PGA Tour: Double-Header: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Two PGA Tournaments this week.
Riding in first class are the WGC-HSBC Champions competitors, 78 of la creme de la creme, or gold tops at least.
Then there are the economy class runners and riders travelling to Jackson, Mississippi, for the Sanderson Farms Championship.
I'm much more interested in the latter, may even be able to watch it without setting my alarm clock.

2).Last week Justin Thomas may (not sure really) have set a PGA Tour record by winning a second event without yet getting a W in the USA. I'm sure the media obsessed with the early 20-something generation (yup, they're back at it in next month's Golf Digest) will be thrilled, but Thomas has yet to convince the Ballwasher that he's the real deal. Regardless, it's doubtful that any first-time double has been watched by fewer US viewers.

3).But wait, the Tour thinks this type of event is just the business, so much so that we'll be going for the treble next year with an event in South Korea. Back-to-back-to-back with CIMB & HSBC.
There were stories earlier in the year of initiatives by the Tour to reduce the "All Exempt" Tour from 125 to something lower, perhaps 100. It sounds as if the players nixed that, but perhaps this is the next best/worst thing.
I would think a strong rank-and-file on Tour is a big positive, but this sends messages in the exact opposite direction - if you're a Top 50 US-based pro you have to play really, really badly, or at least be unlucky with injuries, to lose your card; you could play at least nine no-cut tournaments, come last in every one, and bank about $386K plus the Korean money-for-nothing. Amazing.

4).Russell Knox enjoyed his breakthrough to the winners' enclosure at last year's HSBC and established himself as a proven winner by adding August's Travelers Championship to his record. Plenty of Europeans in this week's field, many of them in pretty good form. Hatton, Rafa, Casey, Kaymer, Wiesberger, Noren - a win for any of them would scarcely be a surprise.

5).We've morphed from a lengthy Indian Summer here in the North Country to winter without the pleasure of autumn to ease the transition. Killington is open and others will follow if this lot carries on; 20% chance of rain forecast by the Weather Channel here this morning - the idiots didn't mention the 100% chance of snow. (Why can't the US get a decent weather forecasting system? Answers to/in the New York Times.)
But none of that will be on the Tournament Director's mind in Mississippi where the autumn continues warm and dry, with not much wind. In other words perfect for golf, and there's a decent turn-out for the "opposite field" event.

6).Poulter brought home a T17 from CIMB and 48 FedEx points so well on pace to satisfy the requirements of his Medical "extension". He's teeing it up Thursday & Friday with Chris Kirk who is my idea of a contender this week - Russell Henley, Badds and Kizzire are among others who look good to me.

7).The PGA Tour seems to have redesigned parts of its website over the past few weeks and the good news is that graphics are even better than before.
Bad news is that navigation is tortuous, and seemingly incomplete - designed to do one's head in. Or at least use google. Is that a good idea, Tim?
Wouldn't it be great if their website designers actually followed golf?

8).Let's have some Senior moments as the Champions Tour season concludes with three "Play-Off" tournaments.
72 golfers have qualified for Round 1 (71 expected to actually play), which is contested over three rounds at California's Sherwood Country Club. For many years this was the site of Greg Norman's Shark Shoot Out, then subsequently for Tiger's "World" Challenge (and site of absolutely brilliant golf by some guy called Harrington when he won in 2002. Whatever happened to him?).

Don't know what the course is like to play, but it's surely one of the more photogenic courses around, with plenty of risk/reward and three Par-5's in the final seven holes.
The 54 money-list leaders after this week travel cross-country to Virginia for Round 2, after which the leading 36 backtrack across country to Arizona for the finale.
As for the PGA Tour's FedEx Cup, the numbers are adjusted for the Final to ensure that it's not a foregone conclusion that Bernhard Langer will win.

9).Ian Woosnam starts in 50th place but the good news for Woosie is that his election to the World Golf Hall Of Fame entitles him to a place in all "regular season" Champions Tour events. Sandy Lyle's already comfortably seated on the same gravy train and I think this is utterly ludicrous, guys who only sporadically played on the PGA Tour (altho' Sandy did have a card for about ten years) queue-jumping Tour regulars.

10).Back to the present and a couple of items in the Tour's fine print:
~It's looking likely that the season-opening Tournament of Champions will be without a title sponsor.
~The LA Open is now called the "Genesis Open" - not clear if this is about a bunch of lads from Charterhouse or a brand of ugly looking imported cars.
~The MatchPlay event will now be the "WGC Dell Technologies Match Play".
~And the former Deutsche Bank Championship, initially renamed the EMC Championship, is now the "Dell Technologies Championship" following Dell's takeover of EMC.
That's it. (And it's tough to find that "fine print" on the mess that is pgatour.com.)

Possibly.

Maybe I'm one of the few here who've seen people fight the weight problem their entire lives, and regardless of what they seem to do, or how hard they work, it's mostly a losing battle.  

Now don't get me wrong... If I thought Shane Lowry's situation was one where he could eat a few less donuts, drink a few less beers, and work out a little more and magically morph into a 180lb ripped man of steel, then by all means I'd encourage him to do so. And YES, I do think his stamina at least would be better for it (even though I haven't seen it be an issue for him to this point).  

But I just don't think that's the case with Shane. I think he's just one of those guys who's got the body type where short of surgical options, he's gonna yo-yo somewhere between 20-40lbs overweight. Tough lot to draw in life, but you can't pick your DNA and in that regard, some people draw that short straw.  

But I guess in the end... what's shocking to me is the intolerance and condescending  judgementality of those who are entirely ignorant of Shane's endocrinology but who are apparently lucky enough not to be similarly cursed.  But it is what it is... so please carry on if it suits you....

robopz wrote: it's mostly a losing battle.  

Indeed

By and large, unless you have one of the few diseases which can cause you to gain weight then most simply aren't dedicated enough. There is a very high chance that Lowry doesn't have one of these incredibly rare diseases and that he's just lazy and greedy.

You CANNOT put on more weight than you take in. That's a simple fact. Lowry has stated his weight is lifestyle enhanced, hence, if he wanted to, he could do something about it.

Would Lowry be a better player if he was ripped instead of being a fat bloater? No, I don't think he technically would be a better player, not at all.

However, I do believe that being in better shape, especially on what is a world wide tour, that being in optimum position keeps you more alert and puts less pressure on the body in terms of tiredness, both mental and physical. You can't hope to cope with heat and humidity well if you are a fat knacker, and it is bound to have an effect on your game over the long term. Lowry is just one example, and the simple go to player, but there are others.

I don't care what Lowry's reason is for his fatness. He's fat, and it can't be good for your long term golf career (just as it can't be good to be super ripped either).

Not going to get into this weight issue except to say that we've evolved to eat when food is available because, for most of our millions of years of evolution, it's been scarce and/or hard to catch. Combine that drive with the ease of access to high energy density food of the 21st century and it's not surprising you see a general increase in weight globally.

It's not a satisfactory excuse though. You cannot say if you are fat that it's down to evolution. That's just passing the buck.

Shane (diseases apart) is fat because he isn't disciplined, or doesn't care enough to keep in shape. Whatever his reason, he's fat because he hasn't addressed it.

There's tons of people who have in the past looked like Lowry (or any fat player) yet have turned it around by sorting out their lifestyle, and there's plenty people once disciplined who have lost it and ended up like Lowry.

Whether Lowry wants to or not is a different story and it's up to him, but until it does I can't see his career getting to the top and staying there for any length of time, because in this day and age, talent, of which he has plenty, only takes you so far.

If you want to see how tiring having Lowry's excess weight is, it's easy to find out, but it might cost you Type 2 diabetes.

But robo,
Wouldn't you think there just might be a connection between Shane's possible indiscipline in his personal lifestyle and the haphazard schedule he maintains and inconsistency in his play? Saying he's fat so he can't be successful is wrong, but suggesting he's not as successful as he might be with a bit more self-discipline and stamina (perhaps mental as much as physical) is surely a reasonable proposition?

Anyway, we'll see; surprising he's not playing Turkey (pun not intended) and he's not in the Nedbank field either.

Think soups is jealous of a big, fat golfer

Blaming obesity on genetics is just a bad excuse. How do white American genes differ from white Europeans? And how do black American genes differ from west Africans? The Americans are just fatter than Europeans/Africans - by and large so to speak - due to the easy availability of cheap and fat food, combined with the absence of a (healthy) food culture.

Additionally working class people are also fatter than middle/upper class people, also in Europe. This is partly due to fat unhealthy food being cheaper, but also because working class people in general are less 'disciplined' (in lack of a nicer word to describe something more derogatory), both in terms of what they eat and what they don't. And that's genetic. Pardon my French, but it's exactly the same analogy with smoking. Obviously there's an element of addiction with both but you have to bring yourself to that point first.

super_realist wrote:It's not a satisfactory excuse though. You cannot say if you are fat that it's down to evolution. That's just passing the buck....

It didn't say it was down to evolution. I said our evolutionary history has an impact with causing a generalised weight gain worldwide. That and low cost, easily available, high-energy density foodstuffs. Not everyone has your awesome willpower - if they did and/or it was that easy, it wouldn't be an issue now would it?

I'd love to be as good as Lowry Monty, what I would do that Shane doesn't though is try to give it my best shot, which would mean taking better care of myself, and therefore not feeling the need to give the Middle East swing a miss because if I was as fat as him I might struggle.

Shane's got all day, every day to have a proper regime in place. He's minted, he could easily have both a personal trainer and a nutrionist.
Basically, Shane has no excuses, it just seems he's happy to be a journeyman. Nothing wrong with that, I just think he's wasting a very good opportunity.

Hardly wasting it is he? As you say he's minted and does what he likes. It's only golf ffs.

Is Shane fat? Yep
IS Shane good at golf? Yep
Is Shane enjoying his life? I would presume so
Would Shane be better at golf if he lost some weight? Dunno

No one has a clue whether he would be better if he lost weight. I am sure I read something about someone losing weight only to lose his swing.

Sometimes enjoying yourself and life is more important then what people think or say about you.

No one is saying Lowry (what an ironic name) would be better if he lost weight, more that he might feature more regularly from being less tired due to not having to lug around a small child around his waist. Relying on talent alone, as he is doing, is naïve SHOULD he wish to get to the very top, which it appears he doesn't want to.

I'm fine if Lowry wants to remain at the level he is at, I'm simply saying if I was him, that I would approach my career with a more professional outlook.

super_realist wrote:No one is saying Lowry (what an ironic name) would be better if he lost weight, more that he might feature more regularly from being less tired due to not having to lug around a small child around his waist. Relying on talent alone, as he is doing, is naïve SHOULD he wish to get to the very top, which it appears he doesn't want to.

I'm fine if Lowry wants to remain at the level he is at, I'm simply saying if I was him, that I would approach my career with a more professional outlook.

And you say it over, and over, and over again

It's because I find it so incredible that you wouldn't want to be professional in a professional age.

Yes we know. You tell us often enough

As I said earlier I would imagine that being one of the few overweight players on tour would cause him stress or worry about his body image and therefore damage his game through lack of confidence, certainly more so than any physical disadvantages.

Well in that case, no one should be surprised that Lowry has dropped off a cliff golf wise in the last few months then should they, and therefore it's a waste of time discussing him.

Rory's been having his say about Ryder Cup qualification, for both teams as it happens, but especially the Europeans.
His conclusion is that we should just be watching the top 12 Europeans from the World Rankings, regardless of Tour membership, especially citing Casey's and Knox's absence at Hazeltine.

Couldn't really disagree more, and can't see the ET touching that "thought" (but did he really think?) with a bargepole. Hope not anyway.

kwinigolfer wrote:But robo,
Wouldn't you think there just might be a connection between Shane's possible indiscipline in his personal lifestyle and the haphazard schedule he maintains

Now THERE'S a reach. In a word... No.

Ah well, there's no reasoning! He's just a fat, lazy slob then . . . . . .

Just eat less. BOOM... There ya go... Shane Lowry and world obesity problem solved just that easy.... Awesome.... NEXT....

kwinigolfer wrote:Ah well, there's no reasoning! He's just a fat, lazy slob then . . . . . .

Come on man...now maybe Shane's scheduling SNAFU might be because he's fat? You're right... There is NO reasoning with that... This whole topic has just gotten so bizarre I don't have anything left to say... I'm out of it.

You are being flippant Robo, but the vast majority of obesity in the world would be solved by people eating less.

People make excuses far too readily for their gluttony, and here in the UK, preventable diabetes is a time bomb for the NHS and is already taking up a ridiculous amount of the NHS budget.

I don't entirely agree with Rory on the RC thing, but I don't think he's entirely off base either. Back in the day... The ET membership requirement made sense. But today with so many more of Europes best players dual touring on the PGAT, and even playing the PGAT exclusively, not sure it still does.

With the reality of the PGAT being so dominant in world golf, the ET is in effect telling it's top players to forgo what they might think is best for their careers if they want to play RC. IMO it's becoming more and more of a Hobson's choice for these guys with each passing year.

IMO it would be wise for the ET to listen very closely to what it's top player is saying because surely he's not the only one that feels that way. The possible future downside for not only the Ryder Cup, but the ET as well is just too great if they don't.

Woosh....Super... I'm not making excuses for every obese person. My point is nobody on this board has a freeking clue as to the specific personal challenge it is for Shane Lowry.  And as such, IMO much of the derision he gets for it is nothing more than imbecilic and juvenile finger pointing, or people compensating for their own low self esteem and should be well beneath the quality of people who post here.

There... Is that UN flippant enough for you?

Robo

Agree with what you say about RC selection and current standing of Euro tour but are the European tour likely to just throw in the towel? Especially as I assume Pelley will be on a mission to create a positive legacy compared to the efforts of his predecessor (whose name escapes me right now).

I certainly can't see Pelley being the guy that opens the door to non Euro tour members playing in the RC.

Way premature for the ET to make wholesale changes after one defeat - could have had Casey & Knox in there with winning records and still lost. Casey not playing doesn't account for others not doing their stuff.
And Top 12 in owgr's hasn't exactly been a recipe for success for Pres Cup Internationals. I imagine we'll see a common sense tweak or two and a European win en Paris.
Hopefully with a swashbuckling Lowry to the fore.

I won't complain that I'm not allowed to vote next Tuesday . . . . . . .

Exactly, the current set up has hardly been detrimental to winning 8 of the last 11 Ryder Cups has it?

Kwini... No way I would think nor would I suggest the ET should "throw in the towel". The risk of losing a BUNCH of top members would be just too great if the ET were to suddenly wholesale dump the membership requirement entirely.

But IMO there's sufficient room for middle ground to be found. IMO the Euro selection process is fine the way it is, EXCEPT I think it would be greatly improved if 1 or 2 of the captain's picks could be extended to non-member Euro's if need be.

That's a pretty good compromise.

Maybe they just need to make sure they don't put overly clique characters like Clarke in charge and the selection process and captains picks will work just fine.

Mac, I don't know how many times you need to be told how that is just a stupid assertion.

Had there not already been 6 "rookies" on the team, Westwood would never have been picked. He needed the experience of Westwood, and whilst it backfired in him winning no points it was deemed less risky than putting yet another "rookie" in which would have taken it to 7. You don't care about the event, so I'm not even sure why you bother commenting on it.

You actually sound like Alex Jones or some nutjob like that.

Mac... IMO part of the selection woes for both teams lies in what they think the RC should be vs what it's actually become.

For instance...If the objective is to use the RC as a reward for results in a specified timeframe regardless of when in that timeframe those results occur... Then the automatic pick methodology for both teams is fine.

But if the object is to WIN the damn thing... Then both teams use way too many, or too heavily weigh "stale results" in their automatic qualification processes.

. . . . but not as many as the Internationals in the Pres Cup, which Finchem (like the way I blamed him?) wouldn't change.

super_realist wrote:Had there not already been 6 "rookies" on the team, Westwood would never have been picked.  

Seriously?  You really think that?

IMO There was no way Darren Clarke was going to leave Westwood off the team given Westwood's proximity to the Top 12 in the standing.  He was 14th on Euro list and 10th on the  World Point.  He is  10th in the RtD standings and probably in a similar position at the end of August when the picks were made.

If Poulter, Donald, Casey, GMAC had made the team instead of Wood, Fitzpatrick, RCB and Sullivan, Westwood still would have been on the team. Kaymer too.

Westwood's pick reeks of nepotistic Lifetime Achievement Pick.

Of course. Let's say there had been four rookies, I can't see Westwood being picked. He wasn't in great form particularly and had only had a couple of decent results, but even if he had been picked, he had the record to back it up.

I don't see it being nepotism at all. People seem desperate to see something that isn't there. Nepotism is for Vice Captain picks, not players.

robopz wrote:Kwini... No way I would think nor would I suggest the ET should "throw in the towel".  The risk of losing a BUNCH of top members would be just too great if the ET were to suddenly wholesale dump the membership requirement entirely.  

But IMO there's sufficient room for middle ground to be found.  IMO the Euro selection process is fine the way it is, EXCEPT I think it would be greatly improved if 1 or 2 of the captain's picks could be extended to non-member Euro's if need be.

That's pretty much the way I think it should go, yes still have the ET points list and the world (effectively PGAT) points list with maybe 4 picks rather than 3 but with with no tour membership restriction on at least some of the picks.

I do wonder if the points calculation needs to be looked at as it doesn't seem weighted enough to current form, not a wholesale rewrite but maybe just a tweak toward more current form. I would also suggest double RC points for any matchplay events. Sullivan particularly accumulated most of his points late last year/early this year then dropped off as did Willet (although it would be difficult to justify not taking a current Masters Champion).

GPB wrote:

super_realist wrote:Had there not already been 6 "rookies" on the team, Westwood would never have been picked.  

Seriously?  You really think that?

IMO There was no way Darren Clarke was going to leave Westwood off the team given Westwood's proximity to the Top 12 in the standing.  He was 14th on Euro list and 10th on the  World Point.  He is  10th in the RtD standings and probably in a similar position at the end of August when the picks were made.

If Poulter, Donald, Casey, GMAC had made the team instead of Wood, Fitzpatrick, RCB and Sullivan, Westwood still would have been on the team. Kaymer too.

Westwood's pick reeks of nepotistic Lifetime Achievement Pick.

Eh? I must be missing something. Westwood was close enough to being selected as of right, but yet when he gets a pick that's nepotism?? Given his ranking, the fact there were a lot of rookies AND the match was in America, I don't think it's remotely what you're suggesting it is.

Navy

I guess it doesn't have to be as simple as Westwood just got picked because he was Clarke's mate for it to be nepotism. It would still be nepotism if Lee only had to avoid a terrible ranking/form to get a pick and other players needed to actually play very well. I have always taken GPB to mean the later.

Lee was a lock when the last VC was named. As far as I remember that was before the summer.

Either DC saw which way the qualification was going, with many rookies, or it was a nepotism pick.

"lock", what a terrible American affectation.

navyblueshorts wrote:

GPB wrote:

super_realist wrote:Had there not already been 6 "rookies" on the team, Westwood would never have been picked.  

Seriously?  You really think that?

IMO There was no way Darren Clarke was going to leave Westwood off the team given Westwood's proximity to the Top 12 in the standing.  He was 14th on Euro list and 10th on the  World Point.  He is  10th in the RtD standings and probably in a similar position at the end of August when the picks were made.

If Poulter, Donald, Casey, GMAC had made the team instead of Wood, Fitzpatrick, RCB and Sullivan, Westwood still would have been on the team. Kaymer too.

Westwood's pick reeks of nepotistic Lifetime Achievement Pick.

Eh? I must be missing something. Westwood was close enough to being selected as of right, but yet when he gets a pick that's nepotism?? Given his ranking, the fact there were a lot of rookies AND the match was in America, I don't think it's remotely what you're suggesting it is.

I made an error in my original post (since edited). Westwood was 15th in the World Point list, not 10th as I originally posted.

15th because he finished T2nd in the Masters, played 5 months prior to the Wildcard selection. I agree with Pedro that Westwood was a cinch for the team once the last V-Captain was named.

IMO

Westwood could have Missed every cut after the last VC was appointed and he would have still been a wildcard.

There was no way Clarke was leaving his best buddy off the RC Team. 5 rookies had nothing to do with it, it was just a convenient excuse to justify the Westwood pick.

I agree with Rory here, but since the RC is the biggest event on the ET, I can also understand how they will do what they can to protect that asset. Good luck on that never ending compromise.

Not having Paul Casey on the team this year was good only for the Yanks.

By the same token, Bubba finished 9th on the US list and that was a "convenient excuse to justify" leaving him off the Team because no-one liked him.

One decision justified in retrospect.
One not, but certainly one that I'd've made.

Re Casey: Quite possibly Sr, but it worked out OK in 2010 and his ranking was a lot higher then. (Though had Montgomerie chosen him he might never have left the ET. But with Casey you never know, it's always been about Paul.)

Other than the players who missed out have the views of any of the players on Clarke's selections been reported since the RC. Do we have a sense of whether or not the players on the team thought Westwood was a good captains pick?

Mac,
Apart from the recent brouhaha following Faldo's comments about Garcia, there's generally a policy of omerta from the European Teams . . . . . . .
Quite right too.

McLaren wrote:Navy

I guess it doesn't have to be as simple as Westwood just got picked because he was Clarke's mate for it to be nepotism.  It would still be nepotism if Lee only had to avoid a terrible ranking/form to get a pick and other players needed to actually play very well.  I have always taken GPB to mean the later.

All conjecture then? You have no actual evidence to support your suggestion.

Mac, you are talking as if Clarke ought to have had some sort of clairvoyance.

Westwood was a Captains Pick, which is to say he didn't qualify, as a lot of other players didn't, however Westwood has an excellent Ryder Cup record and as such his experience was what Clarke banked upon. Obviously it backfired because he won, along side other players ZERO points.
Does that mean the process by which Clarke chose him was flawed? No, does it mean that the others who weren't picked would have won points? No.
Would you even be asking these questions if Westwood had performed better?

Europe lost, but not just because Westwood didn't win any points.

For someone who hates the Daily Mail so much, you don't have write like one of them. Blinkered, one sided and irrational.

I wouldn't think the other players would have had any opinion on whether Westwood was a good pick because it's a TEAM event and collectively they lost as a team, not because of Westwood alone. They also lost because USA played a lot better and Europe were good enough not to go off on a petulant Mickelson style tirade. They lost, and they accepted it. They just have to play better next time. It's like you are looking for a mystery that isn't there.