PGA Tour: Beside the Seaside: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).That's where we are this week, for the second week running after Mayakoba's beachside beauty - which is no way to describe winner Pat Perez. Quite the return from injury for Perez, long regarded as one of the Tour's premier "ball strikers" - if he was anywhere close as good between the ears as he is with his irons, he'd win five times a year, said Johnny Miller, or words to that effect anyway. Almost a shame he won as his combustible self-destruction act is quite something to behold.
And he's the third Mayakoba winner in a row to break a victory drought following Charley Hoffman and Graeme McDowell.

2).We travel this week to the Golden Isles of Georgia and the two courses that make up the venue for the RSM (formerly McGladrey) Classic. 18 holes each at the Plantation Course and Seaside Course, then 36 weekend holes at Seaside - a Harry Colt design originally, and a beautiful setting which will be graced by equally beautiful weather. These "Isles" are popular destinations for Tour players to live and practice, led by Davis Love and joined by Kuchar, Zach Johnson and several others.

3).A lot has happened in the past ten days. Obviously.
We all know the Ugly (not to say vulgar, racist, misogynistic, isolationist) which evolved into the Bad (very bad, tremendously bad), and was roundly welcomed by Pros from all US Tours and broadcast booths.
But there's been some good as well, in the world of Golf at least.

4).With impeccable timing, the Rolex Series for the European Tour was introduced, with the promise of at least one more tournament (France?) to be added to the seven already announced. Not sure we know all the details yet, and the ramifications for PGA Tour members (including South Africans) have yet to be established, but this can't be anything other than terrific news for the E.T.

5).Don't know whether this is good or what, but the reformatting of the Zurich Classic in New Orleans next April seems to beg more questions than it answers, not least any rationale surrounding owgr points (it seems none will be awarded) and how they're going to fill the field. And at a venue, New Orleans, that often experiences an untimely monsoon season to coincide with the tournament, how are they going to manage 160 golfers playing four-balls on the Friday?

6).Meanwhile, the LPGA seems interested in acquiring the Ladies European Tour and using it as feeder for its own Tour. Not sure how that will go down.

7).More positive news for European Seniors is that its new "Head" man, Dave McLaren, is laying out plans to increase the number of tournaments and raise prize money, hopefully within a couple of years. Don't expect Europe's Seniors to reach the kind of wealth that Bernhard Langer has achieved on the Champions Tour (almost $21M and counting), but anything to achieve stability would be welcomed. Meanwhile, the likes of Barry Lane and Van der Velde are competing here in Champions Tour Q-School (both leading in their respective venues after Round 1), hoping to join the likes of Langer, Montgomerie, Mechanic, Broadhurst, Woosie, Lyle and, when he feels fit to compete, Olazabal.

8).This time last year, Graeme McDowell travelled to the Seaside with a Mayakoba win under his belt and proceeded to finish third. Strange, then, that's he's not in this week's field, especially disappointing after three superb rounds last week. Luke Donald will be playing, trying to emerge from the wreckage of his career - a couple of runner-up finishes last year but nothing to suggest he'll be back at the top anytime soon. But these courses might suit him.

9).It's a sad commentary on the state of Australian Golf that last year's Aussie Open Champ, Matt Jones, is playing the RSM/McGladrey rather than defending his title. Admittedly he needs all the starts he can get after mysteriously taking last season just easy enough that he narrowly lost his card, but really . . . . . . . .

10).No PGA Tour action next week, even though Thanksgiving has been postponed in most US homes for four years. There IS a World Cup in Australia, plus Champions Tour and web.com Q-Schools in the next three weeks, but the Ballwasher is pretty clogged up with fallen leaves and season-ending debris, so only sporadic musings until January. Merry Christmas!

Wonder if he'll "need more reps" and is "getting there" and "the W's will come soon", and I bet he "knew it was going to be hard but it was fun"

I don't have a problem with small events like the World Challenge getting OWGR points... it's just that IMO they get too many.  IMO a better way would be to have a floor of say 60 players to get full 100% earned OWGR allocation... and then reduce by increments of 10% for each 10 less players... with a minimum of 16 players... something like this.

100% = 60+ players
90% = 50-59 players
80% = 40-49 players
70% = 30-39 players
60% = 20-29 players
50% = 16-19 players
00% = less than 16 players

I would include events like the Tour Championship in that as well. No reason they couldn't up their field to 60.  But perhaps grandfathering the Tournament of Champions and any other Tour that might want to have a winners only event might be OK... seeing as how the entry criteria is so strict by it's very nature it's going to be a small field.

I take it you have all seen the Tiger swing video doing the rounds today?

What do you reckon?

McLaren wrote:I take it you have all seen the Tiger swing video doing the rounds today?

What do you reckon?

I'm not a swing guru.... but I figure if he couldn't swing he wouldn't be playing. I'm just hoping he gets through 4 rounds looking like his back is in good enough shape to resume his career. ZERO expectations on results this week though.

Robo, I am pretty sure you agree that the difference between #900 and #750 is minutiae and a trivial difference.

But big picture, don't you think it highlights the problem of "everyone gets a trophy" in these limited field events.

I just don't understand how they award OFFICIAL Ranking points to an UNOFFICIAL event. I think the only other unofficial event that gets ranking points is the Olympics, and it looks like is going away for future Olympic events.

If points have to be awarded, it should only be awarded to players that beat (or tie) half the field.

That goes for the WGCs, Maui, ToC, RtD, Turkey, and Nedbank and other tournaments that meet that criteria.

Players should not be rewarded for mailing it in and finishing 24 shots behind the winner.

Davie wrote:BetVictor are offering 40/1 on Tiger

To finish?

GPB wrote:Robo, I am pretty sure you agree that the difference between #900 and #750 is minutiae and a trivial difference.

You could have stopped right there.  Because I certainly feel that some guy getting 2 or 3 last place points in an event like this, in considering the grand scheme of the OWGR, is about as trivial and meaningless as anything we could possibly discuss.  If the OWGR were keep those points as they are, reduce them or even eliminate them for the bottom of this field... it really does't matter to me one way or the other, because again... IMO it's not worth 1/10th of 1% of  the hilariously overblown hand wringing over this.

GPB wrote:I just don't understand how they award OFFICIAL Ranking points to an UNOFFICIAL event.  I think the only other unofficial event that gets ranking points is the Olympics, and it looks like is going away for future Olympic events.

 WHY?  If some independent promoter is able to put together a quality field of players why SHOULDN'T it get OWGR points?   World rankings are designed to measure the performance of players, I don't see any logical reasoning to exclude a legitimate competition just because it's not on a Tour. Besides... this one is not just some independent event. It's a legitimate 72-hole, individual stroke play event SANCTIONED and officiated by the PGA Tour, albeit not official money or win.

PS.... and I wasn't aware the Olympics was losing it's OWGR points or there was any consideration of same. As long as it retains an "individual" medal portion which seems to be the desire of the IGF (with maybe a team element added in some way)... I hadn't heard anything from anybody suggesting it would lose OWGR rating.

"...World rankings are designed to measure the performance of players..."

So how does rewarding players that finish DFL with OWGR pts in a limited field event dovetail with measuring player performance.

And I can cite numerous instances where a player getting 2-3 points is the difference between being inside the top 50* and not being in the Top 50*

And my Olympic comment was the natural extrapolation of the rumors that the Olympics will go to a World Cup format.

*Top 50 (or Top 64, or Top 60) at pertinent dates on the calendar.

and BTW, a few years ago, BMW did ponied up big money for the BMW Masters (Rory won it) and it did not get any OWGR sanctioning.  Turkish Airlines did the same thing, also a few years back.

"Sanctioned" is not the same thing as "Official"

Have to agree with you GPB.
You get zero points if you don't make the cut in a normal event, why should anyone get points for simply being in a tournament? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Why would someone be rewarded for having a Kafelnikov type performance?

Anything with less than a full field should not have points.

McLaren wrote:I take it you have all seen the Tiger swing video doing the rounds today?

What do you reckon?

No. Why would I?? Where can I find this piece of golfing porn?

pedro wrote:

Davie wrote:BetVictor are offering 40/1 on Tiger

To finish?

navyblueshorts wrote:

McLaren wrote:I take it you have all seen the Tiger swing video doing the rounds today?

What do you reckon?

No. Why would I?? Where can I find this piece of golfing porn?

I saw a swing on instagram. Tiger is using an M2 driver.

That is an unbelievable bonus for Taylormade.... the 2 most marketable golfers on the planet have switched to use use TM drivers as soon as they could. TM haven't advertised this... I wonder if TM paid Rory and Tiger or if they have made the choice as free agents. If it is choice then it's a pretty big endorsement of the M2.

Is it really an endorsement? One of the worst drivers on tour is using an M2.

I can see how they get a boost from McIlroy, but 9C has always been atrocious with the big stick.

Not watched any of it (yet), but when I was watching the Aussie golf on Sunday Sky were advertising "Tiger's back week" this week.... reruns of all his greatest major wins etc. Obviously he is still the main event in golf, at least for the armchair fan.

Triumphant return of the king? I don't think so somehow. More likely limping in at the back of the field.

raycastleunited wrote:Not watched any of it (yet), but when I was watching the Aussie golf on Sunday Sky were advertising "Tiger's back week" this week.... reruns of all his greatest major wins etc. Obviously he is still the main event in golf, at least for the armchair fan.

Triumphant return of the king? I don't think so somehow. More likely limping in at the back of the field.

You could read that two ways, or "Tiger's back weak" would be more apt.

super_realist wrote:Is it really an endorsement? One of the worst drivers on tour is using an M2.

I can see how they get a boost from McIlroy, but 9C has always been atrocious with the big stick.

It's more the fact that it appears they are choosing the M2 when they could put any club in the bag they liked. Why not Titleist or Callaway drivers for example?

The top players are all tied in to long term deals with OEMs so you never know what they think of the equipment. Pretty clear the players couldn't wait to stop using the Nike clubs as soon as they could.

I wouldn't want to play Nike clubs either, very much the Vauxhall of the club world.

super_realist wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:Not watched any of it (yet), but when I was watching the Aussie golf on Sunday Sky were advertising "Tiger's back week" this week.... reruns of all his greatest major wins etc. Obviously he is still the main event in golf, at least for the armchair fan.

Triumphant return of the king? I don't think so somehow. More likely limping in at the back of the field.

You could read that two ways, or "Tiger's back weak" would be more apt.

Very good.

navyblueshorts wrote:

McLaren wrote:I take it you have all seen the Tiger swing video doing the rounds today?

What do you reckon?

No. Why would I?? Where can I find this piece of golfing porn?

Instagram, twitter, snapchat, tumble, pinterest and so on.

Super

What do you make of Tiger's velcro shoes?

GPB wrote:"...World rankings are designed to measure the performance of players..."

So how does rewarding players that finish DFL with OWGR pts in a limited field event dovetail with measuring player performance.

Let me try this again.... "If the OWGR were keep those points as they are, reduce them or even eliminate them for the bottom of this field... it really does't matter to me one way or the other...."  And to expand on that.... 3 of the 4 WGC's don't have last place points... and I would have no issues if the bottom places in smaller events didn't get them either. How deep they should go requires a little more thought. But I don't think "half" is right for a premium field event.... maybe something like 3/4 deep would be more appropriate. Plus I've also long been a proponent of "scaling" points in these smaller events based on field size. IMO that would take care of a lot of the problem as it would probably effectively force these events to greatly expand their fields or risk extinction.

GPB wrote:And I can cite numerous instances where a player getting 2-3 points is the difference between being inside the top 50* and not being in the Top 50*

 And I can probably cite 1000's and 1000s more when it didn't.

GPB wrote:and BTW, a few years ago, BMW did ponied up big money for the BMW Masters (Rory won it) and it did not get any OWGR sanctioning.  Turkish Airlines did the same thing, also a few years back.

"Sanctioned" is not the same thing as "Official"

Thanks for the reminder of BMW Masters and Turkey... those were both "Chubby" deals with the intent to start events on the Euro Tour that he could own and operate.  And he did so successfully.  But the fact those events didn't get points their first year isn't an legitimate analogy.... as neither did the old Volvo/Wentworth Match Play, the NedBank or World Challenge. Plus "officialness" apparently has NOT been a required factor to the OWGR folks over the years as they rated the Volvo/Wentworth Match play off and on when it was and wasn't official and same thing with the NedBank.  And it's not a factor to me now.  If somebody can put together a field the OWGR deems worthy of being rated... good enough for me.  

And yes... I am aware of the distinction between "sanctioned" and "official" as you may have noted when i said: "It's a legitimate 72-hole, individual stroke play event SANCTIONED and officiated by the PGA Tour, albeit not official money or win."  (emphasis added)

McLaren wrote:Super

What do you make of Tiger's velcro shoes?

Hideous, like everything he wears.
He's a terrible dresser and I sincerely hope he's given up his preposterous "superstition" of wearing red on a Sunday. It's just pathetic.

Why do you care, Super? Are you a fan?

super_realist wrote:Hideous, like everything he wears.
He's a terrible dresser and I sincerely hope he's given up his preposterous "superstition" of wearing red on a Sunday. It's just pathetic.

PWNED

MontysMerkin wrote:Why do you care, Super? Are you a fan?

Mac asked my opinion Monty. Although I would have thought that you could clearly see why being superstitious about it is a pathetic position to be in.

Robo: Your disclaimer doesn't dismiss the fact that you said World Rankings are designed to measure performance.

Because rewarding poor finishes truly does not do that.

As far as your 1000's and 1000's of citations, BFD. Its a Strawman argument. I can cite 1000's and 1000's of days where a hurricane has not hit New Orleans. It only takes one t*rd to ruin the punch in the punchbowl.

And BTW....nice passive aggressive post elsewhere. You sure are trying to stop the blog wars. NOT!

super_realist wrote:

MontysMerkin wrote:Why do you care, Super? Are you a fan?

Mac asked my opinion Monty. Although I would have thought that you could clearly see why being superstitious about it is a pathetic position to be in.

About the shoes not his lovely shirt.
I have never failed in my lucky pants.

GPB wrote:Robo:  Your disclaimer doesn't dismiss the fact that you said World Rankings are designed to measure performance.

OK.... I'll bite. If they don't measure performance... then WHAT exactly do they measure?
'

robopz wrote:

GPB wrote:Robo:  Your disclaimer doesn't dismiss the fact that you said World Rankings are designed to measure performance.

OK.... I'll bite. If they don't measure performance... then WHAT exactly do they measure?  
'

Surely the point of the ranking points is to reward GOOD performances, not give reward to someone finishing bottom of the pile. That's like rewarding someone for getting a D in their exams.

GPB wrote:As far as your 1000's and 1000's of citations, BFD.  Its a Strawman argument.  I can cite 1000's and 1000's of days where a hurricane has not hit New Orleans.  It only takes one t*rd to ruin the punch in the punchbowl.

OK... I'll bite again.  Name once when a last place finish (or series of them) in the Tournament of Champions, Tour Championship,  World Challenge, NedBank, Volvo Match Play or WGC propelled a player into the top-10, top-50, top-60, top-64 or top-100 OWGR ranking at an important benchmark date for a Major, WGC, Ryder or President's Cup spot?   I certainly understand hurricanes don't always strike... but if this is such a huge issue then I'm sure there will be numerous examples.

The most interesting tournament in the USA this week is outside Orlando, where 78-ish Senior golfers compete in Champions Tour Final Stage of Q-School.
Only five "cards" will be awarded so competition should be fierce with European Tour stalwarts McGinley, Phil Price, James Kingston, Tinning, Van de Velde, Barry Lane, M-A Martin, J-F Remesy and Stephen Dodd teeing it up with a dozen PGA Tour winners, plus a US golfer whose top finishes include a Players 2nd, Masters 3rd and PGA 3rd - and who most have forgotten: Tommy Tolles.

Broadhurst tried and failed last year and look at him now!

Kwini... I'm actually more interested in the LPGA Q-school this time around. 18-year old Aditi Ashook from India is in the field. Many may remember her as the surprise 2nd round leader in the Women's Olympic Golf.... and recently she's won two straight on the LET Tour.

Last year Westwood finished T51 in the HBSC tournament. It got him 1.52 points.

Those 1.52 were the difference between Lee Westwood being in the Top 50 at year end and Chris Kirk being in the top 50.

2015 Year end ranking

50. Westy = 2.5758
51. C.Kirk = 2.5659

GPB in an earlier post wrote:If points have to be awarded, it should only be awarded to players that beat (or tie) half the field

.

It'll be interesting to see how Ashook fares. Also, surprised to see Amy Anderson in the field, plenty of good names. Amazing that Lorie Kane is still at it.

Used to follow LPGA action closely back in the days of ESPN coverage and before the influx of Korean ladies and media focus on titillation rather than achievement - not so keen now and seldom watch the ladies; plus local ladies worth following have either called it a career or not made the grade.

GPB wrote:Last year Westwood finished T51 in the HBSC tournament.   It got him 1.52 points.
Those 1.52 were the difference between Lee Westwood being in the Top 50 at year end and Chris Kirk being in the top 50.

2015 Year end ranking
50. Westy = 2.5758
51. C.Kirk = 2.5659

GPB in an earlier post wrote:If points have to be awarded, it should only be awarded to players that beat (or tie) half the field

.

So he wasn't last... and besides as I responded to your idea only half a field should get points...

robopz in an earlier post wrote: But I don't think "half" is right for a premium field event.... maybe something like 3/4 deep would be more appropriate.

That would be 58-59 players in the 78 player HSBC getting points... Westy was T51, or right at top 2/3rds, so ALL fine by me.... next.

McLaren wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

McLaren wrote:I take it you have all seen the Tiger swing video doing the rounds today?

What do you reckon?

No. Why would I?? Where can I find this piece of golfing porn?

Instagram, twitter, snapchat, tumble, pinterest and so on.

All crap I don't bother with as a general rule. In other words, I'd have to go looking for it and therefore you "take it" wrong that I've seen it. Now, do you want me to have a look out of interest and have a "reckon" as to what I think of it? If so, can you please supply a link to this paragon of golfing poetry in motion.

I hope McGinley is drunk. Or at least injured.
How else would he explain starting out 11 over par for his first 8 holes? Dreadful.

So you went P_p_ on me. Didn't like my evidence, so you DQed it.

robo wrote:So he wasn't last... and besides as I responded to your idea only half a field should get points...

Robo wrote:Name once when a last place finish (or series of them)

pssst, last time I checked....1.52 pts is less than a last place finish in the HWC or Tour Championship or ToC

McLaren wrote:Super

What do you make of Tiger's velcro shoes?

They look hideous.

But I do like the shoes Rory has been wearing recently that are based on the Air Max 90's.

GPB wrote:So you went P_p_ on me.  Didn't like my evidence, so you DQed it.

pssst, last time I checked....1.52 pts is less than a last place finish in the HWC or Tour Championship or ToC

 I didn't poo-poo your evidence, I asked you to find a case where a last place finish affected a top-50 benchmark, you didn't.  I certainly understand that theoretically it could some day, or maybe already has that we're not aware of, but my thoughts are "So what?". If it has happened it's so rare it's trivial in the grand scheme of things.

Bottom line is the media are having a cow over Tiger moving from 900 to 750 if he finishes last. That's mostly what I'm reacting to because it's a a massive (mostly ignorant) overreaction to something that just don't matter a hill of beans that far down the rankings.  Now get back to me when when a bottom feeder finish moves someone from #200 to #50.... Now THAT would matter.

As the saying should go, "You can't win it on Tuesday, but you can certainly lose it." McGinley in with an 85 in Champions Tour Q-School.

No Europeans in the top ten as things stand with just some stragglers still out on the course.

McGinley... Ouch

McGinley jumped the shark long ago.

robopz wrote:

GPB wrote:So you went P_p_ on me.  Didn't like my evidence, so you DQed it.

pssst, last time I checked....1.52 pts is less than a last place finish in the HWC or Tour Championship or ToC

 I didn't poo-poo your evidence, I asked you to find a case where a last place finish affected a top-50 benchmark, you didn't.  I certainly understand that theoretically it could some day, or maybe already has that we're not aware of, but my thoughts are "So what?". If it has happened it's so rare it's trivial in the grand scheme of things.

Bottom line is the media are having a cow over Tiger moving from 900 to 750 if he finishes last. That's mostly what I'm reacting to because it's a a massive (mostly ignorant) overreaction to something that just don't matter a hill of beans that far down the rankings.  Now get back to me when when a bottom feeder finish moves someone from #200 to #50.... Now THAT would matter.

Do you often mistake the forest because there is a shrub in front of you.

Earlier I said the difference between 750 and 900 is trivial. Thats NOT the point of my argument. You won't believe it, this is NOT a Tiger Woods (or even HWC) issue with me. Its Dustin Johnson earning more OWGR points for a DFL (losing by 24 shots) in a limited field event than he did by beating 100 players in the US Open and finishing 16 shots. This is an issue about the OWGR formulas. Going from 900 to 750 is a symptom, not the disease.

IMO, the most important thing about the OWGR is not to determine who is #1 or #1 or the Top 10. The most important thing about the rankings is determining the fields for Majors, WGCs (and possibly the Players)

And poor finishes in the limited field events can and does affect the Top 50 or 60 or 64. IMO. the guaranteed money is incentive enough for these players. and if they are truly World Class Elite players, they don't need the subsidies that finishing 15th in a HWC or finish T51 in a WGC. They will find a way to stay in the Top 50. They don't need the subsidies. If you don't beat half the field, you don't deserve any OWGR points.

Hope it won't move McGinley 150 places up on the OWGR...

MontysMerkin wrote:
I have never failed in my lucky pants.

No wonder with all the poopie you drop on this board...

GPB... I don't know what part of me saying I wouldn't have a problem if they didn't give points to the bottom feeders in these events you're having such an tough time accepting. But the bottom line is I don't care if they continue to give them either... Because it's TRIVIAL in the grand scheme of things.

Take for instance your example of #50 Westwood finishing fractions ahead of #51 Chris Kirk in the 2015 year ending OWGR because of Westwood's "bottom feeder" points in the 2015 WGC HSBC. But you fail to notice Chris Kirk was playing in the EXACT same kind of events, including the very same WGC HSBC... PLUS a few weeks later Kirk played in the World Challenge and got points for finishing in the bottom half of that field. Bottom line is ITS TRIVIAL.... mostly because a LOT of the players around that 50 benchmark are participating in the same kinds of events.

And the truth of the matter is there's been events on the tour that have rewarded every player in small fields since at least the 30's,... And it's been trivial all along the way just as it's trivial now and I'm not gonna have a cow over it  just because it involves Tiger Freeking Woods this time around.

I'm outta this.

pedro wrote:Hope it won't move McGinley 150 places up on the OWGR...

Bravo

robopz wrote:GPB... I don't know what part of me saying I wouldn't have a problem if they didn't give points to the bottom feeders in these events you're having such an tough time accepting. But the bottom line is I don't care if they continue to give them either... Because it's TRIVIAL in the grand scheme of things.

Take for instance your example of #50 Westwood finishing fractions ahead of #51 Chris Kirk in the 2015 year ending OWGR because of Westwood's "bottom feeder" points in the 2015 WGC HSBC. But you fail to notice Chris Kirk was playing in the EXACT same kind of events, including the very same WGC HSBC... PLUS a few weeks later Kirk played in the World Challenge and got points for finishing in the bottom half of that field. Bottom line is ITS TRIVIAL.... mostly because a LOT of the players around that 50 benchmark are participating in the same kinds of events.

And the truth of the matter is there's been events on the tour that have rewarded every player in small fields since at least the 30's,... And it's been trivial all along the way just as it's trivial now and I'm not gonna have a cow over it  just because it involves Tiger Freeking Woods this time around.

I'm outta this.

If you would quit rationalizing, justifying and excusing the practice, maybe I would believe.

Yeah, but
However, I did say this.

Yada yada yada.

And yes, I knew that Kirk played in the HSBC (and got no points). and finished T10th in the HWC.

But that is results based thinking. Most of the players that are barely outside the Top 50 bubble are not playing WGCs and Tour Championships.

Its the players, its the process and/or formulas.