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

[ThinkingPlus]

20 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

And the second part of the question?

They are supposed to represent the interests of all golfers, but they really don't always follow through on that part. Basically, they act as arrogant dictators changing the rules as they want them to be for obscure and esthetic reasons.

[Titleist99]

17 minutes ago, smashdn said:

There are too many desires wishing to be met for them to really do anything, and not doing anything is also a pretty bad outcome.

 

Not doing anything has gotten the USGA a popularity of the game they have never seen.

 

Not doing anything has gotten all of their tournament's riches beyond their imagination.

 

*The USGAs Media rights deal with NBC expires at the end of 2026. NBC took over the deal from Fox, which was $1.1B. 

 

*Yeah, sit down at the table and tell them that you're preparing to change the game as we know it. Who knows, maybe it'll work out for them.

 

 

[Titleist99]

22 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

They are supposed to represent the interests of all golfers, but they really don't always follow through on that part. Basically, they act as arrogant dictators changing the rules as they want them to be for obscure and esthetic reasons.

Agreed. The USGA could have just as easily said that they would change the golf ball for their competitions along with the professional game, but they chose to arrogantly disrupt the whole game.

 

IMO

[billyspan]

Go back to wood woods.  Just admit we are all soft and coddled with metal woods.

[Holy Moses]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

Agreed. The USGA could have just as easily said that they would change the golf ball for their competitions along with the professional game, but they chose to arrogantly disrupt the whole game.

 

IMO

The equipment companies don’t want bifurcation. It’s expensive to make equipment for both sets of rules.

[Titleist99]

6 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

The equipment companies don’t want bifurcation. It’s expensive to make equipment for both sets of rules.

I understand totally. Just pointing out their hypocrisy. 🤣

[TiScape]

10 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

The equipment companies don’t want bifurcation. It’s expensive to make equipment for both sets of rules.

No doubt! Check lefty equipment availability!! 
😜

[TiScape]

Pardon me as I’ve only perused the last few posts… LIV thread evolving into ‘Rollback 3.0’??? 

[StoutKing]

20 hours ago, Holy Moses said:

Exactly. Get a guy who is well-liked by most but still in favor of a distance rollback. I still think limiting driver head size for elite amateurs and pros was the better way to go.  

If the USGA really cared about golf they would cap drivers at 280cc while also reducing the sweet spot.  They would also roll the ball back 10%, not this puny rollback that's coming.  I'm talking for elite competitions not hackers like the 95%.  They won't though because they are controlled by the distance industrial complex.

[Holy Moses]

9 minutes ago, TiScape said:

Pardon me as I’ve only perused the last few posts… LIV thread evolving into ‘Rollback 3.0’??? 

Sorry, let me get us back on track.

 

70,000 viewers for a US event during Sunday’s final round on FS2 lol!

[Holy Moses]

Just now, StoutKing said:

If the USGA really cared about golf they would cap drivers at 280cc while also reducing the sweet spot.  They would also roll the ball back 10%, not this puny rollback that's coming.  I'm talking for elite competitions not hackers like the 95%.  They won't though because they are controlled by the distance industrial complex.

If they were controlled by the distance industrial complex, they wouldn’t be doing this roll back because the ball manufacturers are extremely mad at even losing 10 yards for pros. 

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

They are supposed to represent the interests of all golfers, but they really don't always follow through on that part. Basically, they act as arrogant dictators changing the rules as they want them to be for obscure and esthetic reasons.

 

There are dictators and then there are . . . dictators! 

[StoutKing]

38 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

If they were controlled by the distance industrial complex, they wouldn’t be doing this roll back because the ball manufacturers are extremely mad at even losing 10 yards for pros. 

The D.I.C. is in control.  USGA's actions won't do much at all IMO.  Potgieter and future players will still carry bunkers by 30 yards.  We will enjoy decades of flip wedges ;)

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, Holy Moses said:

Sorry, let me get us back on track.

 

70,000 viewers for a US event during Sunday’s final round on FS2 lol!

 

I do think it's sort of an interesting thing that Fri/Sat on Fox can get a couple hundred thou and the final round doesn't pull more than 70,000... Doesn't seem like that's 200K+ of die-hard interested fans...

 

It makes me wonder whether a good portion of the viewers on Fox are just turning on the TV for the dog while they go run errands or something and half of them didn't even realize they were "watching" LIV?

 

(No hate BTW; I left the JDC on ESPN+ on the TV for the dog while I'm running errands right now. He enjoys napping to golf.)

 

[smashdn]

7 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Basically, they act as arrogant dictators changing the rules as they want them to be for obscure and esthetic reasons.

 

Who and how does that benefit them?

 

I mean, what is the end game of that?  Who stands to make money from that decision?  I always try to follow the money on decisions like these.  Typically someone is able to make money off the deal.  I am just trying to figure out who in your scenario.  The OEM's don't seem happy about it and neither does the PGAT so I am ruling those two groups out unless they are playing a heck of a charade.

 

Seems like an awful lot of work and turmoil for obscure or aesthetic reasons.

[Holy Moses]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

Who and how does that benefit them?

 

I mean, what is the end game of that?  Who stands to make money from that decision?  I always try to follow the money on decisions like these.  Typically someone is able to make money off the deal.  I am just trying to figure out who in your scenario.  The OEM's don't seem happy about it and neither does the PGAT so I am ruling those two groups out unless they are playing a heck of a charade.

 

Seems like an awful lot of work and turmoil for obscure or aesthetic reasons.

I believe the USGA is doing this for the good of the game, but this is only a problem at the pro and elite amateur level. Current courses are not going to stop using the back tees and not irrigate and treat them with pesticides and stop mowing them because of a 5-10 yard distance loss. Maybe some courses won’t have to add another farther back tee box, but is that really happening anyway? Why does the USGA have their opens at really long courses? They’ll say that their events are unique and meant for top players. But isn’t that the point? The average golfer isn’t hitting the ball too far. Too much distance in golf is something the top 1% only experience. But they then want to decrease distance for everyone for some reason.

 

Players have always been able to swing hard. The only reason they are swinging at 100% this regularly and are trying to go for big speed gains is because the driver is now very controllable, even on mishits (see Bryson’s “I want to be able to swing it as hard as I want and hit any part of the face and still find the fairway” comment). 

Edited July 3 by Holy Moses

[ThinkingPlus]

15 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Who and how does that benefit them?

 

I mean, what is the end game of that?  Who stands to make money from that decision?  I always try to follow the money on decisions like these.  Typically someone is able to make money off the deal.  I am just trying to figure out who in your scenario.  The OEM's don't seem happy about it and neither does the PGAT so I am ruling those two groups out unless they are playing a heck of a charade.

 

Seems like an awful lot of work and turmoil for obscure or aesthetic reasons.

And yet that is what they are doing. Call it ego or hubris if you like. Plus it costs the RBs essentially nothing unless there turn out to be consequences from the other stakeholders.

[ATXGolferGuy]

Just bring back the Titleist Tour Balata. 

[ThinkingPlus]

23 minutes ago, ATXGolferGuy said:

Just bring back the Titleist Tour Balata. 

Hard pass. Balata balls were crap.

[dwboston]

2 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Hard pass. Balata balls were crap.

 

Agreed. The Titleist Professional 100 was a bit better, but the original Pro V1 was incredible.

 

It would be easier to spec out a competition ball for the majors and high-level amateur events and call it a day. The USGA/R&A rarely do what's easy.

Edited July 4 by dwboston

[bcjim]

20 minutes ago, dwboston said:

 

Agreed. The Titleist Professional 100 was a bit better, but the original Pro V1 was incredible.

 

It would be easier to spec out a competition ball for the majors and high-level amateur events and call it a day. The USGA/R&A rarely do what's easy.

Exactly. I've suggested many times that the USGA (ie Whan) should grow a spine and unilaterally implement a tournament ball for USGA events.  SHOW us how great it will be. Don't just dictate and hope for the best, Mike.  You're so sure. Great. Let's see it.

[Holy Moses]

2 hours ago, dwboston said:

 

Agreed. The Titleist Professional 100 was a bit better, but the original Pro V1 was incredible.

 

It would be easier to spec out a competition ball for the majors and high-level amateur events and call it a day. The USGA/R&A rarely do what's easy.

You don’t want pros competing in the biggest events of the season playing with a ball they don’t normally play with. It won’t make for good golf.

[dwboston]

11 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

You don’t want pros competing in the biggest events of the season playing with a ball they don’t normally play with. It won’t make for good golf.

 

Same ball for everyone, they'll adapt to it. They might even practice with it before the events so they know how it reacts.

 

Tennis uses different balls at each of the majors. They manage to deal with it.

[jdl]

Isn't there another thread for this debate?

[Hawkeye77]

9 hours ago, dwboston said:

 

Same ball for everyone, they'll adapt to it. They might even practice with it before the events so they know how it reacts.

 

Tennis uses different balls at each of the majors. They manage to deal with it.

 

Not sure golf balls can be fine tuned for The Masters on clay. 😀

[Hawkeye77]

Since someone brought up tennis ----- watching Wimbledon and Chris Evert is unrecognizable ----- if she wasn't talking you would have no idea you are looking at her.  Kind of sad, but not ever being the biggest Chrissie fan, hard to work up a lot of sympathy for vanity gone wrong.  I know nothing about plastic surgery and all the other crap, but if these people would just adhere to the wise words of Roger (of the Esquire Club) to Floyd the barber - "Give me a haircut that doesn't look like a haircut".  She should have stuck with Norman, might have had to just wear a veil everywhere.

[Holy Moses]

28 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Since someone brought up tennis ----- watching Wimbledon and Chris Evert is unrecognizable ----- if she wasn't talking you would have no idea you are looking at her.  Kind of sad, but not ever being the biggest Chrissie fan, hard to work up a lot of sympathy for vanity gone wrong.  I know nothing about plastic surgery and all the other crap, but if these people would just adhere to the wise words of Roger (of the Esquire Club) to Floyd the barber - "Give me a haircut that doesn't look like a haircut".  She should have stuck with Norman, might have had to just wear a veil everywhere.

She’s gone through two bouts of ovarian cancer which can affect how you look

[Hawkeye77]

14 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

She’s gone through two bouts of ovarian cancer which can affect how you look

Yes and not what I’m referring to. 

[Holy Moses]

34 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Yes and not what I’m referring to. 

It’s probably not a vanity issue

[TiScape]

55 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Yes and not what I’m referring to. 

Was gonna say, (well I wasn’t bcs I’m toning down the drama on my end. But I thought it. But now I’m saying it… 🤔) well anyway.

Yeah I’m pretty sure (not a Dr.) ovarian cancer doesn’t change the structure of one’s face… I don’t know. Maybe it does… I need more ☕️

 

What’s your fav golf ball?! 😊

Edited July 4 by TiScape