to win most and everything else trickles down from there.

---

well said.

JCA1 said:

---

I fully expect Cam Smith to be in the hunt for every major this year. Not so sure about the other guys but it's not necessarily because of LIV. Just hard to know what you were gonna get out of Brooks, Bryson, etc. even before they left.

---

This is exactly how I feel.

Cam left while peaking and he is still young and hungry.

Deluxe said:

---

It's interesting fodder for us fans to discuss what makes a player great at this juncture of golf history. Various tours have taken their stab at what players should care about if they want to be great (ie The Players, the Tour Championship, the Race to Dubai, etc). Statistical agencies have tried to determine greatness via mathematical formula.

But at the end of the day, standard of greatness in golf evolved organically for many years among the players themselves. The best of each generation battle to win the prizes that the previous generation valued most. That's not to say that things can't change over time. The US Amateur used to be a "major" until the game was redirected toward the professionals.

I don't think the inertia around greatness being defined at The Masters, The Open Championship and the US Open (and PGA championship to a slightly lesser extent) is going to change anytime soon. Those are the events that the best players of each generation wants to win most and everything else trickles down from there.

---

Great points - especially those in bold.

Swollen Thumb said:

---

I see the OWGR matter pretty simplistically...

>What is the sole purpose of the OWGR? To identify and rank the current top performers in the sport.
>Has the current format served that purposes within reason? Most would say Yes.
>Has the professional golf landscape changed in a fundamental way? If LIV survives....unquestionably.
>Does the current format serve its intended purposes in the context of this new landscape? No it would not.
>So if the OWGR is genuinely committed to achieiving its singular purpose in a credible manner, shouldn't the discussion be about how to modify/adapt their system to this new landscape (as opposed to whether or not it should)?

But since that is unlikely to happen due to collusion or whatever, let's switch gears....

The OWGR only matter to LIV players as respect entry into majors. So the whole discussion becomes moot if the majors themselves decided to independently recognize the stregth of LIV tour by granting exemption to say its top 10 players as defined by LIVs own rankings. That number could be adjusted over time based on overall results of LIV players against a full field at said major.

That approach would: 1) make performance at LIV event matter to its memebers, countering one of the main criticisms of LIV; 2) ensure we get the truly best golfers competing at majors; and 3) add even more drama and spectacle to majors themselves.

I realize this is also just as unlikely to happen (for...ahem...whatever reasons), but I'm not going to lie....as a sports fan and golf fan, a set-up like this would have my attention week in and out and especially the majors.

---

Originally posted this last August. Thought it was worth a re-post based on how the first 2 majors have gone.

Sergio birdies his last hole at the Dallas US open qualifier to make it through.

JCA1 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

We're discussing the perceived end of LIV during the exact same weekend DJ and others were saved last year from joining. Almost feels scheduled.

LIV may fail. It may have defectors. But this also feels very similar to the then sentiment at this exact time last year.

This is clearly the PR push season for the PGAT. It will be interesting to see what happens this year for LIV. They can't lose a big name and they need some juice. This year is everything for everyone.

---

Maybe. But last year they could at least offer the promise and excitement of a new league. Simply put, that excitement never materialized despite getting better talent than I expected.

Maybe this year they will generate a following that they couldn't find last year. But history suggests otherwise. LIV's viewership last year looked a lot like every other start-up sports league that challenged an entrenched competitor in the last 50 years-their biggest audience was right out of the gate out of sheer novelty and then a steady decline afterward. We'll see.

---

Been busy lately. Anything going on today?

AgLA06 said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

We're discussing the perceived end of LIV during the exact same weekend DJ and others were saved last year from joining. Almost feels scheduled.

LIV may fail. It may have defectors. But this also feels very similar to the then sentiment at this exact time last year.

This is clearly the PR push season for the PGAT. It will be interesting to see what happens this year for LIV. They can't lose a big name and they need some juice. This year is everything for everyone.

---

Maybe. But last year they could at least offer the promise and excitement of a new league. Simply put, that excitement never materialized despite getting better talent than I expected.

Maybe this year they will generate a following that they couldn't find last year. But history suggests otherwise. LIV's viewership last year looked a lot like every other start-up sports league that challenged an entrenched competitor in the last 50 years-their biggest audience was right out of the gate out of sheer novelty and then a steady decline afterward. We'll see.

---

Been busy lately. Anything going on today?

---

There is. It's been widely discussed on the other thread. The details are not well known yet but it appears the PIF has bought their place at the table of professional golf by agreeing to underwrite all men's professional tours. LIV's viewership/fan interest does not appear to have anything to do with this so not sure why you're tagging my old post.

Not sure why I try. This will all be lost on you. You're a mile wide and an inch deep as always.

And I should add this a good day and professional golf is once again united. As a golf fan, that's what I've always wanted and my biggest complaint about LIV. I still have no idea what it is you want other than to fling poo on the internet. I guess everyone needs a hobby though.

Just pointing out the incorrect BS and hypocrisy some of y'all couldn't get enough of. If I wanted to fling poo, my response would have been much different. All I needed to do was bump your horrible takes regarding the almighty PGAT and how LIV didn't have a chance.

I'll go back to watching in hilarity while some try to spin this as something other than the compilation it is by the PGAT. Once again horrible leadership just failed their players .

You just don't understand any of this. For one, the deal is with PIF. And it's for PIF to underwrite the PGAT and DP. It's got basically nothing to do with LIV. It's not even clear right now whether LIV will even exist after all this.

You are wedded to LIV more than the Saudis are. They want to back a profitable golf league. This deal suggests they think bankrolling the Tour is a much better avenue than continuing to bankroll LIV.

The PIF was the only reason LIV existed. Whether LIV exists in any capacity is irrelevant at this point. Everyone benefits now because of what it accomplished. PIF leadership takes the lead moving forward and the horrible PGAT leadership is taking a back seat. I can't wait to see where the tour goes from here.