Tiger in Chevron!!!!!

First topic message reminder :

Read the article at pgatour.com
http://www.pgatour.com/2011/tournaments/r478/10/12/tiger-woods.ap/index.html

What kind of BS is that? They are trying to justify his exemption? And Tiger is "grateful"... Give me a break please!

was Fowler not ahead of Woods in the rankings at the cutoff point?
i didn't think Tigers top 50 "qualified" him- i thought it was a case that it made him eligible for an invite (even though others ahead of him could miss out)

So why would he be any more likely to drop out than say Johnson, Kuchar or Watney??

Maverick wrote:He qualified by virtue of his OGWR he was still ranked inside the top 50 at the time of cut off for qualifying for this event. He qualified at No48 on the rankings so his participation should not be the issue!

Not correct. He only qualified for the eligability to be invited! They could have invited somebody else if they wanted.

The field consist of 18 players including the current four major winners, the top 11 available from the Official World Golf Rankings, the Defending Champion, and two special exemption players selected by the Tiger Woods Foundation. As only one major champ plays, and the defending champ doesn't play, the direct qualified are:

The 16 who qualified for the Chevron World Challenge, based on the Official World Golf Ranking as of Sept. 19, are Steve Stricker (No. 5 world ranking), Dustin Johnson (No. 6), Jason Day (No. 7), Matt Kuchar (No. 8), Nick Watney (No. 11), Webb Simpson (No. 13), Bubba Watson (No. 15), K.J. Choi (No. 16), 2001 PGA Championship winner David Toms (No. 18), Paul Casey (No. 20), Hunter Mahan (No. 23), 2003 U.S. Open and 2010 FedExCup champ Jim Furyk (No. 24), Brandt Snedeker (No. 25), 2011 PGA Championship winner Keegan Bradley (No. 28), Martin Laird (No. 31) and 2007 Masters champ Zach Johnson (No. 33).

On top of that, the two invites, Haas and Woods.

Ok. So there are plenty of players ranked higher than Woods who could have been one of the two invites, is the point?

Get it. In that case it does look a bit like 'it's my ball and you're not playing without me'

Ok so the crux of the matter then is everyones got their knickers in a twsit for Woods qualifying for an invite and getting one ahead of others!

Surely though and maybe its just me that thinks this the bigger issue is still the fact that they get OGWR points in a non sanctioned event regardless of Woods being there. As said before not a Woods fan but surely his participation is less important than the farce surround points being awarded

agreed with Pedro re criteria. his top 50 only made him eligible for an invite

Maverick wrote:
Surely though and maybe its just me that thinks this the bigger issue is still the fact that they get OGWR points in a non sanctioned event regardless of Woods being there. As said before not a Woods fan but surely his participation is less important than the farce surround points being awarded

Completely agree. If OWGR points weren't awarded I couldn't care less. (although all the self righteous BS surrounding US golf will always annoy me)

Pedro
Your original post was about Tiger playing in it, nothing to do with OGWR points.

Yes Mav totally agree, none of these invitationals or limited fields events should carry OGWR points. The system is viewed by everyone as not really relevant to current form, and points from these type of events is just purely farcically.

Trouble is, pedro, it's dollars from sponsors in the US (and the Far East I suppose) that makes the golf world go round.

"self righteous BS surrounding US golf", whether one agrees with that phrase or not, will only go away when the economic engine that is US sponsorship goes away. I don't see Europe competing and to have big European names essentially going round the world driving for dollars rather than supporting the ET tournaments only emphasises that fact.

(Look at PGA Tour "invitationals" and you will see a number of eccentric invites, none of them hamstrung by the top 50 rule.)

Good, think we're all agreed about the owgr, but remember all world golf bodies are a party to the rankings . . . . . . . .

I also now stand corrected, I thought the field was a bit larger. It therefore is stretching it more than just a bit giving him an invite but I also agree that the ranking points on offer for such a closed event is a farce regardless of whether it's TW picking them up or somebody else.

[/quote]
The tournament is staged by the Tiger Woods Foundation whose prime objective is to assist young people succeed in life. So that's why I think the tournament committee should make criterias for their invites, i.e. only "young up-and-comers" etc. OK I know that Fowler or Matteo are not young people in need, but at least there would be some logic then.[/quote]



This doesn't track for me. The Tiger Woods Foundation is running a golf tournament - some of the proceeds of which will go to fund their various efforts. When they run the golf tournament, they should try and generate as much money as possible which to help fund these "various efforts".

The impact TW has on improving gate, merchandise sales and TV ratings irrefutable. One can dislike it all they want, but don't argue with a fact, save that for opinions. Having TW at this event will increase revenue -- substantially. The ET has known this for years ... and paid TW some handsome appearance fees.

TW playing is good for the sponsors and good (IMO) for TW.

hogie wrote:

I am not a Tiger fan because I just don’t like his attitude but let’s not forget he is still one of the greatest golfers to ever play the game and while the jury is out as to whether he will win more majors than Jack what he has already achieved in the game is phenomenal.

let’s not forget he is still one of the greatest golfers to ever play the game

Should that not read

let’s not forget he WAS one of the greatest golfers to ever play the game.

There is no guarantee that he will ever come back.

He is big BOX OFFICE, but he is not the Tiger of old. His World Ranking is his World Ranking, no matter how many times the US TV commentators call him the "Former Word No 1". They just have to get over it. At the moment he is crap, with a little flashes of greatness. Whether he can turn that around, is debatable.

@SetupDeterminesTheMotion
Has Tiger passed away?
I would still say Jack IS one of the greatest of all time, though obviously with age his golfing ability has gone down. Lets wait untill these lads are 6 foot under before we start referring to them in the past tense.

Can't come soon enough hogie

I'm a bit 50/50 over this OGWR debate in events like the Chevron and Nedbank

I do agree that those finishing in the lower ranks of an event like this should get zero points - but lets face it. The OGWR is there to (try to) identify the best golfer in the world.

Let's say for sake of argument that there was a limited field/invitational that attracted 31 of the 32 best golfers in the world. Those outside of the top 32 had the opportunity to play another event somewhere around the world which was also awarded OGWR points.

If someone were to win the event with 31 of the top 32 golfers, why shouldn't they be rewarded from the OGWR point of view? They have beaten the best and should be rewarded by points (the money earned is probably obscene but irrelevant for the purpose of this debate)

The guys who aren't invited to these invitationals have other events they could enter. The points awarded to those other events may not be so many, but equally they are easier to do well in if the "big names" are otherwise occupied

Finish 30th in a field of 30 and you shouldn't be rewarded, but win one? Worthy of points as far as I'm concerned

I think that's the secondary option, Davie.
If points HAVE to be awarded for (what are essentially) exhibitions, then that's one thing, but don't award owgr points just for coming last. Preferably limit owgr points scaled down just to the top half of the finishers. I would also apply this to WGC's and any other no cut event, no points for instance for first round WGC Match Play losers.