PGA Tour: Four More Years? Maybe not for Disney: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).It's been a six-year tradition of the PGA Tour to draw the curtain on the season's entertainment at the Disney courses, outside Orlando. But "Children's Miracle Network Hospitals" are at the end of their title sponsor contract, and the very real possibility exists that this will be the Tour's final visit to Disneyworld for a while. Jack Nicklaus won the first three Disney tournaments, but there's no-one of that illustrious calibre in this week's field - more of which later!

2).With the confirmation that the HSBC Champions will become a fully-fledged PGA Tour event next year, we now have six or seven (Disney would be the 7th) events with which to start the 2013/2014 season in autumn 2013. They are, in no particular order because we have yet to see the schedule:
The McGladrey
CIMB
HSBC
Las Vegas
Fry's.com
Mayakoba

3).And that is just six or seven years after the leading Tour players told Commissioner Finchem they wished to bring the Tour Championship forward to September, hence the FedEx Cup and the advent of the Fall Series. Now one of these events will be the opening tournament of a split-year season, 2013/2014.

4).None of the six tournaments mentioned above are currently due to earn Masters invitations for their winners, so how will that be? Win a WGC but be denied an Augusta tee-time?? Not likely, so we await a statement from Billy Payne who will doubtless be under pressure from the Tour, FedEx and other sponsors to resolve this thorny issue. Augusta don't want to increase the size of the field so there'll be snakes to go with the invitational ladder.

5).If ever the PGA Tour wished to make a statement to a sponsor that their largesse was no longer welcome they'd trot out a field like this week's line-up. As far as I can see, Robert Garrigus is the only standard bearer for the top 71 in the World Rankings with Jonas Blixt next at #72. As for the rest, who do they think they are? McIlroy and Woods?? Never mind, they'll be back in their droves for the Tiger guaranteed money tournament.

6).But there's plenty to play for, almost $5M. Let's deal with the Europeans first:
~Blixt needs to win at least $487K (solo second) to be sure of reaching the top 30 on the moneylist and a ticket to The Masters, though he could make it with a solo 3rd depending upon the results of Ben Curtis and De Jonge.
~Alex Cejka (182nd), Chopra (197th), Gary Christian (127th), Karlsson (161st) and Knox (156th) will be striving to reach the Top 125 on the moneylist to secure their "cards" for 2013. At the very least, Cejka, Karlsson and Knox will hope to reach the Top 150 for conditional 2013 status and a free pass to Q-School Final Stage.
~Brian Davis and Greg Owen are comfortably placed and hopefully can end their season with something of a bang after their respective whimpers of the past couple of months.
~And Stenson will just be happy to play his 15th and final event to secure his eligibility for 2013.

7).Others still to earn their exemption for 2013 include Camilo Villegas who sits precariously at 150th. Camilo continues to be a fan favourite and I doubt there's a finger not crossed in Tour HQ in the hope that he has four terrific rounds to ensure safety from the Q-School gallows.

8).One interested spectator from afar will be Nicolas Colsaerts - the $677K he's earned this year as a "Non-Member" would be just inside the Top 125 of the Tour's money list, $57K ahead of Billy Mayfair, currently in 125th position. If Colsaerts' earnings remain higher than the #125 man after Sunday, he'll be entitled to apply for Full Membership for 2013. Peter Hanson, Ishikawa and David Lynn would also be eligible to apply for Membership.

9).Next week sees PGA Tour Q-School Stage 2 and Champions Tour Final Qualifying. Among those seeking their senior fortunes are:
Marc Farry (France), Anders Forsbrand, Peter Fowler, Barry Lane, Santiago Luna, Miguel Angel Martin, Mark Mouland, Eduardo Romero and Andrew Sherborne.
Plus a collection of Tour journeymen and two more distinguished winners, Blaine McCallister and US Open winner Steve Jones (why he doesn't have some sort of exemption is beyond me).

10).I quite fancy recent winners Jonas Blixt and Two Gloves Gainey to continue their rich vein of form this week, but there'd be no more popular winner than the 2008 Champion Davis Love. At 98th on the moneylist he's almost assured of completing his 27th consecutive season in the Top 100 - a top 30 finish would ensure his 18th year million dollar year on the trot.
For those scoring at home, that all adds up to career earnings of $42M. A terrific career with more than his fair share of disappointments, none more than six weeks ago in Chicago, and you can be sure that, if Mickey Mouse pushes the boat out again next year, DLIII will be gracing the field as he usually does.

GPB wrote:Robo: Aren't players required to use their top 50 exemption before their top 25 exemption?

And doesn't Weir still have a top 50 or top 25 exemption left?

The order in which they use their exemptions is not specified. I do know of Several cases where players used their top-25 first... so I know they usually do it that way (see Chris Dimarco).... and Weir has BOTH of his left.

Here are the key provisions in the Handbook regarding the top-50 from the Handbook:


(10) Players on the Official PGA TOUR Career Money List, as follows:

(a) The top 50 members on the Official PGA TOUR Career
Money List as of the end of the preceding calendar year may
elect to use a one-time, one-year special exemption for the next
year, subject to the conditions set forth below and provided such
a member has not previously used one or more years of Official
PGA TOUR Career Money List exemptions, except as provided
for in (b) below.

(b) The top 25 members on the Official PGA TOUR Career
Money List as of the end of the preceding calendar year may
elect to use this special one-time, one-year exemption for the
next year, subject to the conditions set forth below and provided
that the member may be eligible for both years of this exemption
only if he: (i) is among the top 25 on the Official PGA TOUR
Career Money List at the time of his first year of such exemption,
and remains among the top 50 on the Official PGA TOUR
Career Money List at the end of the year preceding the second
year of such exemption; or (ii) accepts the first such exemption as
one of the top 50 members on the Official PGA TOUR Career
Money List as provided in (a) above, and then is among the top
25 on the Official PGA TOUR Career Money List as of the
end of the calendar year preceding the second year for which he
requests such exemption.

(c) Members intending to use the eligibility in this subsection in a
year must so inform the Commissioner in writing not later than
December 31 of the preceding year.

There is a paragraph (d) to this section... but it is detailed info regarding use of medical exemptions within a career top-25 or top-50 exemption..... so I didn't include it.

And Jerry Kelly will have to use his top 25 unless Brian Gay or Josh Teater play two over coming in.

GPB wrote:Robo: the loss of Mayakoba is not that big of deal. In terms of money, yes it is. But in terms of their chances to make the FE playoffs, not so much.

IMO, The Web*com/QS grads are not competing against the Top tier players as much as they are competing against the journeyman and rank/file player for the last 25 spots in the top 125.

Those players from 100-125 will also not have Mayakoba to play, so basically it is a wash.

I disagree... For the category 25 guys... IMO losing Maykaba (or Puerto Rico) is the WORST possible spot to lose an alternate event. I didn't track 2012, but in 2011 the guy's 30th and lower in the initial priority ranking got in an average of just less than 4 events before the first reshuffle.... and EVERYBODY got into Mayakoba.... So that means for those guys... the loss of Mayakoba costs them 25% of their events before the reshuffle.

Also... MONEY is still important for one more year... For 2013 top-125 FedEx points gets you into the playoffs... but top-125 MONEY also saves you your card. That changes in 2014 when ONLY FedEx (and NO money) determines top-125 status.

GPB wrote:
The problem with the Web*com/QS grads is that the top 125 have priority over all 50+ grafds. #120 can Miss the Cut in his first 20 tournaments and still get to play Travelers, while the QS/Web guys have to make sure that there is a spot available.

I heard someone say.

In golf, The hardest thing to do is to get a PGAT card via Q-school or Web*com tour.
The second hardest thing to do is get into the top 125.
The third hardest thing to do is to get out the top 125 once you are in the top 125.

I think the top 125 should be reduced to top 100.

As per the underlined portion of your quote above... and yes I've heard it too, and yes I believe it's true. But to be honest... I just don't have a problem with it. IMO top-125 is about the correct number. It won't work too well next year with the changeover... but other years I think it's just fine... Bottom line... as we've discussed before... If you knock off 101-125 of the PGAT players... you're replacing them basically with the 51-75 Web.com players. Using your plan... I believe the 25 PGAT players you're losing add more quality to the tour than the 25 lower quality guys you're adding. So in effect... IMO going to top-100 exempt instead of top-125 serves to promote turnover for turnover's sake... but doesn't elevate the quality of the Tour... in fact does just the opposite.

Plus the "opposite field" events earn 20% more FedEx points in 2013.

And Charlie Wi is another who could do Kelly a favour.

Good for Nicolas...

See Doug Ferguson just tweeted this piece of essential information:

Goofiest thing of all about the Beljan saga: His wife used to be an ambulance driver.

Maybe that's how they met . . . . .

Strange old week, good for Beljan and Nicky Colsaerts, fortunate for Tim Herron, and job half done for Russell Knox.

Status quo for the rest of the Europeans - Cejka has an invitation to Hong Kong so perhaps he's relinquishing his PGA Tour membership chances, except for his "veteran" membership..

kwinigolfer wrote:

Strange old week, good for Beljan and Nicky Colsaerts, fortunate for Tim Herron, and job half done for Russell Knox.

Yeah... banner week for University of New Mexico guys... Beljen wins... Herron's a story in keeping his card (and not stealing Andrade's job) while Curt Byrum announces it all...

OH... and that other Belgian had a good week too. But to be honest... I have mixed feelings about Colsaerts getting his PGAT card. Don't get me wrong, I was 100% in favor of having him over here and have been pulling for him all the way. That is until I heard his rather laze-fare comments about not coming over to protect his position on the money list. That just set a little wrong with me. Again... GLAD to have him... I look forward to seeing him a lot more next year... but it wouldn't have bothered me much if he wouldn't have made it this year either. He probably would make it easily in another year or two anyway...

robopz wrote:
I disagree... For the category 25 guys... IMO losing Maykaba (or Puerto Rico) is the WORST possible spot to lose an alternate event. I didn't track 2012, but in 2011 the guy's 30th and lower in the initial priority ranking got in an average of just less than 4 events before the first reshuffle.... and EVERYBODY got into Mayakoba.... So that means for those guys... the loss of Mayakoba costs them 25% of their events before the reshuffle.

Also... MONEY is still important for one more year... For 2013 top-125 FedEx points gets you into the playoffs... but top-125 MONEY also saves you your card. That changes in 2014 when ONLY FedEx (and NO money) determines top-125 status.

If we are talking about QS/Web grad compared to Jim Furyk, yes I agree with you. The established top 60 Tour players are not playing Mayakorba.

But that is not what am talking about. The avg QS/Web grad is competing against Kevin Chappell and James Driscoll as the best of bottom feeders. There primary short term goal is to retain their tour cards. Losing Mayakoba is not really hurting them in that goal as players like Chappell and Driscoll will also miss Mayakoba.

robopz wrote:
As per the underlined portion of your quote above... and yes I've heard it too, and yes I believe it's true. But to be honest... I just don't have a problem with it. IMO top-125 is about the correct number. It won't work too well next year with the changeover... but other years I think it's just fine... Bottom line... as we've discussed before... If you knock off 101-125 of the PGAT players... you're replacing them basically with the 51-75 Web.com players. Using your plan... I believe the 25 PGAT players you're losing add more quality to the tour than the 25 lower quality guys you're adding. So in effect... IMO going to top-100 exempt instead of top-125 serves to promote turnover for turnover's sake... but doesn't elevate the quality of the Tour... in fact does just the opposite.

You are making a big assumption that is not true. I am not eliminating 101-125. I am putting them into the same pool as the QS/Web grads.

I think a ~67% retention rate (125 cards out of ~190 active players) is far too lenient. And yes I know that this will not change because the Tour Members will essentially slitting their own wrists if they do that.

Robo: I can't imagine a player choosing to use his top 50 exemption before his top 25 exemption and that is why I thought that they had to use the top 50 first.

GPB wrote:

If we are talking about QS/Web grad compared to Jim Furyk, yes I agree with you. The established top 60 Tour players are not playing Mayakorba.

But that is not what am talking about. The avg QS/Web grad is competing against Kevin Chappell and James Driscoll as the best of bottom feeders. There primary short term goal is to retain their tour cards. Losing Mayakoba is not really hurting them in that goal as players like Chappell and Driscoll will also miss Mayakoba.

This conversation is not about the top guys... they have no trouble getting into events... so when we're talking about too few playing spots for too many players... I would think it a given we're talking about bottom rung guys. But what will happen... sure #125 from the category 19 won't get many more starts than #1 in Category 25... but BOTH those guys will get probably DOUBLE or more the starts of Category 25 #30 and lower through the first reshuffle.

GPB wrote:
You are making a big assumption that is not true. I am not eliminating 101-125. I am putting them into the same pool as the QS/Web grads.

I think a ~67% retention rate (125 cards out of ~190 active players) is far too lenient. And yes I know that this will not change because the Tour Members will essentially slitting their own wrists if they do that.

When you wrote: "I think the top 125 should be reduced to top 100"... I thought you meant "The top 125 should be reduced to top 100". That's what I was going on.

And as for 67% retention rate... Why is a 67% retention rate too high for the PGAT, when that's MUCH lower than I'm guessing the NBA, NFL, MLB's retention rate would be? What is it about golf that makes you want the turnover to be so much higher than other sports?

Bottom line: IMO the current web.com/Q-school guys coming in after the top-125 from prior year is INTENDED to be a trial by fire. It's not supposed to be easy... or necessarily equal. IMO what it's designed to do is separate the wheat from the chaff in category 25, with only about 40% of them SUPPOSED to make it. IMO it does the job it's intended to do.

But for next year only... I do believe it will be overly harsh on the category 25 guys. In 2013 we'll have Cat 19 #100-125 guys getting up to 7 or 8 starts if they wants them before the reshuffle... while the higher Cat 25 guys will get maybe 4-6, but the lower priority Cat 25 guys will be getting 3, maybe 4 if they're lucky... And with playing spots at a premium... it's gonna be extra tough for those guys who can't move up in the first reshuffle. And I think it will prove out next year.... My guess... only 10-12 (probably 14-15 MAX) will make top-125 out of category 25... compared to 19-20 in most years. (I think 20 made it out this year)

Bottom line: IMO the current web.com/Q-school guys coming in after the top-125 from prior year is INTENDED to be a trial by fire. It's not supposed to be easy... or necessarily equal. IMO what it's designed to do is separate the wheat from the chaff in category 25, with only about 40% of them SUPPOSED to make it. IMO it does the job it's intended to do.

Funny, my opinion is that it should be taking the best players period. This is a closed shop mentality. Aside from getting to pick and choose their event, The guys already on tour already have a competitive advantage over the Web/QS grads.

They know the courses. They know the ones that suit their game. More importantly, they know the ones that don't suit their game and to take a week off and rest up.

You go on to say that 2013 will be "overly harsh", so we have common ground. We both think it is harsh. And you have no problem with that. I do. I think playing field ought to be level. You think that they QS/Web grads should be handicapped.

I guess that explains our difference in opinion on the 2 year vs 1 year time period of OWGR. You think young players should have higher hurdles to clear and established players be given the benefit of doubt.

My guess... only 10-12 (probably 14-15 MAX) will make top-125 out of category 25... compared to 19-20 in most years. (I think 20 made it out this year)

Which is a less or equal 40% retention rate. When the overall retention rate is ~66%.

IMO, that is a problem.

(and yes I agree that the overall retention rate should be higher than QS/Web grads but not to this degree)

Not for nothing but I still reckon the Top 125 is a pretty steep hill to climb.

Given how difficult it is, as has already been suggested, to fall out of the Top 50, that makes just 75 slots available. Exaggeration I know!

But most of the newly minted Tour players won't know how difficult it is to maintain a top 125 moneylist position, especially when you're battling guys who play 5 events out of every available six, and don't have an overseas Tour to concern their little selves about.

I really think a significant proportion of new Memberships will be to those who underestimate how difficult maintaining a Top 125 position is. Not unlike Oosthuizen last year, and Cabrera every year.

Oh well, back to school for Russell Knox kwini. Put in a valiant finish earning himself a top ten finish but alas not enough to raise him above 143rd.

The expression "so near yet so far" springs to mind as I seem to recall him on a number of occasions failing to make the cut by just a shot.

Still, didn't Martin Laird lose his card only to come bouncing back the following season? Hopefully, Russell will get another shot at it. I hope he views those near misses in a positive rather than negative way.

'Morning gael,
Well, even if he parred his final two holes, he'd've fallen short by one shot so he can't really feel he left anything out there - and his reaction to moving from 156th(-ish) to 143rd, so securing some "conditional" status and exemption from this week's Stage 2 qualies was very positive,
"I'm over the moon, best I've ever played," or words to that effect.
Good for him!
He's had a fine last few tournaments and I hope he's proved to himself that he belongs. Crucial Final Q-School for him though.

Laird holed a 10-footer to cling on to 125th back when, 2008? He needs to start grinding again!

kwinigolfer wrote:

Laird holed a 10-footer to cling on to 125th back when, 2008? He needs to start grinding again!

If and when they ban the cheat sticks I suspect Laird will be one the players to really struggle.

Depends how such a ban is defined, doesn't it?

Isn't Laird one of the players who uses a belly-length putter but doesn't anchor it against his body?

In regard to "cheat" sticks I think it's just what these guys feel comfortable with. I believe most can putt just as well with a conventional putter, and they'd soon get used to it.

Skydriver wrote:Depends how such a ban is defined, doesn't it?

Isn't Laird one of the players who uses a belly-length putter but doesn't anchor it against his body?

Correct Skydriver. It's anchoring that's under the cosh not length of club.

kwinigolfer wrote:'Morning gael,
Well, even if he parred his final two holes, he'd've fallen short by one shot so he can't really feel he left anything out there - and his reaction to moving from 156th(-ish) to 143rd, so securing some "conditional" status and exemption from this week's Stage 2 qualies was very positive,
"I'm over the moon, best I've ever played," or words to that effect.
Good for him!
He's had a fine last few tournaments and I hope he's proved to himself that he belongs. Crucial Final Q-School for him though.

Laird holed a 10-footer to cling on to 125th back when, 2008? He needs to start grinding again!

Morning kwini ... blimey, you're an early riser.

Yep, he sounds quite positive. He just needs to keep remembering how he earned his card in the first place and just how close he came to retaining it. I imagine competing with the big boys for the first time is a pretty steep learning curve.

This is not something I know the answer to but just a thought I had earlier.

Has any player ever qualified for the PGA tour, lost their card (or not finished in the top 125 of the money list) and later gone on to win a major?

Laird is one of those guys JAS and I were talking about, like Simpson and Bradley, Clark and Pettersson, who have used the long putter all their competitive life. And they all have poor chipping games, as if they have comparitively little feel.

They'll be the ones most impacted rather than Els and Scott, for instance, who use the long putter as a crutch. Would think any implementation of change to the rules for the pro game will be a long time coming though.


Mac,
I expect that HAS happened, can't think of any specifically but players losing their card and coming back to a decent career happens fairly often, Stricker, Curtis and Gainey among those who fall in to that category and won tournaments this year, for instance.


I see gael's getting personal again . . . . .

Disappointed with Villegas not finishing in the top 125.

GPB wrote:
Funny, my opinion is that it should be taking the best players period.

That's been my opinion too... the difference between you and I is that I believe the current system does that better than with the changes you suggest

GPB wrote:This is a closed shop mentality. Aside from getting to pick and choose their event, The guys already on tour already have a competitive advantage over the Web/QS grads.
They know the courses. They know the ones that suit their game. More importantly, they know the ones that don't suit their game and to take a week off and rest up.

Closed shop? You yourself said they are keeping roughly 67% of their players each year... That's allowing the opportunity for 33% new blood. Hardly a closed shop IMHO... Now the Champions Tour... THATS what a closed shop looks like.

And as for advantages. Well welcome to life. Of course those with experience have an advantage over those without experience. But my key believe is those who retain their card each year have EARNED that advantage... it's not like EARNING your way into top-125 is a gift.

GPB wrote:I guess that explains our difference in opinion on the 2 year vs 1 year time period of OWGR. You think young players should have higher hurdles to clear and established players be given the benefit of doubt.

Stop putting words in my mouth. My support of a 2-year OWGR ranking has nothing to do with younger players. Rich Beem has about the same OWGR challenges ahead of him as any new player just coming into the rankings has. But let's quit deflecting... OWGR isn't the topic here...

Mac,
I know for sure that David Toms fits your bill - I'll keep on digging but I don't think it's an uncommon occurrence.

robo,
Surely guys like Michael Sim, Kaymer, Eddie Molinari, Bud Cauley, Tom Lewis and several others have shown that young golfers with no baggage (decremented points) have an inherent advantage if they pile up points quickly. If they're good enough they maintain they're position, but Sim and Lewis are just two who have shown how difficult it is to sustain that form, particularly as a rookie.

McLaren wrote:This is not something I know the answer to but just a thought I had earlier.

Has any player ever qualified for the PGA tour, lost their card (or not finished in the top 125 of the money list) and later gone on to win a major?

Shaun Micheel - He got on the Tour in 1994... then fell off... then back on... then back off... then back on....

Here's a brief capsule:

Micheel first got on the PGA Tour in 1994 but didn't keep his card.
Played mini-tours in 1995
Played Nike Tour in 1996, but needed Q-school to get back to PGAT for 1997
Didn't keep PGAT card in 97.
Played mostly nowhere in 98
Played full Nike schedule in 99 to earn his way back to PGAT for 2000
Stayed on PGAT from 2000 through his Major win at the PGA in 2003

kwinigolfer wrote:Laird is one of those guys JAS and I were talking about, like Simpson and Bradley, Clark and Pettersson, who have used the long putter all their competitive life. And they all have poor chipping games, as if they have comparitively little feel.

They'll be the ones most impacted rather than Els and Scott, for instance, who use the long putter as a crutch. Would think any implementation of change to the rules for the pro game will be a long time coming though.

Not sure I'm following you here kwini. Westy uses a short putter but is regarded a poor chipper. Laird also doesn't anchor so one could argue that that oughtn't to affect feel issues in the chipping department to anywhere near the same extent as anchoring. It may just be that, like Westy, he's just a poor chipper. I also think that Els and Scott will be far, far more affected by a change in the rule than Simpson and Bradley who, as as I'm aware have never suffered the yips.

Its such a fine line between being a top player and middle of the pack. If having to change putters only costs them 1-2 strokes a round, which is not unrealistic for such a big fundemental change of equipment...then they are in big trouble basically.

kwinigolfer wrote:
robo,
Surely guys like Michael Sim, Kaymer, Eddie Molinari, Bud Cauley, Tom Lewis and several others have shown that young golfers with no baggage (decremented points) have an inherent advantage if they pile up points quickly. If they're good enough they maintain they're position, but Sim and Lewis are just two who have shown how difficult it is to sustain that form, particularly as a rookie.

Well I agree with GPB that the minimum divisor and 2 year ranking period can work against players just coming into the system. On one hand while under the minimum, it's harder for them to lose what ever ranking they obtain... but it's also true that it's more difficult in the first place to reach that magic 50, 60 or 64 level that's so important in getting into big events. But that doesn't bother me one bit. As you point out with a Sim, Cauley or Lewis... if they are THAT good... they will have maintained their early form and got into all those events they didn't get into the first year in their second or third year. But it ain't easy... all those other guys hovering around #50-60 are PRETTY DARN GOOD too... or they wouldn't be there.

But my bottom line on all of this... It's my belief that neither the PGA or Euro Tour's qualification process, or the OWGR, or anything else for that matter keep good players down. The good players find a way to get to the Tours. Granted it's not always "Go Directly to GO and Collect $200", so it might take the new guy a little longer than the veteran that's earned his way for years (and came up through the same system as the young guys)... but the good players WILL get there.

So we can talk about how we could give more young guys a chance quicker... or a better chance quicker... and sure... on the face of that it sounds good. But looking deeper... IMO lowering the exempt thresholds on either the PGA or Euro Tours does nothing more than to make it even TOUGHER for young players to maintain their card. Otherwise it probably only serves to allow different Maggert's, Baird's or Mayfair's to replace the ones we already got (that is until the real Maggert's, Baird's or Mayfair's come back and kick them back off the next year... :-)

Just a theory gael; also doesn't mean that all mechanical chippers, like Westwood seems to be, should be using the long putter, though given his putting stat's he and Tony Johnstone have their work cut out for them.


robo,
I'm fine with the "125", there'd be minor quibbling with whatever number anyone came up with. There are bigger fish to fry!

Mac,
Not sure if you're still there, but David Toms and Tom Lehman, as well as robo's choice of Micheel, definitely fill your bill.
Possibly some guys before the "all exempt" Tour like Azinger and Calc also, but that would probably take some better definition.

Just had an interesting Twitter conversation with Denis Pugh about Adam Scott and his long putter.

Denis said that if 'anchoring' becomes illegal them Adam would move to a 'floating' left hand out from his chest with his left elbow/arm holding it firmly in place.

I countered saying that this would be very awkward and inconsistant but he said he has tried it and it works. With practice would be just as effective as achoring.

He is the coach so carnt argue with him

HiGun wrote:Just had an interesting Twitter conversation with Denis Pugh about Adam Scott and his long putter.

Denis said that if 'anchoring' becomes illegal them Adam would move to a 'floating' left hand out from his chest with his left elbow/arm holding it firmly in place.

I countered saying that this would be very awkward and inconsistant but he said he has tried it and it works. With practice would be just as effective as achoring.

He is the coach so carnt argue with him

Surely that's still anchoring, of a sort? If you mean the left elbow would be against his chest?

I agree but he wouldnt be anchoring the butt of the club against his body.

It would be difficult to write a rule that said no anchoring of the club to the body or anchoring a part of the body that holds the club. Denis said as much in his tweets and I have to agree

Hi! Gun,
There should be some news coming down the USGA/R&A glacier before the year is out - imagine there'll be significant push-back from the PGA Tour, on behalf of its players, and don't expect any big changes in the immediate short-term.

I wonder how they'll treat the guys who anchor their putter alongside their arm, like Kuchar, whether that would be termed anchoring?

American golfing media very pessimistic of players like Keegan Bradley and Tim Clark - who claims medical problems demand he uses the long putter - succeeding with any court action.

And what about the Champions Tour, where so many of the players use the long putter, anchored or not?

Interesting times.

Evening kwini

So last chance saloon for Gary in Hong Kong, top 15 or so needed, he will need to turn his form on its head to get that.

Disappointing season at Molineux continues, pleased to see Mick start well at Ipswich.............should still be at Wolves!!!!

Evening gw,

Yes, What a disappointment if he doesn't make it and, presumably goes back to Q-School. He'd get some ET starts next year regardless but not what he had in mind.

I see some Europeans have withdrawn from the PGA Tour Q-School, Simon Khan and the very lucky losers, Lafeber and Derksen. Still plenty there though to give O'Grady palpitations, Donaldson, 2 x Fishers, Noren and Wattel for starters - but Europe may get Karlsson in return.


Going down the road to Watford on Saturday? Pompey going down the road, in more ways than one. Up the creek, without a manager.

Thanks for the info guys. My theory was going to be that those good enough to win majors may not win big immediately, but they would be good enough to secure their card. I guess it seems some just take a while to adjust to the level of the PGAT.



Maybe I missed it but there seems little mention on v2 of Rory completing the money list double. I appreciate it has seemed likely for quite some time but it is still a very rare achievement. I am not even sure if he will manage it again should he reduce the number of times he plays in Europe.

Mac,
Given that much of what Rory earned on the European Tour was actually earned in America, it's difficult to be sure that reducing "the number of times he plays in Europe" will make much difference.
Apparently, Tiger would have won both seven times if a member of the ET.

Fair do's to Luke Donald though with two big wins in Europe that didn't count towards his PGA Tour money title.

True, he did earn a lot in America and Tiger completed the feat seven times in theory, but can it hurt to be doing the same things as tiger?

I guess there is nothing new or interesting to be taken from him winning both titles but I still like the level of domination it shows.

Well done, Rory. I felt a bit annoyed that he deliberately skipped a WGC, but fair enough - he's playing a lot in these final few weeks of the season and acknowledged that the criticism was valid. Consistent with the statement along the lines that he didn't like that course, but it does slightly diminish the status of the HSBC WGC and leave lingering questions such as those which some of us have posed (e.g. the Poulter-haters will add to the caveats and still say he hasn't won a "full strength strokeplay" WGC event - despite the world #1 effectively conceding it was very unlikely he would have won by not participating, and you could say the same about #2 if his excuse was that he was too tired to play well).

A bit of a peculiarity that the double-winner last year also missed the HSBC, although that was due to Luke & Diane welcoming the latest Donald into the world.

Thought the BBC blog this week would be about how RMc has sewn up the R2D (and indeed, the double), but it's strangely about Oliver Wilson. This might prove to be a brilliant decision if he manages to regain his ET card this week, or a bit of an oddity if he doesn't.

Not sure if this has already been discussed, but I just finished reading Ian Carters piece on player power.

He talks about players getting bigger than the game with the likes of Keegan suing over the banning of long putters - not something I see happening in reality - and Tiger and Rory skipping a WGC light. This is hardly a new phenomenon, no surprise carter is off the pace, but does a dominating Rory add to the problem?

In the past only tiger seemed to be bigger than the game and the rest probably had to cooperate to bend the will of sponsors and the game organizers. Now it seems Rory also has the power to make or brake events, or even tours, or at least create second tier events.


Another aspect missed be carter is those players further down the echelons of the tour who do not have the power to pick and choose a schedule or demand certain incentives from organisers. Do we care if Rory and Tiger play as they choose as long as entry to the tour is fair and that those further down the rankings have decent events to play in?

When you read his next blog about Oliver Wilson it is clear only a select few have any real influence on the game and that most pro's are playing for their career.

Carter is usually way off the pace, typical of a BBC journalist who isn't a specialist in his subject.

Interesting read in today's NYTs on the winner: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/sports/golf/charlie-beljans-panic-leads-to-hospital-and-then-pga-title.html?hp

Mac - "Bigger than the game" ... always a pet peeve of mine. (And a standard quote form the likes of Hal Sutton.) Every single person is bigger than the game. No one plays, no game.

Perhaps Shotrock it should read ... no-one is bigger than the sponsor!

Shane Lowry could soon be bigger than the game if he continues on his current trajectory.

incontinentia wrote:Shane Lowry could soon be bigger than the game if he continues on his current trajectory.

Cant believe you beat me to it.

incontinentia wrote:Shane Lowry could soon be bigger than the game if he continues on his current trajectory.

Not what he'd want to hear if he was on safari in Africa.

One billion barrels of oil found off the Irish coast recently- free spuds for all!! Shane's wasteline will be furious.

I don't think anyone can be bothered getting it out Incontent, no real infrastructure and not easy to get out either.

Didn't an Operator just relinquish their licence? They probably found out that the prospect was atually just at the end of the sewage pipe from Lowry's house and it wasn't oil, but a great big morning after Guiness dump.