2022 PGA Tour

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,494
Here’s a clue from a story about the three players announcing today. One of them was Eugenio Chacarra, a top amateur:



What they are describing is a two year contract with an option for a third year. Which means that Chacarra is getting guaranteed appearance money.

https://golf.com/news/matthew-wolff-and-top-amateur-join-liv-golf-portland-field/?amp=1

If that’s how they are dealing with amateurs, it stands to reason that every player has a similar deal. The amounts will differ - sometimes dramatically - but every player is guaranteed a minimum level of fairly extreme wealth in exchange for the Saudi’s controlling their career for the next two or three years.

This also tells me that what we have speculated about is true - the “competitions” are nothing more than exhibitions where they divvy up the pre-negotiated salaries. It’s not a pure exhibition, in the sense that, over time, players can presumably win more than they have been guaranteed - or, as is the case with Chacarra, they can be given a contract extension based on performance. But it’s pretty damn close.
So does the player who finishes last have to pay anything back? Or is only the winners' shares that are offset? Or is the minimum guarantee no larger than the smallest payout?
 

Zomp

Dope
Dope
Aug 28, 2006
13,428
The Slums of Shaolin
That whole press conference, and the one with Bryson and Wolff, were terrible.

Wolff basically said the pga tour is too hard.
Bryson sounded like a robot.
Pat Perez blamed the tour for missing the birth of his son because he was on the FedEx cup bubble.
Koepka said they were growing the game because more golf is on tv and he likes that he doesn’t have to be forced to play certain events (despite having not played in a non major since March).


Ugh this whole thing just sucks
 

FL4WL3SS

my name sucks
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
13,041
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
That whole press conference, and the one with Bryson and Wolff, were terrible.

Wolff basically said the pga tour is too hard.
Bryson sounded like a robot.
Pat Perez blamed the tour for missing the birth of his son because he was on the FedEx cup bubble.
Koepka said they were growing the game because more golf is on tv and he likes that he doesn’t have to be forced to play certain events (despite having not played in a non major since March).


Ugh this whole thing just sucks
Why does it suck? You don't have to watch or pay attention. In fact, it's easier to avoid a bunch of dudes nobody likes now and get more coverage of other guys on the Tour.

I choose to not pay attention to it. If it wasn't for this thread, I would hardly even notice.
 

Zomp

Dope
Dope
Aug 28, 2006
13,428
The Slums of Shaolin
No matter how anyone feels about the dudes that nobody likes on tour, they are still some of the best in the world and should be competing against the best in the world more than just 4 times a year which is what we’ll get now.


There’s also the sociopolitical factors that are absolutely horrible but this isn’t views and news. That is a bit more complex but even more so important.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
9,779
The decoupling of performance with reward is a pretty strong indicator of the difference between a serious competition and an exhibition. So, yes.

Does that mean that the players in LIV have no incentive to win? Of course not. But this isn’t a competition where players are trying to earn a living. This is about showering the talent with cash.

I have no problem with people who may enjoy watching it. That’s just how I view it.
In literally every major team sport the players get nearly the same amount of money whether their team goes undefeated or winless, they don't seem to treat those games like exhibitions.
 

Zomp

Dope
Dope
Aug 28, 2006
13,428
The Slums of Shaolin
In literally every major team sport the players get nearly the same amount of money whether their team goes undefeated or winless, they don't seem to treat those games like exhibitions.

Sure but you can’t compare team sports where contracts are based on 90% of individual performance regardless of the outcome of the games vs a sport that has been pay for place for its entire history. It’s what makes watching great.
 

FL4WL3SS

my name sucks
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
13,041
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
Sure but you can’t compare team sports where contracts are based on 90% of individual performance regardless of the outcome of the games vs a sport that has been pay for place for its entire history. It’s what makes watching great.
I don't really understand this argument. I actually think the LIV model will result in better golf. Guys will be freed up to play their best golf, take more risks, and have more fun. We'll definitely miss the "agony of defeat" aspect of guys missing cuts I guess, but the tour guys are making so much money now it kind of doesn't matter and now guys don't need to grind for 52 weeks to make a living.

If it was backed by someone else or the Tour adopted this model, I'd be all for it. It's not perfect, but I think it could evolve into something pretty close.
 

Zomp

Dope
Dope
Aug 28, 2006
13,428
The Slums of Shaolin
Right but you’re saying less pressure at top level golf is a good thing. Maybe to see more shots that otherwise wouldn’t be played but then that’s because finishing first won’t matter.
 
Not even close - NBA players don't get paid for the all-star game. The LIV players get guaranteed money plus extra tournament winnings.
I was responding to your suggestion that being freed up to take more risks and have more fun would result in a better product. But with regard to the model of guaranteed money plus extra tournament winnings, the most obvious comparison is to professional tennis, and this isn't an analogy which favors tennis - read John Feinstein's Hard Courts, for example, and you'll see story after story of big-name pros taking big guarantees to enter events and then not exactly trying their hardest to win the tournament prize money. (The book is more than 30 years old now, but ) And that kinda gets to the crux of the issue around LIV: winning big prize money is an incentive only insofar as money matters to each individual player. If you're famous enough already to have gotten big guaranteed money and don't have anything else to prove, how much will a few million extra really matter to you? The best players on paper are in theory the least incentivized to care about how they perform in LIV. Whereas most professional golf involves ranking points of some sort as well as the honor of winning meaningful trophies - which is what Max Homa was getting at in his appearance on the NLU podcast the other day. The guys for whom money matters the most will probably chase the money; I'd rather watch the guys for whom status and honor means more.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,494
Right but you’re saying less pressure at top level golf is a good thing. Maybe to see more shots that otherwise wouldn’t be played but then that’s because finishing first won’t matter.
I think that's an important difference. I have litttle doubt that the players *want* to finish first. But I think I'll give much less of a shit if it doesn't matter.
 

Zomp

Dope
Dope
Aug 28, 2006
13,428
The Slums of Shaolin
I think that's an important difference. I have litttle doubt that the players *want* to finish first. But I think I'll give much less of a shit if it doesn't matter.

Yes. We all play better golf when we’re practicing or just playing with buddies. But play in an am qualifying or whatever else and it affects you. However I’d rather watch the latter than the former.
 

FL4WL3SS

my name sucks
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
13,041
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
I was responding to your suggestion that being freed up to take more risks and have more fun would result in a better product. But with regard to the model of guaranteed money plus extra tournament winnings, the most obvious comparison is to professional tennis, and this isn't an analogy which favors tennis - read John Feinstein's Hard Courts, for example, and you'll see story after story of big-name pros taking big guarantees to enter events and then not exactly trying their hardest to win the tournament prize money. (The book is more than 30 years old now, but ) And that kinda gets to the crux of the issue around LIV: winning big prize money is an incentive only insofar as money matters to each individual player. If you're famous enough already to have gotten big guaranteed money and don't have anything else to prove, how much will a few million extra really matter to you? The best players on paper are in theory the least incentivized to care about how they perform in LIV. Whereas most professional golf involves ranking points of some sort as well as the honor of winning meaningful trophies - which is what Max Homa was getting at in his appearance on the NLU podcast the other day. The guys for whom money matters the most will probably chase the money; I'd rather watch the guys for whom status and honor means more.
And those guys bubble to the top. It's always been an issue that when guys make too much money they take their foot off the gas, which is what makes guys like Tiger, Gretzky, or even Cal so special. Look at Rory, probably had more natural raw golf tralent than Tiger, but didn't have the killer instinct. As soon as he got $250mm from Nike he hasn't been the same.

If the best players in the world don't try then they aren't the best players in the world anymore and someone else will take their place that does care. I don't see the argument.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,732
306, row 14
I think the most compelling professional golf is the end of the KFT season and Finals, and to a lesser extend the players grinding for 125 on the PGA Tour. The KFT guys are playing for their livlihoods.

I think the new schedule is going to help. Condensing the number of tournaments, cards and playoff spots is going to up the ante on the regular tournaments. They'll mean more. Additionally, we'll get the big money, no cut events for the elite stars where the Tour is free to mess around with formats, broadcast innovations and anything they please.
 

voidfunkt

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
977
/dev/null
I think the most compelling professional golf is the end of the KFT season and Finals, and to a lesser extend the players grinding for 125 on the PGA Tour. The KFT guys are playing for their livlihoods.

I think the new schedule is going to help. Condensing the number of tournaments, cards and playoff spots is going to up the ante on the regular tournaments. They'll mean more. Additionally, we'll get the big money, no cut events for the elite stars where the Tour is free to mess around with formats, broadcast innovations and anything they please.
Seconding this. The KFT has the best competition golf going on. Those guys are playing for their lives. Its not as polished as the PGA but the play is very interesting and meaningful.

The PGA is basically filled with a bunch of freaks at this point. Its not relatable golf in the slightest. Its only fun because of how otherworldly good the guys are and its fun watching them screw up.
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,950
Arvada, Co
Seconding this. The KFT has the best competition golf going on. Those guys are playing for their lives. Its not as polished as the PGA but the play is very interesting and meaningful.

The PGA is basically filled with a bunch of freaks at this point. Its not relatable golf in the slightest. Its only fun because of how otherworldly good the guys are and its fun watching them screw up.
If you've never been in person, I highly recommend going to a KFT event. Other than a very few of them you can go basically anywhere you want and get right up against the ropes (if they're even up). The Chitimacha Louisiana Open is basically a big neighborhood block party with amazing food and drink all around.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,735
Just because the USGA may roll things back equipment-wise, doesn't mean that the average player like you and me needs to. They'll still sell plenty of those uber-tech clubs.
 

voidfunkt

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
977
/dev/null
It sounds like mostly a change for the Pros. I think it is silly tho, if you want to challenge the Pros grow the rough out and make tour pros hit fairways. The USGA knows this works since they literally do it every year at the US Open.
 
Remember to hug your technological marvel of a driver extra tight before putting it to bed tonight because the USGA is increasingly knives out for forgiving equipment: https://www.golfdigest.com/story/new-distance-rollback-proposals-get-more-aggressive

Obviously early in the process but worth keeping an eye on to know when to stock up on driver heads before they're ruined.
From the article:
The bigger set of changes considered in the June 8 notice, however, would not affect average golfers, but could dramatically alter the performance of drivers at the elite level.
This for me is what the USGA and R&A need to be focusing on. And this is possible with driver technology being the way it is - most if not all of the real length-related benefits are being reaped by the biggest hitters. Nearly all club golfers would see little or no impact from this particular change, except insofar as presumably they would no longer feel compelled to have their clubs spend all of the money required to build new tee boxes and lengthen holes to keep up with technology. Which is why I couldn't be more strongly in favor of this sort of proposal.

(I'm not sure about the proposed limits on the golf ball; sounds like they would affect the average golfer, but it's possible that the revised golf ball the USGA & R&A have in mind would still fly just as far for average players, just not for the pros.)
 

Senator Donut

post-Domer
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2010
4,821
02148
It sounds like mostly a change for the Pros. I think it is silly tho, if you want to challenge the Pros grow the rough out and make tour pros hit fairways. The USGA knows this works since they literally do it every year at the US Open.
That’s simply false.

Look at the 2020 US Open at Winged Foot. Bryson DeChambeau only hit 23 of 56 fairways; he won by 6 strokes. The reason he won was distance, not accuracy.

2020 was a bit of an outlier to many extents including how penal the rough was, but all the recent Opens have rewarded long hitters, even Fitzpatrick who has added a ton of distance recently. You’ve have to go back to Jordan Spieth at controversial Chambers Bay to find a setup that rewarded accuracy over distance.
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
12,021
The Paris of the 80s
He was also the only player under par.

I think firm and fast is the best way to counteract distance.
Firm and fast fairways just stretch out drives. Softer fairways, possible grown out slightly longer, would make courses play slightly longer. Firm and fast greens only further emphasize the importance of distance off the tee.
 
Last edited:

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,732
306, row 14
Firm and fast fairways just stretch out drives. Softer fairways, possible grown out slightly longer, would make courses play slightly longer. Firm and fast greens only further emphasize the importance of distance off the tee.
Wouldn't firmer greens be tougher to hold, especially front the rough? Therefor, it'd put a bit more empasis on accuracy off the tee, especially if they had to be worried about run out?
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
12,021
The Paris of the 80s
Wouldn't firmer greens be tougher to hold, especially front the rough? Therefor, it'd put a bit more empasis on accuracy off the tee, especially if they had to be worried about run out?
I don't generally agree. The incentive is to minimize approach distance and maximize clubhead speed. Rough matters less when you're closer and when you have more clubhead speed. That's why bomb and gouge is a thing. Making rough deeper and greens faster only encourages players to bomb the ball off the tee and try to maximize swing speeds regardless of nerfed equipment.

The "problem" the governing bodies are trying to solve for isn't entirely equipment. Elite players are in much better athletic shape than years ago and the value of hitting fairways isn't viewed like it was years ago. It's not so different than baseball teams realizing walks and dingers are wildly more important than contact and small ball. It's hard to "fix" that players got smart about how to play the game.
 

Sandwich Pick

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2017
359
That whole press conference, and the one with Bryson and Wolff, were terrible.

Wolff basically said the pga tour is too hard.
Bryson sounded like a robot.
Pat Perez blamed the tour for missing the birth of his son because he was on the FedEx cup bubble.
Koepka said they were growing the game because more golf is on tv and he likes that he doesn’t have to be forced to play certain events (despite having not played in a non major since March).


Ugh this whole thing just sucks
Fred Couples went off on players who joined LIV

https://golf-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/golf.com/news/fred-couples-blistering-take-liv-golf-mickelson/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#amp_tf=From %1$s&aoh=16566458144140&referrer=https://www.google.com&ampshare=https://golf.com/news/fred-couples-blistering-take-liv-golf-mickelson/

“These guys — you’ve seen their interviews, right?” Couples said. “Have you ever seen Phil look so stupid in his life? They know it’s a joke.”
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
77,952
Oregon
LIV making changes for next season

But the idea is to have 12 set teams of four players each so franchises can establish identify and value. There will be the possibility for trades among teams by the captains — the top 12 players who run each team — as well as future relegation among the bottom level of players.
https://www.si.com/golf/news/liv-golf-progressing-ahead-of-schedule-will-play-14-events-2023-with-set-teams

It also says LIV will retain 48-player fields, although it doesn't mention whether payers will be chopped off by results or lack of name recognition
 

voidfunkt

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
977
/dev/null
The team thing is just insanely stupid - it's a poor fit for competitive golf. Honestly the best thing the PGA can probably do with this is ignore LIV and let it burn itself to the ground or more likely just lose traction and fail.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
77,952
Oregon
I can't wait for for Brooks to trade Bryson for Richard Bland
 

Senator Donut

post-Domer
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2010
4,821
02148
“see, Saudi is good to women!”
If the ultimate goal of this venture is reputation enhancement, this would be a slam dunk, even if it were only a few co-ed events per year. The money would be overwhelming, plus Lexi wouldn’t have to play on Sundays. I’m also not sure that the LPGA would take the same hardline stance against defectors.

I said this earlier in the thread that one big downside to a member-owned organization is that they don’t care about non-members, so it is by design that they overlook women in golf. It would make a lot of sense to attack this weak point, which they’ve already done by signing top amateurs.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,732
306, row 14
Tiger said his plan was to play Brookline but he had "some issues" with his leg and couldn't do it physically.

He's been carting it around Adare Manor because he doesn't want to push it. He'll stay in Europe this week for Open prep. Did say he is a lot stronger than he was at the PGA. It's hard to get a read on his game because the give a shit meter is quite low. He shot a 77 yesterday but he was doing things like hitting driver off the deck.