PGA Tour: Houston has a Problem: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Houston has a problem, no sponsor! And the very real possibility that it might be one of the tournaments left standing without a seat when the PGA Tour's "Musical Chairs" department publishes its schedule for 2019. Shell looked after the event for more than 20 years before abruptly capping it's gusher prior to last year's event. Houston has been preoccupied since then with more important things, like life, in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey's invasion last summer; the GC of Houston was mostly underwater, but by all accounts is in fine condition again for today's action - though overnight storms may have left a puddle or two.
Nice article on pgatour.com about Chris Stroud, Bobby Gates, etc:
https://www.pgatour.com/news/2017/12/14/chris-stroud-texas-charity-hurricane-harvey-relief.html


2).The Houston tournament has offered an attractive warm-up destination for Masters competitors; apart from the winner earning the last invitation from the Hooties, green complexes are manicured to go someway to replicating those that might be anticipated at Augusta. The pre-Masters week next year will go to San Antonio, an event which, despite a lousy date (usually) on the schedule and a course that's never been fully embraced by Tour regulars, thrives with a long-term sponsor - Valero - and one of the largest charitable contributions of the Tour year.
Unless I'm mistaken, the juxtaposition (if Houston keeps its tournament) of 2019 dates is a one-off quirk caused by the calendar, as in 2013 when Martin Laird won (from R.McIlroy), but it surely adds to the uncertainty.

3).Will Tour players flock to San Antonio if the pre-Masters date switch DOES turn out to be permanent? Not likely if JB Holmes, winner at Houston in 2015, is to be believed: I think the Tour "will be surprised with the people who normally play (Houston) who won't play (Valero)".

4).Martin Kaymer returns from injury this week and he's one of a number of Europeans who are in danger of missing the FedEx Play-Offs as we close in on the halfway point of the pre play-offs season. Currently outside the all-important Top 125 are:
130th: Pieters -Terrible season so far, streaky is fine so long as there are some good streaks to go with the bad - 13th at the "Honda" is his only Top 25 finish in a PGA Tour event since August, second since Augusta.
139th: Jaeger - some promising starts, heart of his season still ahead of him.
154th: Lingmerth
178th: Blixt
185th: Donald - Luke's Major comes in a fortnight, at Harbour Town. No Top Ten there and you'd think a fine career is fizzling out.
190th: Fisher - Deja vu, incomprehensible, Lowry-like, scheduling, with only four events played so far. Imagine he'll be foregoing his "privileges" by default.
194th: Lowry - Speechless.
211th: Davis - Lucrative journeyman career fizzling out.
218th: Harrington - Only Past Champ status this year, presumably will take a "career earnings" exemption for 2019.
223th: Chopra
234th: Kaymer

5).Not much to say about the MatchPlay last week, d'ya think? Bubba a worthy winner, interesting to see guys like Poults and Kisner (and Thomas?) "hit the wall" - and disappointing to see Noren's putter go cold when he needed just one more holed putt to put Kis away. By and large a missed opportunity for a number of Europeans, and their limited field, easy pickings tournament opportunities are dwindling rapidly.

6).Irish eyes smiled for Power and Paul Dunne last week in the Dominican Republic, Dunners' return to form earning him a place in Houston this week, alongside Padraig, Shane & Seamus.

7).Paul Casey won Houston nine years ago, but has largely avoided the place since, or "mailed it in", one 9th place finish excepted.
Don't know why players avoid events they've done well at, but then he's only returned to the Irish Open once, and the KLM not at all, since winning each event to help resurrect his career 4 or 5 years ago. As "snap hook" remarked on his "villain" Poulter in his very excellent post on last week's thread: Don't forget you meet the same people on your way down as you do on your way up, or words to that effect.

8).An exception to that would be gents like Steve Stricker whose invitation to "Houston" when he was down on his uppers, with only "past champion" status remaining, helped lift his career back from beyond the brink. He's almost always returned to Houston since, and is back in the field this week as he continues to double-dip, two wins in two weeks as the new sheriff in town on the Champions Tour.

9).Last year, my one-and-done for Houston banked on the confluence of decent current form and consistent course form: Russell Henley had finished 45-7-4-5th in his career at Houston, and won by three. Not sure he's playing quite as well coming in as he was last year, but knocking at the winner's door is Luke List, and I like his e.w. chances, provided he doesn't have to putt with his wedge.  

10).Lastly, a shout out to "snap hook" for his "Heroes and Villains" post on last week's Ballwasher thread. Don't necessarily agree with his choices but that's the point.
Hope he reposts as a stand alone thread. Otherwise, interesting and thought-provoking . . . . . . (as in McLaren's and Shotrock's five "villains", presumably Garcia x 5.)

Could be a MC for Bubba.

Just noticed Larry Mize is playing, shouldn't he be in a home/6 feet under? Why do these choppers continue to play? The likes of him Lyle, Woosnam etc just embarrass themselves.

Lyles group on the red button?

FWIW, Larry Mize has made the cut in three of the last 4 Masters.

GPB wrote:FWIW, Larry Mize has made the cut in three of the last 4 Masters.

Effectively finishing last every time.

IMO, 10 years would be a more than generous winners exception. After that, if you can't qualify you shouldn't be playing.
But, as Super has pointed out, I am a joy killing bar steward.

Agree with that Diggers. Same with The Open, you get until you are 60 to play if you're an ex champion.

The Masters could do with a serious restructure to make it equal to the other majors as the limited field is stupid. There's no need, just a contrary bunch of old farts being deliberately obstinate.

Having such a small fields takes away a lot of the gloss.

Smallest field for at least twenty years this time around - 87. About a dozen fewer than normal, but probably still too many for the Hooties.

Barely worth having a cut with only 87 there.

As a result there's probably only about 30-40 guys capable of winning it. That makes it not much better than a Nedbank.
I'll still watch it though as it's such a photogenic thing to have on in the background, but if I was a pro, I'd be wanting to win an event with a proper field, without the coffin dodgers.

I have no issues with the old boys playing, same with the smaller field size. Let them choose who they want to play. I cant think of anyone not playing who is a big miss.

Might not be a big miss to viewers but there are only 4 majors a year. If I worked my backside off to be the 51 best golfer in the world I'd be pretty hacked off watching a former very good player hack it around

Finishing near DFL is finishing 90th in a field of 97. Not 52nd.

Part of the perks of winning the Masters is the lifetime exemption.

Billy Andrade tells about the first time he played the Masters. He got to play with Arnold Palmer in Round 1. What a thrill for a young player to play with a legend of the game. Billy Andrade attended Wake Forest on the Arnold Palmer scholarship

Golf may be the only sport where a new player can compete and play with a legend of the game. Tom Brady never got to compete against Jim Brown. Federer never got to play against Bjorn. Serena never got to play against Chris Evert.

Mize, Lyle, Woosnam etc are not taking a spot from anyone, as if they don't play, no one else get to play (unlike the Open and PGA)

I don't understand the angst about Past Champs playing the Masters. IMO, it is part of what makes the Masters the best Golf Tournament of the Year. I wouldn't want it changed. #1 Ranked Amateur Joaquin Niemann from Chile gets to play with Fred Couples. I thought he would play with Cabrera, but nevertheless, what a thrill for him. Amateur Corey Conners from Canada played with Mike Weir a couple of years ago. Past meets Future. I like it.

I think it is one dimensional thinking to criticize the policy of allowing past champs to play the Masters.

Well you might as well have a field of 80 ish at every major then?

What's more hideous out of interest. The WGC Trophies or The Green Jacket?

Can you imagine any other sport when you got a lifetime exemption?

Imagine Pele playing in a world cup final, or Franz Klammer in the Olympic Downhill. Bloody stupid tradition.

GPB wrote:Finishing near DFL is finishing 90th in a field of 97.  Not 52nd.
Golf may be the only sport where a new player can compete and play with a legend of the game.  Tom Brady never got to compete against Jim Brown.  Federer never got to play against Bjorn.  Serena never got to play against Chris Evert.

Bannister never got to compete against Coe. There are very good reasons for this. It's meant to be sport of the top level, not a sentimentality fest, these guys get lauded and paid enough already without needing their backsides kissed every year.

super_realist wrote:Can you imagine any other sport when you got a lifetime exemption?

Imagine Pele playing in a world cup final, or Franz Klammer in the Olympic Downhill. Bloody stupid tradition.

You know sports are different, with different rules and everything. Thats the world worst argument.

Probably one of the reasons I could never consider golf a sport.

Diggers is absolutely right, I don't mind past winners getting a 10 year exemption, but it really is about a 20% sentimentality event.

The PGA might be considered the lesser event, but in terms of quality of field, it's much better than The Masters.

Shows what a bit of pomp, ceremony and sycophancy can do for a tournament.

It looks good, and it signifies the start of the calendar for me, but the winner of the other 3 majors are far more worthy in my opinion.

For Sure.

Golf is a unique sport. And IMO, the greatest sport. Langer was in the penultimate group a couple of years ago. In his late 50s.

Jack finished T5th when he was 58 yrs old.

Tom Watson was in a playoff for the Open Championship when he was 59.

Sam Snead nearly won the PGA Championship in his 60's, TWICE, finishing in the Top 10 three straight years, two times in the Top 5.

Sandy Lyle made the cut two straight years well into his 50's.

Fred Couples has almost won a Masters when he was in 50's.

Plenty of examples where Senior Golfers have done well. Just don't know why it causes bloggers on this site so much angst.

And NO, I would not like a limited field of 85-95 players for every major. But I am fine with it for one major out of 4 majors. Each of the major have its own identity.

Masters: The Elite field major
US Open: The most democratic major.
The Open: The most diverse major.
The PGA: The Best Field Major

The greatest sport? Sorry, I can't see any argument for that whatsoever.

super_realist wrote:The greatest sport? Sorry, I can't see any argument for that whatsoever.

I guess that must be running or rowing then?

Not at all, but I think you need to combine technical skill with tactics, fitness and athleticism.

I'd say something like Tennis was far more representative of a total sport than Golf is.

You wear trousers in golf for goodness sake, how can that be a sport above all others?

Diggers wrote:Barely worth having a cut with only 87 there.

Agree. Making the cut only means you beat the geezers, amateurs and Danny Willett.

pedro wrote:

Diggers wrote:Barely worth having a cut with only 87 there.

Agree. Making the cut only means you beat the geezers, amateurs and Danny Willett.

Athleticism is more than having optimal BMI.

A guy I know is a Physical specimen.  He runs marathons and half marathons a few times per year.  He works out religiously, every day, sometimes twice a day  He has optimal BMI.

But as an athlete he is a total klutz. Despite practice, he can't do anything that I would call skill.  The most rudimentary athletic skills, he cannot do. He cannot dribble a basketball, he would trip he tried to kick a soccer ball.  Cannot throw a baseball to a guy 30 ft away.

Forget about anything more highly skilled like golf or tennis.

To play golf on the PGATOur, you most certainly have to be an athlete.  IMO, being overweight or even obese not prevent someone from being an athlete.  Athleticism  is mostly skill and only a minute part of fitness.

IMO, Just because Usain Bolt can run 100 Meters faster than anyone else, does not mean he is world class athlete.

super_realist wrote:As a result there's probably only about 30-40 guys capable of winning it. That makes it not much better than a Nedbank.
I'll still watch it though as it's such a photogenic thing to have on in the background, but if I was a pro, I'd be wanting to win an event with a proper field, without the coffin dodgers.

Only a flip response but Terry Gannon asked Faldo on air the other day what is worth more, a Green Jacket or to be Champion Golfer. No hesitation: "Oh, Champion Golfer"! Implied no comparison. 'Course, that's worldwide, sure in certain parts (100%) of the US the answer might differ.

GPB wrote:Athleticism is more than having optimal BMI.

A guy I know is a Physical specimen.  He runs marathons and half marathons a few times per year.  He works out religiously, every day, sometimes twice a day  He has optimal BMI.

But as an athlete he is a total klutz. Despite practice, he can't do anything that I would call skill.  The most rudimentary athletic skills, he cannot do. He cannot dribble a basketball, he would trip he tried to kick a soccer ball.  Cannot throw a baseball to a guy 30 ft away.

Forget about anything more highly skilled like golf or tennis.

To play golf on the PGATOur, you most certainly have to be an athlete.  IMO, being overweight or even obese not prevent someone from being an athlete.  Athleticism  is mostly skill and only a minute part of fitness.

IMO, Just because Usain Bolt can run 100 Meters faster than anyone else in a athlete, does not mean he is world class athlete.

Precisely why i said that technical ability was as important as fitness and athleticism. I think you need a combination of a lot of things for it to be considered the sport of all sports, and golf is simply far too sedentary for it to be considered such, ditto cricket.

Whats your description of sedentary in sport?

Walking for the majority of it.
Cricket is mostly standing around, golf is a very, very, very slow walk with about 35 full swings in a round over 5 hours.

You don't watch international cricket especially one dayers do you?

The majority of players are standing around.

It's sedentary compared to something considered an all round sport.

This whole competing equally despite age is a crock. You should only be in an event on merit, that you prove yourself good enough to be with the elite (and not 30 years ago), qualifying can be harder than an actual event.
Give enough players a guest pass in golf and the odd one will string a few rounds together, you could apply the same logic to giving a free pass to the 500th best golfer in the world.

Not often I agree with Diggers, but I can't disagree with a word of that.

GPB wrote:For Sure.

Golf is a unique sport.  And IMO, the greatest sport.  Langer was in the penultimate group a couple of years ago.  In his late 50s.  

Jack finished T5th when he was 58 yrs old.  

Tom Watson was in a playoff for the Open Championship when he was 59.  

Sam Snead nearly won the PGA Championship in his 60's, TWICE, finishing in the Top 10 three straight years, two times in the Top 5.

Sandy Lyle made the cut two straight years well into his 50's.

Fred Couples has almost won a Masters when he was in 50's.  

Plenty of examples where Senior Golfers have done well.  Just don't know why it causes bloggers on this site so much angst.

Agree with all this (apart from maybe the greatest sport bit). For me the former champs are one of the integral parts of the Masters and to an extent the Open. Half my historical knowledge of pro golf comes from seeing names like Stadler and Aaron on Masters leaderboards growing up, and the occasional ceremonial 18th green farewell, and wondering "who's that old guy". And part of the fun of Thursday afternoon is seeing Mize or Lyle or someone pop up in the leaderboard after a couple of holes and seeing how long they can keep their one-under going for. I'd agree that when they get to the Billy Casper stage of shooting 90-odd it starts getting silly, but that doesn't seem to happen any more. No one seems to have more than a couple of years of consistently going over 80 before they call it a day. And anyway the likes of Couples and Langer are more competitive twenty years after winning than Immelman and Weir were five years later. Maybe it is sentimental to want to see a few old favourites compete again, but sentimentality is a big part of pro sport and anyone who tells you otherwise is talking crap. Big money sport wouldn't exist if it was just world's best v world's best at any given time, with no back stories or emotional involvement for fans to latch onto.

I don't recall similar levels of hatred against the PGA championship which also has a lifetime exemption for last winners.

It's not hatred, it's an opinion. It's certainly been raised on here about the Open excemption. I think the whole golf excemption criteria is a joke quite frankly, PGA included.

beninho wrote:I don't recall similar levels of hatred against the PGA championship which also has a lifetime exemption for last winners.

You don't see many of the 50-something past champs playing the PGA Championship. Azinger, Sluman, Price, Tway, Brooks don't play the PGA Championship. IMO, it is because those players know that they are taking a spot from a more competitive golfer.

Mize, Weir, Woosie, Singh etc. are not taking a spot from a qualified player.

RE: Comparing WGCs to the Masters

I don't know how people think that WGCs are even close to the Masters. Players don't skip the Masters unless it due to injury. Stenson, Rory skipped the WGC-Mexico tournament. Both played the next week at Tampa.

Stenson, Rose, Rickie, Adam all skipped the Match Play. Stenson, Rose, Rickie all played the next week at Houston.

What players, not qualified for the Masters, does anyone think have a legitimate chance at winning the Masters if they were playing.

I look past the Top 60 (all the top 60 are playing, except Koepka) and frankly, I don't see anyone that has a legit chance at winning. I don't think the bookies would have anyone better than 100/1.

I think you are missing the point, or at least my point. If there are only 4 golf tournaments the world gives a toss about then you should be there on current ability. Is it about winning? Maybe a top 10 for a guy ranked in the 70's launches his career.
It's one of those arguments where you can make a case either way, for me if I want to watch older greats play there is already a tour (with its own majors) that allows for this.

For me at least Diggers, I don’t simply want to watch older players play, otherwise I’d just sneak onto their country club. It’s specifically them being challenged against guys half their age, and normally coming off worse but occasionally making the kids look daft, that I find interesting. Obviously less interesting than the final stretch Sunday, but then it’s the multiple storylines of Major golf that is one of its big appeals.
That clash of generations is something not many other sports offer either. Maybe when Steve Davis or Jimmy White qualify for the crucible. Nick Skelton winning a medal at 60. There was a 60-something at the darts over Christmas. Then I’m struggling...

Diggers wrote:I think you are missing the point, or at least my point. If there are only 4 golf tournaments the world gives a toss about then you should be there on current ability. Is it about winning? Maybe a top 10 for a guy ranked in the 70's launches his career.
It's one of those arguments where you can make a case either way, for me if I want to watch older greats play there is already a tour (with its own majors) that allows for this.

Part of the mystique about the Masters is the journey itself, and not just the destination. There are specific qualifications and everyone knows it going in.

Personally, I don't like the Open Championship billing itself as The Open. It's pretentious. My definition of Open is Open to Pros and Amateurs. And the Open is only slightly Open to Amateurs. Most of the qualifying spots are from professional tournaments, which might only contain 1-2% amateurs.

Yep, the Amateur Champ gets an exemption and there are some local qualifiers that are open to amateurs. But only about 12 spots are available

That said, the Open is wonderful championship, but IMO, it is not really Open. It has the 2nd best field of the majors, 3rd overall (PGA and Players have stronger fields IMO).

The Masters fills out a niche in the Major landscape. And I like it.

Thought this was interesting from Mark Broadie.  https://twitter.com/MarkBroadie



‏

NedB-H wrote:For me at least Diggers, I don’t simply want to watch older players play, otherwise I’d just sneak onto their country club. It’s specifically them being challenged against guys half their age, and normally coming off worse but occasionally making the kids look daft, that I find interesting. Obviously less interesting than the final stretch Sunday, but then it’s the multiple storylines of Major golf that is one of its big appeals.
That clash of generations is something not many other sports offer either. Maybe when Steve Davis or Jimmy White qualify for the crucible. Nick Skelton winning a medal at 60. There was a 60-something at the darts over Christmas. Then I’m struggling...

Golf allows for that, we saw Hossler v Poulter last week, best part of 20 years between them. We might see Phil v Rahm this week. Thing is, they deserve to be there, this year, on merit. It's not a tricked up way of seeing the generations compete against each other.
Like you say, White has to qualify, Davis would have to qualify, no free passes in snooker. Same with show jumping. They are competing because they deserve to be there.

The generation thing doesn't really fuss me. The thing about them not deserving to be there is different though. They do deserve to be there because they have qualified like everyone else. Just there qualification is by previously winning it. Not like they are getting special treatment like Sharma or Ishikawa used to.

The overall field may not have the top 100 in the world but you would guess they could change it if they wanted to. They like it being a very strong limited field invitational. I doubt any players will start boycotting it soon, so doubt it will change.

IMO excemption and qualifications are two completely different things. But each to their own, I'd probably change the qualification for all 4 majors.

It is what it is and I love it. I haven't really got any rational argument against any of the points Digs and Super make, but I don't give a hoot(ie...).  The older champions don't exactly get that much airtime and the top of the pile is pretty similar to the top of the pile at the other majors, regardless of what goes to make up the rest of the pile or how or why they're there. You get to watch great golf on a great (looking) course, often with great drama and a worthy winner, whatever leftfield things happen.

And with that, the Masters (thread) awaits.

Roller_Coaster wrote: The older champions don't exactly get that much airtime.

There’s one tiny exception..

Diggers wrote:IMO, 10 years would be a more than generous winners exception. After that, if you can't qualify you shouldn't be playing.
But, as Super has pointed out, I am a joy killing bar steward.

No Tiger then...

pedro wrote:

Diggers wrote:IMO, 10 years would be a more than generous winners exception. After that, if you can't qualify you shouldn't be playing.
But, as Super has pointed out, I am a joy killing bar steward.

No Tiger then...

Not if he hadn't won it in the past 10 years or qualified this year.

pedro wrote:

Roller_Coaster wrote: The older champions don't exactly get that much airtime.

There’s one tiny exception..

Sorry. My bad. Langer has often had quite a bit of airtime. Usually because he's around the top of the leaderboard.