LIV Tour Discussion Thread (*** NO POLITICS ***)

[BlackDiamondPar5]

3 minutes ago, BSI99 said:

They already gave them a laundry list of why they don't get points. Closed circuit, no cuts, no qualifying, no relegation system. They didn't fix any of these

The propaganda spreaders want to blame it on blackballing and conspiracy.   But prior to the formation of LIV the rules for getting OWGR were well documented.  LIV has done nothing to comply. But it's easier to act like crybaby victims and say it's so unfair rather than do anything of substance.

[Mr.Cleeks]

31 minutes ago, bcjim said:

You have it backwards. The majors are what they *want* to play in.  They "grind it out" playing those silly, boring liv events because they *have* to fulfill their contractual obligations.

 

You make it sound like they're holding their noses and teeing it up at majors.  Literally you have it completely backwards. 

That's not what I meant and we all know you're just nitpicking. 

[BSI99]

Making the argument that your tour is competitive and should allow you to get major exemptions while at the same time having Niemann win all your tournaments is a pretty funny dichotomy. 

[WesternRacing]

1 hour ago, bekgolf said:

 

To me golf is about all of the tournaments.  

 

Do you only watch the majors? 

 

I don’t watch much of any golf, but I’d bet I watch more minutes of the majors than all other tournaments combined.

 

But I’m not knocking the other tournaments for entertainment value.  I’m talking about basing the player rankings on performance in the tournaments that consistently have most of the top golfers in them, which are the majors and the Players.  Those are the biggest stages, with the most pressure, on some of the best golf courses.  

[WesternRacing]

51 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

Here are the top US Open finishers.

 

You really think OWGR should be based on just 4 events?

 

 

 

 

No, not just four events.  I’d make it a rolling three year period, which would be 15 events if you include The Players, and maybe do some weighting to give more weight to the more current events.  Maybe five tranches of three events, with heavier weighting to the most current.

[Dutch1008]

14 minutes ago, WesternRacing said:

No, not just four events.  I’d make it a rolling three year period, which would be 15 events if you include The Players, and maybe do some weighting to give more weight to the more current events.  Maybe five tranches of three events, with heavier weighting to the most current.

 

You should really read through this...

 

https://www.owgr.com/how-the-ranking-works

 

The OWGR includes a two year look back but weighs recent events higher. They also heavily weight both the majors and players more than other events. The value of all other tournaments, whether we're talking The Memorial of some 2nd tier DPWT stop, is a function of field strength. The points for a signature event are going to be reasonably close to The Players, winning an event on the Challenge Tour, not so much.  

 

The OWGR wasn't created to rank the top 100 guys and give fans talking points for arguments. It was built to rank 8,000+ golfers for purposes of tournament eligibility and advancement.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

Maybe that goes away when the contracts go away?  Of course they have to generate a method to promote players and from where.

 

But how? The goal of LIV is to have teams. Teams have owners. Owners aren't going to be very happy about being told that they don't get to select which players are on their teams. 

 

There's no formal team alignment structure, but many in this thread have suggested that teams would/could/should be driven by things like equipment sponsors, or aligned to nationality. I.e. maybe you'd have "Team Ping vs Team Titleist", or you'd have "Team Spain vs Team South Africa". That doesn't work if you align teams via a draft... And it doesn't work if you are forcing promotion/relegation and the team owners don't want the players who are being promoted or want to keep the players relegated. 

 

Who is going to spend $1B for a LIV team when they don't know that they can 100% control who is or isn't on their team?

 

The structure is unworkable. 

[Holy Moses]

5 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

But how? The goal of LIV is to have teams. Teams have owners. Owners aren't going to be very happy about being told that they don't get to select which players are on their teams. 

 

There's no formal team alignment structure, but many in this thread have suggested that teams would/could/should be driven by things like equipment sponsors, or aligned to nationality. I.e. maybe you'd have "Team Ping vs Team Titleist", or you'd have "Team Spain vs Team South Africa". That doesn't work if you align teams via a draft... And it doesn't work if you are forcing promotion/relegation and the team owners don't want the players who are being promoted or want to keep the players relegated. 

 

Who is going to spend $1B for a LIV team when they don't know that they can 100% control who is or isn't on their team?

 

The structure is unworkable. 

A billion? I don’t think they could get $10 million for one.

[grm24]

16 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Who is going to spend $1B for a LIV team

Absolutely nobody. There's a reason that nobody is buying them at any price. They aren't worth anything period.

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

A billion? I don’t think they could get $10 million for one.

 

Well, obviously. But the LIV shills a couple of years ago were throwing around those numbers. 

 

Realistically if you look at the expenses, the "team" prize (which goes to the team owner rather than the individual purse which goes to the golfer), there's not a good ROI on buying a LIV team for any large sum of money. 

 

What I'm arguing is that if your hands are tied on who you can or can't actually have on your team, though, it makes it even worse. And that's what you have if it's a defined and iron-clad promotion/relegation system. 

 

To put it in terms @Mr.Cleeks would appreciate, it would be like having a team who really loved Rickie Fowler because he's a fan favorite and sells a lot of merch, and being told by LIV that they couldn't keep him because his on-course performance forced him into relegation. 

 

Once your criteria for inclusion/exclusion are based on things other than objective performance-related criteria, the OWGR starts asking how they can appropriately value your players. 

[Dutch1008]

4 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But how? The goal of LIV is to have teams. Teams have owners. Owners aren't going to be very happy about being told that they don't get to select which players are on their teams. 

 

There's no formal team alignment structure, but many in this thread have suggested that teams would/could/should be driven by things like equipment sponsors, or aligned to nationality. I.e. maybe you'd have "Team Ping vs Team Titleist", or you'd have "Team Spain vs Team South Africa". That doesn't work if you align teams via a draft... And it doesn't work if you are forcing promotion/relegation and the team owners don't want the players who are being promoted or want to keep the players relegated. 

 

Who is going to spend $1B for a LIV team when they don't know that they can 100% control who is or isn't on their team?

 

The structure is unworkable. 

 

Its totally workable. For example...

 

Let's say at the end of the year the bottom 3rd of LIV is relegated (~20 spots). Next, let's say that those players, plus the top X players from the Asian Tour, and perhaps players from KFT, DPWT or NCAA that want a shot at those lucrative LIV purses, head into a qualifying series of events in the fall / winter. They could set it up almost like the FedEx Cup. 150 guys in tournament 1, 100 advance to tournament 2, 60 advance to tournament 3, top 20 guys go into the LIV Draft. The LIV Draft works like every other draft in professional sports. The team that finished the worst in the LIV Team standings picks first, 2nd to last picks 2nd, and so on and so forth until the 20 spots that were relegated are filled. 

 

Easy peazy.

 

The problem is the contracts. The problem is players being part owners. There is simply a conflict of interest between player/owners and league that probably can't be reconciled. They tried to set up a league where the players had more upside via purses, and more downside via contracts. Unfortunately, the latter is pretty terrible for the competitiveness of the product. You need churn. You need a pathway for the younger, hungrier, and more talented to replace the old, fed, and satisfied.    

 

I don't know if there is a model that would usurp the PGAT, but there is a model that would technically "work". They are just not positioned to execute and never will be. 

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

You should really read through this...

 

https://www.owgr.com/how-the-ranking-works

 

The OWGR includes a two year look back but weighs recent events higher. They also heavily weight both the majors and players more than other events. The value of all other tournaments, whether we're talking The Memorial of some 2nd tier DPWT stop, is a function of field strength. The points for a signature event are going to be reasonably close to The Players, winning an event on the Challenge Tour, not so much.  

 

The OWGR wasn't created to rank the top 100 guys and give fans talking points for arguments. It was built to rank 8,000+ golfers for purposes of tournament eligibility and advancement.  

Wish fans of the Saudi tour quit saying that the OWGR is supposed to rank all players around the world (period), and if they don't, the rankings are meaningless.

 

*It's ridiculous.

[Dutch1008]

8 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Wish fans of the Saudi tour quit saying that the OWGR is supposed to rank all players around the world (period), and if they don't, the rankings are meaningless.

 

*It's ridiculous.

 

I get it. Jon Rahm isn't the 66th best player in the world and Bryson isn't the 16th. But at the end of the day its their own damn fault. LIV could make a few tweaks to comply, they simply refuse. It's very much a characteristic of the terminally online to think that the world should bend to their wishes vs making any concession to work w/ the rest of the world. Pretty sure the OWGR can work with the 54 hole events, limited fields, and no cuts. Those are easy math problems. Its the contracts and closed nature of the league that is unworkable.   

[Holy Moses]

14 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

I get it. Jon Rahm isn't the 66th best player in the world and Bryson isn't the 16th. But at the end of the day its their own damn fault. LIV could make a few tweaks to comply, they simply refuse. It's very much a characteristic of the terminally online to think that the world should bend to their wishes vs making any concession to work w/ the rest of the world. Pretty sure the OWGR can work with the 54 hole events, limited fields, and no cuts. Those are easy math problems. Its the contracts and closed nature of the league that is unworkable.   

The rankings don’t really matter apart from getting into majors anyway and the majors have invited LIV players into majors if they deserve it and weren’t already qualified 

Edited July 22 by Holy Moses

[Dutch1008]

6 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

The rankings don’t really matter apart from getting into majors anyway and the majors have invited LIV players into majors if they deserve it and weren’t already qualified 

 

Sure. But that is simply a band aid. Not an actual solution. I'm not trying to be pro liv or anti liv here. Just ruthlessly pragmatic. If you want the best ## players participating in the majors, you need to figure out a way to fairly evaluate LIV golfers. Maybe it is two guys, maybe the correct number is 15. I don't know. I'm not shedding any tears if Gooch misses. He made his bed and so did that entire league. I just think a fixed cap is like the worst of all solutions. If the top 2 guys on LIV get in, that may be two guys too many. Who knows what the league looks like going forward. What happens to the field strength if a bunch of guys like Bryson don't reup their deals? If all the original signees walk and Rahm is like the last legit player standing? 

 

A good formula or structure should just naturally adjust. For example, it's not unreasonable to imagine that 10-20 years into the future, that the Asian Tour is stronger than the DPWT. Populations and participation trends could easily play out that way. OWGR is already set up to handle that. They don't need to change a thing. The field strength will adjust the points and the points will adjust the rankings. It's built to adapt for everything but LIV. LIV is the exception that mucks up the system. 

[Holy Moses]

3 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

Sure. But that is simply a band aid. Not an actual solution. I'm not trying to be pro liv or anti liv here. Just ruthlessly pragmatic. If you want the best ## players participating in the majors, you need to figure out a way to fairly evaluate LIV golfers. Maybe it is two guys, maybe the correct number is 15. I don't know. I'm not shedding any tears if Gooch misses. He made his bed and so did that entire league. I just think a fixed cap is like the worst of all solutions. If the top 2 guys on LIV get in, that may be two guys too many. Who knows what the league looks like going forward. What happens to the field strength if a bunch of guys like Bryson don't reup their deals? If all the original signees walk and Rahm is like the last legit player standing? 

 

A good formula or structure should just naturally adjust. For example, it's not unreasonable to imagine that 10-20 years into the future, that the Asian Tour is stronger than the DPWT. Populations and participation trends could easily play out that way. OWGR is already set up to handle that. They don't need to change a thing. The field strength will adjust the points and the points will adjust the rankings. It's built to adapt for everything but LIV. LIV is the exception that mucks up the system. 

There is a good formula that already exists, but LIV’s business model won’t allow them to conform to it. This is 100% on LIV and no one else’s fault but theirs. 

[DJDJ]

15 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Thanks Tom for adding meaningful commentary to the discussion.

 

If you had been reading along we were comparing LIV golfers' performances in the majors to non-LIV golfers.  While the accuracy of Data Golf has been called into question, it is one of the few metrics that includes all leagues/tours.

 

And, because you seem rather unobservant, I'll point out that LIV golfers have been competing in the majors.  So, like it or not, you sort of have to care, even just a little, when they are in contention.

 

There is an LPGA sub-forum better suited to your tastes.

Thanks so much for telling us all what this 700+ page thread is about sheriff 

[DJDJ]

14 hours ago, WesternRacing said:

 

No, not just four events.  I’d make it a rolling three year period, which would be 15 events if you include The Players, and maybe do some weighting to give more weight to the more current events.  Maybe five tranches of three events, with heavier weighting to the most current.

All this is based on the premise we have to adjust rankings to accommodate a closed league full of players that sued the tour and other players and who play in a league full of direct competitors. We don’t.

 

nobody owes the liv competitors or tour anything. They knew the rules, they refuse to adjust to a more open system that would help them with owgr. Screw them.

[Danielson]

14 hours ago, WesternRacing said:

 

No, not just four events.  I’d make it a rolling three year period, which would be 15 events if you include The Players, and maybe do some weighting to give more weight to the more current events.  Maybe five tranches of three events, with heavier weighting to the most current.

 

I guess what's the point though? We already know who the best golfers are I think

[jdl]

17 hours ago, WesternRacing said:

 

And yet it’s flawed.  Fine.  Let’s just great a separate ranking called The Best Players in Golf, and only count the Majors.  I’d bet it will provide a more accurate view of who the 10-20 best players in the world really are than OWGR.

 

One of the biggest problems these ranking systems (OWGR + Data Golf) have is too small of a sample size and you want to make it even smaller? Silly.

 

15 hours ago, BSI99 said:

They already gave them a laundry list of why they don't get points. Closed circuit, no cuts, no qualifying, no relegation system. They didn't fix any of these

In fact, they made the access to their league even smaller, I.e. reducing the number of spots in the qualifying tournament from 4 to just 1.

 

Will be interesting to see if their new application includes any suggestions of changes in these areas. Or just more of the same posturing and complaining.

[Holy Moses]

1 hour ago, DJDJ said:

All this is based on the premise we have to adjust rankings to accommodate a closed league full of players that sued the tour and other players and who play in a league full of direct competitors. We don’t.

 

nobody owes the liv competitors or tour anything. They knew the rules, they refuse to adjust to a more open system that would help them with owgr. Screw them.

How is LIV supposed to keep losing a billion a year if they don’t get OWGR points?! So unfair 😂!

[smashdn]

17 hours ago, Holy Moses said:

Well, the same people that are supposedly keeping LIV out are the same ones that are giving LIV special exemptions to get in

 

Right, now, but not at the outset.

[WesternRacing]

16 hours ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

You should really read through this...

 

https://www.owgr.com/how-the-ranking-works

 

The OWGR includes a two year look back but weighs recent events higher. They also heavily weight both the majors and players more than other events. The value of all other tournaments, whether we're talking The Memorial of some 2nd tier DPWT stop, is a function of field strength. The points for a signature event are going to be reasonably close to The Players, winning an event on the Challenge Tour, not so much.  

 

The OWGR wasn't created to rank the top 100 guys and give fans talking points for arguments. It was built to rank 8,000+ golfers for purposes of tournament eligibility and advancement.  

 

 

I know exactly what the OWGR is.  My original proposition was to have a measure solely on the top five events if you really want to rank the very best players in the world, I.e, say the top 15-25 players.  IMO, the truly great players play well on the biggest stages, the Players and Majors.  How they played in the Sentry really is irrelevant to the ‘best players’ argument IMO. It might be fine for sorting out the top 250, but when talking about the true best of professional golf, all I think should matter are the Majors and the Players.  Just my opinion.

[WesternRacing]

1 hour ago, jdl said:

 

One of the biggest problems these ranking systems (OWGR + Data Golf) have is too small of a sample size and you want to make it even smaller? Silly.

 

You don’t need 60+ events, particularly when many of them are weakened fields, to determine who the best players in the world are at a point in time.  It’s patently obvious just looking at a player’s performance in the majors over the past 12-36 months.

[Holy Moses]

10 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Right, now, but not at the outset.

They were waiting for LIV application to be sent before they did that

[WesternRacing]

2 hours ago, Danielson said:

 

I guess what's the point though? We already know who the best golfers are I think

 

And therein you proved my point. We know who the best are by their performance in the Majors.  So why not have a separate ranking system that just uses the Majors?  Maybe a subset of the OWGR called OWGR Majors?  I bet that the top 15 in that list versus the broader OWGR would give a more accurate picture.

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, DJDJ said:

Thanks so much for telling us all what this 700+ page thread is about sheriff 

 

While you are in need of sheriffing, I have some bad news for you.  You are gonna have to read 699 pages at least since I just summarized the part about five posts before his post that Tom wasn't connecting the dots on.

[Holy Moses]

Phil, the gambler. But he’ll admit when he blows his fortune! 
 

 

 

 

Edited July 22 by Holy Moses

[Pops99]

Really a pretty very bad and not so good 2025 showing by the LIV guys in the majors. No bueno.

 

I know that if LIV guys had won 2 or 3 or 4 majors this thread would be unbearable with the LIV shills gloating. So, forgive me if I take a bit of a victory lap and laugh at the rather poor performance by the lads from the exhibition tour this season. As the hockey coach said to Happy Gilmore, "better luck next year!"

 

Signed,

 

LIV H8er

[bekgolf]

14 hours ago, Holy Moses said:

There is a good formula that already exists, but LIV’s business model won’t allow them to conform to it. This is 100% on LIV and no one else’s fault but theirs. 

 

I'm confused on why it's a big deal to them.  They left for something they thought was a better version of professional golf so why not have their own majors?  You know, club championships but louder.