PGA Tour: Overnight Sensation, By The Grace Of god?: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).The PGA Tour season is only two weeks' old and already we have our first overnight sensation - at least in the eyes of America's golfing press: Chesson Hadley, a lad with a really silly name and an apparent obligation to praise the lord at every opportunity. But his last year has seen more twists and turns than an alpine road full of hairpins.

2).First, let's look at the basics:
Born in Raleigh, North Carolina, grew up playing Junior Golf with Webb Simpson, among others.
Attended University golfing powerhouse, Georgia Tech, in Atlanta. (Mize, Cink, Kuchar, etc, etc.)
Qualified for web.com action via 2012 Q-School.
Won Rex Hospital Open on last season's web.com Tour and then won the WTF Championship.
Debuts on PGA Tour at 2013/2014 Frys Open.

3).But let's have a closer look at these past 13 months:
Rewind to Q-School Stage 1 in 2012.
After officially missing out on advancing from Stage 1 to Stage 2 by one shot, Hadley's Tour aspirations are over for the year. Until:
Blayne Barber realises that a one-stroke penalty he applied on himself for believing he disturbed a leaf on his backswing (even his caddie said he never saw movement) should have been a two-shot penalty. Normally this wouldn't have made any difference as Barber's score was well within the cut line for advancing to Stage 2.
Except that retrospective application of the penalty meant he had effectively signed for the wrong score and was disqualified. (Fred Ridley please note.)

4).Why does this matter?
Of the six golfers who moved up from T19 to T18, Chesson Hadley, church deacon and avid consumer of the right-wing Drudge Report was one - Walker Cup winner (holed the winning putt at RCD) and sometime E.T. player Jonathan Moore was another, Dutchmen Derksen and Lafeber were two others.
From that unpromising, then fortuitous start Hadley qualified via Stage 2 to Stage 3 and his web.com card.

5).And then:
After making steady progress up the web.com leaderboards he comes to the "Rex Hospital Open" in his hometown of Raleigh and wins the thing. Not just any old home win, but in the event sponsored for Rex Hospital . . . . . where he was born.
The rest is history - 3rd on the web.com moneylist was followed by his Tour Championship win and resultant high seeding for priority entry in to early season, pre-reshuffle events. And after two of them, and playing in Sunday's final group with fellow praisethelorder Simpson, he's already 25% of the way to a 2014/2015 Tour card.

Perhaps their god is the real thing after all?
Regardless, you just know the PGA Tour laps up stories like these.

6).Meanwhile, good news and bad news for Russell Knox:
Good news: Two respectable finishes at the Frys (26th) and Las Vegas (30th), despite stubbing his toe last Sunday. And now in decent position to improve his priority status at the turn-of-the-year reshuffling.

Bad news: At these two events in 2012 he finished 8th and 13th respectively.
With the Tour going to Asia, a rest may do young Russell good, and hopefully he'll improve on his 2012 27th position at the McGladreys and 30th place at Mayakoba. In which case, the new seasonal format will have worked out quite nicely for him.

7).Webb Simpson looked impressive in Las Vegas and it appears he'll celebrate at home rather than follow the circus to Kuala Lumpur and Shanghai - expect to see him return at the McGladreys where he threw away the chance to win in a 2011 play-off against Crane.

8).No strong feelings about tomorrow's "CIMB Classic"; there's a fair-to-middling field assembled the old-fashioned way, by appearance money.
Last year's last-place finisher Scott Hend took home $40K; with an enlarged (engorged sounds more appropriate) field from 48 to 78 golfers, there's no cut and everyone is guaranteed FedEx points or, for real stragglers, fractions thereof.
Not my favourite type of tournament but at least Messrs Davis, Laird and Lynn are aboard the gravy train - Davis and Laird have prospered in Malaysia in past years, and it's a shrewd move for David Lynn to play.
Other Europeans include Garcia, Blixt and Lingmerth.

9).The final "regular season" event on the Champions Tour starts Friday outside San Antonio.
Still in question entering this tournament is exemption for 2014. Top 30 moneywinners will be fully exempt, but Langer (1st) is the only European certain of his ticket. Positions 31 - 50 will have conditional status, which means last year's surprise package Roger Chapman is in a precarious spot at #46 and no recent form to speak of as he heads to Texas. Forsbrand has been on fire recently and is up to #52, while Barry Lane is 66th and Mouland 71st.
Montgomerie and Lyle are automatically exempt as WGHOF'ers which, given their play, is ridiculous. Lyle has scratched around with an apparently straight face for too long, and Monty seems to be on a year-long busman's holiday.

10).More from Nick Price regarding the Presidents Cup:
He told Global Golf Post that he'd love to captain the Internationals again but would be reluctant to do so under the present format. In particular he wants to change the number of "Points" to be contested from 34 to 28, a la Ryder Cup - it's not hiding players, he says, it's about putting our leading players forward.
He also has a bit of a dig:
"Nobody wants to sit out here. It's like American sport, 'Everyone tried hard so let's give everyone a trophy.' That's not what sport is about."
What he's really doing is to challenge Finchem's concept of organizing a competition, choosing the Captains and Teams, setting the Rules, picking the venues and setting the ground rules too.

GPB wrote:Robo:

HSBC gave Tiger a huge appearance fee for playing Abu Dhabi. 

Obviously I don't know what was in those contracts, but I think it is more than playing a Wednesday pro-am, and the tournament.

I think there are clinics, schmoozing with sponsors at Meet and Greets and if the player misses the cut, possibly a clinic on Saturday or a sponsors party on Friday or Saturday night

Since Tiger missed the cut, I imagine that he got on Air Tiger ASAP and took off to San Diego.

I understand he got a huge appearance fee... and TW probably did head out after he MC'd. But that's pretty much SOP for any of them (see Phil and Tiger at the Greenbriar). My guess is those paying the fees are plenty smart enough to get their "pressing the flesh" obligations competed with the player well before the cut comes into play.

kwinigolfer wrote:robo,
Haven't looked at that data, but did the 2013 AT&T Champ, Bill Haas, have a higher exemption? Like Top 50?? Only explanation I can think of.

Yes Haas may have had a higher exemption... but the way the criteria works for the "20 events" for both the PGA and Euro Tours it doesn't matter.   See on the HSBC field page that Tiger is listed as the winner of the WGC's above... but the other events he won remain part of the "20"... thus reducing the number of players that get in via that category.

kwinigolfer wrote:Ilonen won the Nordea Masters but I imagine you're suggesting that (28 pts to the winner) would not normally be enough to qualify. (Also 2nd in China Open - again not sure if that earns him an ONE money free pass?) Only explanations I can think of.
Can't imagine why Patrick Reed doesn't qualify with the Wyndham being worth 44 pts Makes no sense..

First keep in mind these are based on EVENT RATING VALUES... not the points earned by the winner.  I saw that Nordea Masters thing too... but is not on the list of 20 qualifying events.  And you're right about Reed and the Wyndham as well... in 2012 it was  rated above the2012 AT&T Pebble Beach...

When Paddy got DQed from Abu Dhabi in 2011, he stuck around and gave a clinic on Saturday.

Of course, he was playing Bahrain the next week.

I wouldn't be surprised that the HSBC would have expected a lagniappe from Tiger for their $3 Million appearance after he missed the cut.

GPB wrote:When Paddy got DQed from Abu Dhabi in 2011, he stuck around and gave a clinic on Saturday.

Of course, he was playing Bahrain the next week.

I wouldn't be surprised that the HSBC would have expected a lagniappe from Tiger for their $3 Million appearance after he missed the cut.

That's because the village idiot is a nice guy and nine chins is a c**t.

Mikko Ilonen:
Let's have another try:
Qualifying criteria 6: "Top 5 available players (not otherwise exempt in a higher category) from the E.T's Race to Dubai as at Oct 14th".

Whichever way you cut it, and nothing to do with Ilonen, Patrick Reed has been stiffed.

GPB wrote:When Paddy got DQed from Abu Dhabi in 2011, he stuck around and gave a clinic on Saturday.

Of course, he was playing Bahrain the next week.

I wouldn't be surprised that the HSBC would have expected a lagniappe from Tiger for their $3 Million appearance after he missed the cut.

Could be... but then again... we're guessing scenarios absent facts. We don't have a clue what his agreements were, or if he did or didn't stick around to honor other tournament obligations. But if we are going to guess... I would think that part of an appearance fee value expectation is that they're counting on a guy at least making the cut to give value to the weekend coverage (and sponsor ads). But upon realization that even TW misses cuts... maybe they don't feel he's worth the fees he got in the past.

But whatever it is... I'm thinking it's more than we know... IMO it's almost got to be injury/back or sponsor related somehow as I still feel that with the HSBC upgrade in status... the HSBC made more sense to be on his schedule than ever before. But then again... maybe not. I had opined earlier that I thought significantly more of the PGAT players would participate in the HSBC than before... but maybe that's not the case after all... I think 11 missed it last year (going from memory)... but this year it's still 9 (Woods, Scott, Kuchar, Zach, Stricker, Simpson, Furyk, Day and Mahan). I'm not counting Schwartzel or Peter Senior who are the other two eligible players not participating.

Robo: Whatever the reason why Tiger is not playing HSBC is just more evidence to me that WGC's are over rated and really just another golf tournament that have a de facto appearance fee.

They are rated highly because the OWGR SoF formulas are top heavy and do not value field depth.

and here is the field with how they qualified:

http://www.worldgolfchampionships.com/hsbc-champions/inside-the-field/2013/10/28/hsbc-champions.html

Bill Haas qualified via 


Winners - 20 PGA TOUR events with highest Strength of Field


so his ATT win apparently counted.

GPB wrote:and here is the field with how they qualified:

http://www.worldgolfchampionships.com/hsbc-champions/inside-the-field/2013/10/28/hsbc-champions.html

Bill Haas qualified via 


Winners - 20 PGA TOUR events with highest Strength of Field


so his ATT win apparently counted.

Ah... now I see... According to this page (http://www.hsbcgolf.com/who-is-qualifying) Haas is in via his win at the AT&T Pebble Beach... but now I see that page is an ERROR as he won the AT&T NATIONAL... and not ATT Pebble. And now I see how Ilonen got in... Schwartzel is not playing... so Ilonen got the 5th Order of Merit spot Charl would have had.

Thanks GPB

GPB wrote:Robo: Whatever the reason why Tiger is not playing HSBC is just more evidence to me that WGC's are over rated and really just another golf tournament that have a de facto appearance fee.

They are rated highly because the OWGR SoF formulas are top heavy and do not value field depth.

I do agree with OWGR formulas being too top heavy... but I don't think it's evidence some key players blowing off the HSBC as anything else than this particular WGC is not regarded as highly as the other three. In the other three, with very few exceptions, most everybody who is eligible and healthy shows up and play. It's like I've said all along about the WGC's... if you want the BEST possible field, you have to schedule them in a way that the best of the best will show up. As of now... playing China in late Oct-Nov apparently works out for most top players... but not to about a dozen of the top players... mostly full time PGAT guys.

Robo:  Its not like Tiger is traveling half way around the world to play.  The HSBC is probably less two hours away on TWA. Tiger Woods Airlines.

I thought it stood for Total W@nker Airlines.

GPB wrote:Robo:  Its not like Tiger is traveling half way around the world to play.  The HSBC is probably less two hours away on TWA. Tiger Woods Airlines.

Don't know another way to say it other than what I've already said... it appears as though the other three WGC's are more highly regarded than the HSBC as evidenced by 10 top line players (#1 Woods, #2 Scott, #8 Kuchar, #11 Zach, #7 Stricker, #16 Simpson, #13 Furyk, #17 Day, # 18 Schwartzel and #26 Mahan + Peter Senior) who were eligible but decided to skip this one.  

And again... why Tiger specifically chooses not to play this one... as I've said repeatedly, it seemed to me like a good fit for him too, but why he doesn't is a mystery.  Maybe an issue with the sponsor (but with the AT&T National question I had earlier solved, maybe, maybe not).   Or maybe his back is still tender and he doesn't want to push it... or maybe he has other obligations this week with some of his other area sponsors, maybe in Japan... or maybe he wants to get back to his kids... or maybe he's showing LV the sights.... or maybe he doesn't care for the course... who knows.   But until I get something more definite... I'll just stick with "I don't know" instead of trying to form a firm conclusion without enough information.

kwinigolfer wrote:Mikko Ilonen:
Let's have another try:
Qualifying criteria 6: "Top 5 available players (not otherwise exempt in a higher category) from the E.T's Race to Dubai as at Oct 14th".

Whichever way you cut it, and nothing to do with Ilonen, Patrick Reed has been stiffed.

Going back and checking again... I don't think Reed got stiffed... remember, they set which events they are going to use based on the prior years field strengths... For the PGA Tour top-20 events that would be the 2012 events. And the Wyndham is not in the top-20... The lowest rated event of the 20 used from 2012 is the Humana with World and Home values totaling 253 (or a level 44) while the Wyndham values were 233 (level 42)

Doral and B-Stone do not require a trip halfway around the world.

There are a couple hours away (or less) by plane from the North America Based homes of Scott, Mahan, Day, Kuchar, Furyk, Schwartzel, etc.)

Its free money (50K) nearly free OWGR Points, and guaranteed FE points.  Its convenient for them to play.

If those same events were in Turkey, there would be a lot of No shows.

The US Based WGCs have:

Guaranteed Money
Guaranteed FE Points
Nearly guaranteed OWGR Points
Location on the Globe
Location on the calendar.

Is it the chicken or the egg?

I think the evidence clearly shows it is one and not the other.

When you watch PGAT telecasts on Sky Sports, do you Golf Channel personalities on the telecast like Chamblee, Notah Begay, and Phil Parkin?

GPB

Doral and the bridgestone are still pretty damn close to the masters field strength, so every reason not to dismiss them as meaning little to the players. The only thing stopping them overtaking the masters is inviting a few more players towards from 50-100 in the rankings.

The main point however is that give the strength of the field the players will value winning a WGC over a regular tour event. Given they must be inherently competitive people, why wouldn't they?

McClaren, 

You made a declarative statement that at least two of the WGC's are stronger than than at least two of the majors.  That is simply not the case.

The Masters invite criteria is basically the same thing as WGC's and they invite more players.  Just because Ian Woosnam, Larry Mize and Sandy Lyle are also invited, it doesn't weaken the field.  It doesn't add much to it, but it doesn't weaken it.

Elite players skip WGC's more frequently then they skip Majors (non injury related).  Mickelson skips the Match Play most every year.  Sneds skipped the Doral and Match Play.  He was injured, but if it had been a major, IMO, he would have played.

Jordan Spieth skipped Akron this year

And these players are skipping the HSBC.

The WGC's are good events, but the fact remains that it is Free money for playing these events.   And not a trivial amount.  And for the dual tour players, the WGC's count on both tours as events towards the tour minimum.  (and that is not trivial)

No player has gone on a Media Tour after winning Doral or Akron.  But they do go on National Talk Shows after winning the Masters or US Open or OpenC or PGA.

ESPN might give a 30 second highlight to Doral on their nightly wrapup.  They give 5-7 minutes of highlights for the Majors.

Winning a WGC is nice.  But it is not even close to winning a Major.

You are missing my main point, which is not whether or not the WGC's are actually stronger in terms of field strength than a major. Rather it is that they are very strong and the fact the come close to a major field strength means the players want to win them.

We are becoming a tad dismissive of events like the stronger WGC's or the players on here despite all the main contenders usually being present, and even more importantly they are present and willing themselves to win.

The guaranteed cheque might get them there in the first place but that does not stop them wanting to win (lots) when they get there.

The media may be more aware of the importance of majors but in what way does that diminish wining an event with OWGR SoF > 762?

Where is the evidence that shows the top players are not trying to win the WGC events?

Yes they may be more willing to skip them but once they tee up I have no doubt they want to win them badly.

I never said that players are not trying to win WGC.  There certainly are perks to winning a WGC, just like there are perks to winning the John Deere Classic.  Two year exemptions, Huge paycheck and a lot of ranking points.

But I think the OWGR overvalues WGC because of their top heavy formulas.

WGCs are still limited field events, with no cuts.  anywhere from 64 to 78 players typically.

The OWGR formulas do not include a "depthness" to their formula.  If you are not ranked inside the top 200, you don't count.  In other words, if GPB and Craig Lee was given a sponsor exemption into a PGATournament, he would count as much as Craig Lee (who is ranked #209).

Considering that GPB doesn't play golf anymore (due to a crippled right arm), I am pretty cure that Mr. Craig Lee is a much better golfer than GPB.  Craig Lee presence in the field makes the tournament harder to win than my presence would.

I think all players should count towards the SoF calculation (however trivially), not just the ones in the top 200.  Craig Lee should count more than John Daly and John Daly more than GPB (who would be nothing more than a warm body).

GPB wrote:I never said that players are not trying to win WGC.  There certainly are perks to winning a WGC, just like there are perks to winning the John Deere Classic.  Two year exemptions, Huge paycheck and a lot of ranking points.

But I think the OWGR overvalues WGC because of their top heavy formulas.

WGCs are still limited field events, with no cuts.  anywhere from 64 to 78 players typically.

The OWGR formulas do not include a "depthness" to their formula.  If you are not ranked inside the top 200, you don't count.  In other words, if GPB and Craig Lee was given a sponsor exemption into a PGATournament, he would count as much as Craig Lee (who is ranked #209).

Considering that GPB doesn't play golf anymore (due to a crippled right arm), I am pretty cure that Mr. Craig Lee is a much better golfer than GPB.  Craig Lee presence in the field makes the tournament harder to win than my presence would.

I think all players should count towards the SoF calculation (however trivially), not just the ones in the top 200.  Craig Lee should count more than John Daly and John Daly more than GPB (who would be nothing more than a warm body).

While I agree with your base assertion that the strength rating system of the OWGR is too top heavy, what you seem to dismiss is that it's NOT just how many, its the QUALITY of the ones participating.  My contention is that your "Craig Lee" would have a MUCH tougher time winning if he somehow was invited to participate in a WGC vs him playing in a field of 144 where only 5 top-25 and maybe 25-30 total top-100 players participated.

I have ZERO problem with the fact only 64-80 that get to participate in WGC's. With the exception of a few "dubious" invitation criteria in some of them, those players EARNED there way there.  I look at it like all the worlds players are participating in a rolling 1 to 2-year qualifier to gain entry.   Now could they be even tougher to win if another 50-70 players were added to that top-50 and you instituted a cut... SURE they would.  I mean having 3 or 4 more "PLAYERS" quality fields would be a wonderful thing.  

But that AIN'T gonna happen. The practicality of the situation is if you go full field, then you won't get the level of participation of the elites you get now.  And we know that because we see it every year... Remember, all the "invites" like Colonial, Heritage, Memorial, API and AT&T National invite all the worlds top-50 too. So do a lot of the premiere events on the Euro Tour.   But how many of those events get the level of top-player participation of the WGC's?   Only the Memorial and sometimes API come even remotely close.  

IMO in the end it comes down to what do you want...  3 or 4 WGC's as they are now... or change them and in 5 years or so have them revert back to being 3 or 4 more Colonial's and Heritage's on the schedule?   ME?   I'll take the WGC's the way they are and be quite happy.

Robo:  

I realize that WGC formats are not going to change soon.  But what I am refuting here is that there are anything close to a Major.   They are not, and they never will be.

The reason why you never have a lower ranked player win a WGC event is because a lower ranked player (at least from the PGAT or EuroT) is never invited.

#373 Ben Curtis would have never been invited to play a B-Stone.  But he did qualify for the Open Championship and won. 9th alternates never get into the Cadillac.  But a 9th alternate won the 1991 PGA Champ.

How many wins were on the PGAT last season that were won by players outside the top 70 WGC Bubble?

Henley, Gay, Merrick, Thompson, Streelman, Points, Laird, Horschel, Ernst, Weekley, Bae, English, Duke, Blixt, Spieth, and Reed

16 Winners, most of them well outside the WGC bubble. 

Bill Haas was the only 2013 PGATour winner that was well within the WGC Bubble, that I would not consider a World Class Player.  (as in consistently in the top 25-30 players in the World)

As far as the WGC's?  Yes they are nice, but I like golf. I don't need all the elite players in the field for me to have an interest. 

Personally, I don't like Match Play for a tournament format (its great for Ryder Cups and Prez Cups) so it wouldn't bother me if it was gone.

And I really don't think there is any differentiation between Cadillac and B-Stone.  There are essentially the same golf tournament.

I think the WGC's would be more special if they were less of them..

Doug Ferguson's take on Woods avoiding the HSBC:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/crouching-world-championship-hidden-tiger-172323834--golf.html

Seems like the unspoken word is that Woods won't play abroad unless he gets a guaranteed payday, presumably in the $millions.

Wonder how he's being paid next week? Turkish Delight?? (Don't tell Lindsey.)

When did the bald, nine chinned man sausage last play a tournament? September?

Pres Cup, mid-Sept.

And that is the tin pottiest of tin pot tournaments.

Super - You seem to always overlook more tin and much closer to home -- The Seve Trophy!

There's a whole load of them in the same bracket. Presidents Cup, Seve Trophy, Chevron, Nedbank, World Cup, etc

Super,

I think you spend half your life getting your thongs in a tangle.

And the other half your life getting your thongs untangled.

GPB wrote:Robo:  

I realize that WGC formats are not going to change soon.  But what I am refuting here is that there are anything close to a Major.   They are not, and they never will be.

I agree that in terms of prestige... WGC's  certainly are not near the same level as any major....  However, I believe a pretty good argument could be made that the WGC-Cadillac and WGC-Bridgestone are very close in field strength to the Masters at least... for example.

In 2010 the Bridgestone was 727 OWGR field strength to the Masters 748. The CA championship that same year (675) would have been similar to the Cadillac if not for TW not playing that year.

In 2012 the Masters was 802... while the Cadillac was 816, Bridgestone was 788

In 2013 the Masters was 791, Cadillac was 762, and Bridgestone was 768.

Seems pretty close to me.  And I think it's pretty hard to make a case that all those "extra" players (mostly sem-retired past Champions and Amateurs) in the Masters help it's competitive depth all that much.  

And by the way... Never say never.  IMO the WGC's will continue to "elevate" in status as time goes on, at least in the minds of "the rest of the world".  And while I doubt I'll live to see it... IMO if new majors aren't eventually designated internationally, or some of the existing relocated internationally... then IMO the WGC's will continue that climb in status where some day they very well may come close to if not catch up to majors in prestige.

Robo

Thats part of the point I was trying to make. I understand there are players missing in the WGC's from 75-125 of the OWGR ranking who would make them more credible. But they are in the two cases you mention very strong fields.

Which brings me back to the simple point I have been trying to make, the players know the fields are strong and will therefore really want to win a WGC. So when kwini or anyone else tries to downplay the WGC's I find it hard to understand.

Especially as you would have to totally discount the point of winning most regular tour events if you did not even value a strong WGC.

Doral and Firestone are dull courses, but then so are most of the courses used on pro golf tours.

Would an overseas staging of them help? Yes, but not if you get fields like the HSBC.

But neither of these two issues are enough to diminish the fact a players has beaten the best 70 odd players in the world. Especially when the top 50 are assembled so rarely in a season.

Mac,
kwini doesn't try to "downplay" the WGC's, kwini tries to downplay the "W" in the GC's. As apparently do Messrs Woods, Scott, Stricker, Furyk, Simpson, Day, Mahan, Schwartzel, ZJohnson and Kuchar.

As we've said before f--- 'em.

Kwini

I really don't want another tiger debate but for starters you have repeatedly said you don't really think tigers 18 WGC's mean all that much, and in general you don't seem to think of the WGC's as anything other than free pay days for the worlds best.

Who cares if they have a "W" in the title, it would seem they are still the second strongest type of events in golf.

Even the match play WGC has a stronger field than the old wentworth event could ever dream of. Again the location is uninspiring but for christ sake, they are still the worlds best players.

I've never said they don't mean much - Davie is right! They mean that Tiger is the best-by-far WGC player of all time.

But they'd mean a helluva lot more if they weren't regurgitated on the same dreary courses, year in, year out. No wonder we don't go to Sahalee any more.
I love the MatchPlay, and I would champion, as I have said, a true Tournament of Champions.
But, unless you spread them around the "W" a bit more, the others seem to matter less as year follows year.

kwinigolfer wrote:unless you spread them around the "W" a bit more, the others seem to matter less as year follows year.

I guess this is the part of your argument I don't understand?

Matter less to you or the pro golf world in general?

Because as pointed out they probably mean a lot to the players and a lot of fans enjoy watching all the top players no matter what the location is.

Yes, Mac,
But even Manchester United would surely feel something is not quite right if they played every match at Old Trafford and refused to play away games unless they copped a huge appearance fee.
As I said, my prescription would be one global Tournament Of Champions (no win, no play), and one Match Play as they currently have it. Alternate one in US, one elsewhere.
I know that's not going to happen however.

Who are the players that are being disadvantages by playing WGC's away?

It certainly isn't the top players from Europe or the rest of the world as they all count USA as home.

Given the number of americans who win the open it isn't like the europeans suddenly have a great advantage on "home" turf.

So is it the fans hat you feel for when you say the WGC's should be spread around? But even the european fans are better off with the WGC's in the USA as the viewing times are a lot friendlier because they don't clash with work, other sports, footie on tv, weekend family outings etc.


And just to be extra difficult  I hate the idea of a winners only strokeplay event. If I could change the entry to WGC strokeplay events it would just be a simple formula the resulted in most of the worlds top 125 playing.

Kwini, why are you so hung up on "World".  

Why can't it means World Players are invited, not necessarily that they are play around the World.

A "World" by any other name would be as Big.

World to American's means America.     

Mac - A very logical summation!

World just a word, indeed ... but what's significantly more concrete and important is that the sponsors want prime-time audiences, best fields ... and those don't play well in many places. For those this really offends ... get off your wallet and buy your way in to the professional game. (Bring lots of money however.)

Matchplay or stroke play? I'm of the opinion that stroke play is fairer and also lots more appealing to the touring professional as he/she tries to play late on Sunday. So, I fully understand why it's not the format of choice for the professional. Still, I would prefer to see it more.

Agree with Mac that the viewing times when playing in the US is far friendlier for an European TV audience. 8 pm is as prime time as it gets.
A WGC in Australia or even Hawaii would do the same for the US TV audience.

With that being said, I agree with kwini that it isn't a 'true' World Golf Campionship series if it doesn't rotate around the world.

But hey, the winners of the US Baseball and Basketball Leagues are crowned world champions as well, so maybe I got the geography classes all wrong.

Strange that Mac should say that, given he's seemingly up 2,3,4 and 5am posting on this forum.

What's he doing up at that time?