PGA Tour: Final Tournament of the Year: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1). Final tournament of the year, but already the 8th of the 2018/19 season, or about 18% of the schedule (realistically for most members, 20%). So, if you're an international player double-dipping, and you haven't got some points on the board, you're already slipping behind. Whereas the likes of Rafa C-B, Rose, Casey, Poulter, Noren & Hatton are at least 25% of the way towards keeping their cards.

2).I didn't see any notice of it, but Career Builder is no longer a Tour sponsor - instead the January Palm Desert event is recorded on the Tour calendar as the "Desert Classic"; not sure what happened there. Any ideas? Laid off presumably.

3).The US Ryder Cup entourage spawned winners in Las Vegas (DeChambeau) and Mayakoba (Kuchar). DeChambeau has now won more Tour events in 73 Tour appearances than Rickie Fowler (218). Not sure what that means, but through all his lengthy calibrations, DeC is a winner (except en France and Germany). Fowler is too good for the game not to become a serial winner too, but he needs to get a move on.

4).Meanwhile, Kuchar's win was his 8th, and first since holing out a 72nd hole bunker shot to beat the late, great Luke Donald at Hilton Head four years ago. And in the process Kuchar has overtaken Stricker, Zach J and DL111 to 10th place ($45M) in the career earnings list behind:
TW, Phil, Vijay, Furyk, DJ, Rose, Scott, Ernie & Sergio.
Speculation in the US media that Kuchar would have been a welcome choice for the Ryder Cup, but would he really? In four RC's he's only won 6 matches, twice the tally of Rickie, also in four appearances, but would say he had to earn an automatic qualifying place with the Task Force reserving a spot apiece for Woods & Mickelson.

5).With only a few events still to be played around the world this year, we're close to the year-end cut-off of the Top 50 in the World Rankings who qualify for Augusta.
I'm guessing the current Top 40 will qualify, if they haven't already, so that would include Aphibarnrat, Poulter, Pepperell and Rafa beyond the obvious. Westwood's win in SA rocketed him to 64th so he still needs a good result this week in Dubai.
Others not yet in the field between #41 and Lee at #64 include:
#41: Haotong Li: His recent haul of points should ensure he'll make it.
#42: Olesen: I'd think he'll make it.
#43: Fitzpatrick: He needs a good result this week as his points are depleting fast.
#45: Harman: In terrible form. He's playing this week and needs a strong finish.
#46: Grace: You'd think he's too good not to make it, but similar to Fitz in needing to play well in Dubai.
#46: Bjerregard: Should be OK (as Li) but play well in Dubai to make sure. Could be suited to Augusta.
#48: Grillo: Not playing this week and could well slip out unless he has another event up his sleeve.
#51: Ben An: Similar to Grillo - EDIT: Playing in Australia
#54: Berger: Injured
#56: Perez: Similar to Grillo & An.
#57: Wallace: Needs a top finish in Dubai - I'd love to see him in The Masters.
#58: Reavie: Injured.
#59: List: Playing RSM but needs something special.
#60: Hadley: Similar to List.
#61: Hadwin: Not playing
#62: Imahira: Assume he's playing the Dunlop Phoenix - in great form!

6).Vijay Singh won the season ending Champions Tour event but the inevitable Bernhard Langer won the season-long Charles Schwab Cup - 62 next year, how long can he keep this up?

7).Every so often when following pros on the course you're lucky enough to see a player hit a remarkable shot. Tim Petkovich had a journeyman Tour career with just one win but plodded along in his late 40's and took decent form to the Champions Tour.
He was leading early in a tournament we were at a couple of years ago but had pushed his tee shot on a Par-4 into thick rough under a tree with overhanging branches.
He had about 175 to the hole on an elevated green, playing over water and it looked as if his caddie was trying to dissuade him from taking the shot on. But Petkovich played it, a low, rising ball that he somehow squeezed out of the spinach to land on the green about 20 feet from the pin. Remarkable. He handed his club to his caddie and said, "That's the best I've got". Pretty neat when you see a guy playing a worldy like that. Commonplace to the Tigers of this world perhaps, but I reckon Petkovich surprised himself. I love moments like that on the course . . . . . the Tour is right, those "guys are good".

8).When DeChambeau won the US Amateur a few years ago, he beat Derek Bard (from a club I used to belong to) in the final. Bard just qualified this week for web.com Tour Final Stage Q-School, to be played in early December. Amazing how paths diverge in all walks of life.
And, on the same theme, Phillip Price is once again trying to qualify for the Champions Tour - only 16 years since he outplayed Phil in a Belfry singles. James Kingston, plus RC'ers Sandelin & Levet, also playing, among others.

9).The RSM (McGladrey) event this week has an end-of-year look to it, too bad as it's played on two lovely looking courses on Sea Island, Georgia - a beautiful part of the world. But the purse is good and the FedEx points are just the same as much more prestigious stops. And there'll be an invite to Augusta to the winner. Not much European interest, though Ireland's Olympians are both there, McDowell too.

10).Finally, the Ballwasher "celebrates" Thanksgiving next week and I'll be sitting in the corner with copious amounts of Louis Jadot's finest efforts.
Happy Thanksgiving to McLaren and all American readers.

Amazing:
princedrac just reported that Finau will move into the owgr Top Ten; only one win in his career (in opposite-field Puerto Rico Open more than two years ago so excluded from current owgr rankings), but beaucoup Top Tens.

And: Is the Tiger trophy the worst in golf, perhaps all sport?

In all sport? Not a chance is it worse than the Tuc Trophy from the Australia-Pakistan cricket in the autumn:

Oof, What's that meant to be? A slice of french toast? Dreadful!

Hideki makes (pretty much) the same owgr points for finishing dead last in the Bahamas exhibition as the T9's in the 156-strong field Aussie PGA.
Time to end this ridiculous sham. Perhaps with some algorithm that decrements points proportionately to better reflect the size of field. Or perhaps decrements points in such limited field garbage over one year, rather than two. Something's got to change.

Surely it's someone's duty upon winning the Hero World Challenge to drop that hideous trophy on the nearest paving slab.
It looks like the sort of thing you'd find in a house clearing of a 90 year old granny who'd been found dead after 6 months. Without doubt the ugliest, tackiest and most narcissistic trophy in world sport.

NedB-H wrote:In all sport? Not a chance is it worse than the Tuc Trophy from the Australia-Pakistan cricket in the autumn:

kwinigolfer wrote:Hideki makes (pretty much) the same owgr points for finishing dead last in the Bahamas exhibition as the T9's in the 156-strong field Aussie PGA.
Time to end this ridiculous sham. Perhaps with some algorithm that decrements points proportionately to better reflect the size of field. Or perhaps decrements points in such limited field garbage over one year, rather than two. Something's got to change.

There might have been 156 players but strong is being kind. Some of them probably had to get a day off from selling Mars bars to turn up.

McLaren wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Hideki makes (pretty much) the same owgr points for finishing dead last in the Bahamas exhibition as the T9's in the 156-strong field Aussie PGA.
Time to end this ridiculous sham. Perhaps with some algorithm that decrements points proportionately to better reflect the size of field. Or perhaps decrements points in such limited field garbage over one year, rather than two. Something's got to change.

There might have been 156 players but strong is being kind. Some of them probably had to get a day off from selling Mars bars to turn up.

I didn't see your name in the line-up, Mac . . . . . . .
That's not the point, is it?

Surely world golf rankings should reflect effort as well as achievement?

I read a piece yesterday which suggested the "Hero's" rankings might be reviewed - and all limited field events should be reviewed, at least to the extent that no-one gets rewarded for coming last.

The only justification for awarding free OWGR points is to mitigate the risk of winning such a ghastly trophy.

kwinigolfer wrote:Surely world golf rankings should reflect effort as well as achievement?

I read a piece yesterday which suggested the "Hero's" rankings might be reviewed - and all limited field events should be reviewed, at least to the extent that no-one gets rewarded for coming last.

Ummm... NO.... World rankings should be ALL about achievement and ZERO about effort.  This is NOT everybody gets a ribbon.

As for the reported OWGR review... it sounds like they might be doing a comprehensive top-to-bottom look at the whole thing. Ultra small events would certainly be part of that IMO, but I'm guessing they see that area as about 1 millionth of a percent of the REAL issues with the OWGR.  

The issue is the top-heavy (and not deep enough) nature of field strength calculations that causes them to add so many other convoluted factors in an attempt to overcome that weakness. (like home points, tour point minimums, etc).   From recent comments by Jay Monahan, seems like they are realizing that's the real crux of any issues with the OWGR

And speaking of "Not everybody gets a ribbon"...  IMO a strong look at events that award points to EVERYONE in a field certainly should be looked at. Not just the HERO, but any of them (Tournament of Champions and Tour Championship included)  On one hand players usually have to perform for sometime at a very high level to even qualify for those events so an argument could be made the points are still based on merit.   But on the other hand... it just don't seem right guys like Hideki and Tiger spit the bit in the Hero and still get rewarded. (2.4 and 4.08 points respectively).

kwini

I was only messing.  But I have been to the Aussie masters and saw a player badly top a 7 wood. 

McLaren wrote:kwini

I was only messing.  But I have been to the Aussie masters and saw a player badly top a 7 wood. 

haha

kwinigolfer wrote:Oof, What's that meant to be? A slice of french toast? Dreadful!

I had to google this to check it wasn't a photoshop gag.

Kwini, do they not have TUC in the USA? Probably my favourite biscuits, I'm more of a savoury person.

robopz wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Surely world golf rankings should reflect effort as well as achievement?

I read a piece yesterday which suggested the "Hero's" rankings might be reviewed - and all limited field events should be reviewed, at least to the extent that no-one gets rewarded for coming last.

Ummm... NO.... World rankings should be ALL about achievement and ZERO about effort.  This is NOT everybody gets a ribbon.

As for the reported OWGR review... it sounds like they might be doing a comprehensive top-to-bottom look at the whole thing. Ultra small events would certainly be part of that IMO, but I'm guessing they see that area as about 1 millionth of a percent of the REAL issues with the OWGR.  

The issue is the top-heavy (and not deep enough) nature of field strength calculations that causes them to add so many other convoluted factors in an attempt to overcome that weakness. (like home points, tour point minimums, etc).   From recent comments by Jay Monahan, seems like they are realizing that's the real crux of any issues with the OWGR

And speaking of "Not everybody gets a ribbon"...  IMO a strong look at events that award points to EVERYONE in a field certainly should be looked at. Not just the HERO, but any of them (Tournament of Champions and Tour Championship included)  On one hand players usually have to perform for sometime at a very high level to even qualify for those events so an argument could be made the points are still based on merit.   But on the other hand... it just don't seem right guys like Hideki and Tiger spit the bit in the Hero and still get rewarded. (2.4 and 4.08 points respectively).

robo,
I used the word "effort" to differentiate from the very point you made about "achievement" having earned the guys a place in the field in the first place.

Agree that the entire system, which I'd say is 90% a fair reflection, needs revision to bring it up to date. Hate "minimums" for instance except for flagship events, which also need to be made current.

ray,
Not familiar with TUC (except the Jack Jones variety) either here or there. But then I'm not a biccie man.

I haven't had a TUC cheese sandwich for years, I'm now hankering for a packet.

This trophy has obviously served its purpose!

Tuc sandwiches are fantastic, whatever that mysterious filling actually is. Something about vaguely cheese flavoured sludge that is delicious.

robopz wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Surely world golf rankings should reflect effort as well as achievement?

I read a piece yesterday which suggested the "Hero's" rankings might be reviewed - and all limited field events should be reviewed, at least to the extent that no-one gets rewarded for coming last.

Ummm... NO.... World rankings should be ALL about achievement and ZERO about effort.  This is NOT everybody gets a ribbon.

Funnily enough I’ve just been watching the BBC snooker coverage, with a very uncomfortable studio discussion on exactly this issue. The bone of contention being that snooker’s world rankings reward every tournament you play, so encourage globetrotting heavy schedules. Ronnie O’Sullivan, on his bigger than the game platform, was complaining at the workload required to maintain a high ranking. He actually used the OWGR system in his arguments, supporting the idea of an average-based ranking with a minimum tournament divisor.

I actually think the OWGR for the most part gets things spot on with its system. The minimum points awards may seem biased but they are crucial in keeping the balance for a worldwide sport; it would be in no-one’s interest long term for it to become impossible to climb the rankings on a “minor” regional tour as it would just lead to golf becoming a solely US-based sport. Besides which I don’t see much evidence of players getting massive benefits from minimum points allocations. Shub Sharma and Matt Wallace have shown how hard it is to break the top 50 ceiling even with multiple wins in small events.

Awarding points for small-field events like the Hero would be the one thing I would change, for the reason that it consolidates rankings for players who are already at the top, without giving the opportunity for fluidity from lower down the rankings. I’ve got less of a problem with points being available for WGCs, for that same reason; there’s a clear route for players outside the top 50 or 100 to gain entry to those events, and then use the ranking points available in them to their advantage. Off the top of my head, Olesen, Dubuisson, Lowry, RCB and Tanihara have all broken the top 50 that way.

kwinigolfer wrote:robo,
I used the word "effort" to differentiate from the very point you made about "achievement" having earned the guys a place in the field in the first place.

Agree that the entire system, which I'd say is 90% a fair reflection, needs revision to bring it up to date. Hate "minimums" for instance except for flagship events, which also need to be made current.

OH, OK... that makes perfect sense...

As for "the system"... the top-heavy field strengths (and other anomalies in the rankings) probably have very little impact at the TOP of the rankings... but IMO the convoluted "balancers" to the top-heavy field strengths very much have an effect around those "qualifying levels" of 50-60-64-100 etc. for big events. And those big events have embraced the OWGR because of qualifying... NOT because of who's at top.

IMO they can fix the system to about as good as any system can be by:

1) Reduce the over-valuation of top players...
2) Include at least some Strength of Field value for every "credible" player in the field. (which helps accomplish #1)
3) Reduce point allocations based on diminishing field sizes...
4) As much as possible, eliminate or reduce artificial floor values to event strengths and home points.
5) Limit Flagship bonuses to a reasonable % over actual field strength. (maybe 20% bump max)

Tuc sandwiches are fantastic. Not sure what it is about a vaguely cheesy sludge that is so addictive.

robopz wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:robo,
I used the word "effort" to differentiate from the very point you made about "achievement" having earned the guys a place in the field in the first place.

Agree that the entire system, which I'd say is 90% a fair reflection, needs revision to bring it up to date. Hate "minimums" for instance except for flagship events, which also need to be made current.

OH, OK... that makes perfect sense...  

As for "the system"... the top-heavy field strengths (and other anomalies in the rankings) probably have very little impact at the TOP of the rankings... but IMO the convoluted "balancers" to the top-heavy field strengths very much have an effect around those "qualifying levels" of 50-60-64-100 etc. for big events.  And those big events have embraced the OWGR because of qualifying... NOT because of who's at top.

IMO they can fix the system to about as good as any system can be by:

1) Reduce the over-valuation of top players...
2) Include at least some Strength of Field value for every "credible" player in the field. (which helps accomplish #1)
3) Reduce point allocations based on diminishing field sizes...
4) As much as possible, eliminate or reduce artificial floor values to event strengths and home points.
5) Limit Flagship bonuses to a reasonable % over actual field strength. (maybe 20% bump max)

Sorry robo but I can’t agree with the basic thrust of this. “Top heavy fields” and subsidised events are basically euphemisms for the ET and the other smaller tours (JGT, Asia, Sunshine etc), in contrast to the deeper, rarely-subsidised PGAT. I don’t dispute that. But I don’t think that that bias from the OWGR results in skewed rankings; in fact I think the evidence is that it produces a balanced global ranking. Here’s a breakdown of the current #51-#100 ranking:

31 PGAT players
15 ET players
3 JGT players (Imahira, Norris, Ikeda)
1 Asia/Sunshine player (Justin Harding, who can’t stop winning on both).
(I’ve included Schwartzel as a PGAT, player, but Knox, Lowry, Suri, Frittelli and Willett as ET players).

I would argue that 62% representation for the “main” tour, and 8% representation for the “minor” tours, is far from unreasonable. Any change in the system that would benefit PGAT events, at the expense of other (possibly subsidised) global events, would, I’d suggest, be detrimental to the promotion and expansion of golf as a worldwide rather than US-based sport. We’re a long way removed from the days of Jumbo Ozaki and Tommy Nakajima, or even Ryo, gatecrashing the top 10-20 of the rankings purely from form in Japan. Justin Harding has four wins, two runner ups and eight further top tens worldwide in 2018 alone and is only #80; as I’ve said, Sharma and Wallace couldn’t crack the top 50 with multiple worldwide wins. Meanwhile Ryan Palmer and Russell Henley, to give two examples, are comfortably inside the top 100 after winless years. The likes of Grayson Murray and scott Verplank can moan that things are skewed against their tour but the evidence isn’t really supporting them.

NedB-H wrote:I would argue that 62% representation for the “main” tour, and 8% representation for the “minor” tours, is far from unreasonable. Any change in the system that would benefit PGAT events, at the expense of other (possibly subsidised) global events, would, I’d suggest, be detrimental to the promotion and expansion of golf as a worldwide rather than US-based sport.

And I would counter that it's not the job of a "ranking system" to have any responsibility to the promotion and expansion of golf worldwide.  It's intent should be to RANK PLAYERS... nothing more, nothing less.  Leave the politics to the Majors and WGC's and other big events in deciding how they fill their fields beyond just OWGR rankings if there's some "social justice" aspects in play.  

NedB-H wrote:We’re a long way removed from the days of Jumbo Ozaki and Tommy Nakajima, or even Ryo, gatecrashing the top 10-20 of the rankings purely from form in Japan. Justin Harding has four wins, two runner ups and eight further top tens worldwide in 2018 alone and is only #80; as I’ve said, Sharma and Wallace couldn’t crack the top 50 with multiple worldwide wins. Meanwhile Ryan Palmer and Russell Henley, to give two examples, are comfortably inside the top 100 after winless years. The likes of Grayson Murray and scott Verplank can moan that things are skewed against their tour but the evidence isn’t really supporting them.

I think you use bad examples all the way around.  Justin Harding is ranked where he's ranked because when he's had the chance to perform against better fields, he just hasn't.  Sorry, but those are the facts. A bunch of wins in the minor leagues doesn't a world class player make.  Also... Matt Wallace HAS moved into the top-50 and will be "big event" and Masters eligible because he's backed up his great performances in lesser events with SOLID performances in enough better field events. And when he gets to the point he stops missing 25% of his cuts, he'll do even better.

And quite frankly I don't give a damn what some tool like Grayson Freeking Murray has to say. He's clueless.  What the TRUTH of the matter is in an ACCURATELY produced system the cream will ALWAYS find a way to move themselves into the bigger leagues and more and more access to premium events.  The DESERVING players from the minor leagues (rather it be Web, Challenge, Asian, Australian, Korean, Japan, Sunshine Tours etc) will always find there way up.  If they can't, then IMO they're simply NOT deserving in the first place.

All it needs is a few tweaks, think we're all agreed on that, just the definition of those tweaks in dispute.

And one thing is indisputable, and that is that sponsors in the non-American part of the world need to step up because, outside the absolute elite, most of these guys play for money, not for anything else.

kwinigolfer wrote:All it needs is a few tweaks, think we're all agreed on that, just the definition of those tweaks in dispute.

And one thing is indisputable, and that is that sponsors in the non-American part of the world need to step up because, outside the absolute elite, most of these guys play for money, not for anything else.

Agree on both counts Kwini. But if this current ongoing OWGR review is as comprehensive as it sounds like it might be, those tweaks might be major.

You're also correct about sponsors world wide. I had some conversations with quite a few Aussies over the last month RE the quality (or lack thereof) of the AUS OPEN and PGA. They were of course bemoaning how the Australian Open deserves better because of the historical significance of the event. Geoff Ogilvy wrote an excellent piece on what was wrong with the AUS Open and how it can be fixed. His one key point, which I agree with completely, if you want to be a world class event, the first thing you need to do is ACT like one. And that goes from top to bottom from event organization, player hospitality, fan engagement and purse. The days of attracting world class players to Australia for a $1mil US equiv. purse are over. Heck, look at the problem the ET had attracting players to Turkey and NedBank this year for $7mil+.

It starts from the bottom up, make the Aussie Tour something of substance and make the Aussie Open a tournament ALL the Aussies/Kiwis want to compete in and win. If they can't get their own house in order, they can't expect the rest of the golfing world to do it for them.

I wish I thought Pelley was smart enough to look out properly for the European Tour in any owgr adjustments, but sadly feel he hasn't a clue. Best European ambassador would be princedrac.

kwinigolfer wrote:I wish I thought Pelley was smart enough to look out properly for the European Tour in any owgr adjustments, but sadly feel he hasn't a clue. Best European ambassador would be princedrac.

IMO you don't need Pelley to look out of the ET in any OWGR changes. Ian Barker effectively runs things in that regard, so the ET's interests are well represented.

The issue for the ET is it took Finchem leaving and Monahan coming in for the PGAT to be willing to lay bare the underlying biases of the OWGR. IMO the only question is how much they can move the OWGR towards a more accurate ranking system as opposed to how many of the "political" vestiges of the rankings remain protected.

FWIW: Indonesia Masters attracted Justin Rose and Henrik Stenson with a 750,000 US Dollars purse.

These are my wishes for any possible OWGR changes (in order of priority)

1. A one year system (with some depreciation aspect)

2. Strength of Field formulas to reflect the Entire field, not just the top 200 players

3. Points only allocated to the top half of any field, no automatic points for playing the Tour Championship, ToC, the HWC.

4. No points for unofficial events like the HWC (this is a rule that OWGR enacted in 2000)

Makes sense GPB.
A 2 year system seems obsolete. Maybe 18 months would be a nice compromise.

Re Indonsian Masters. Surely there must be some appearance fee or sponsors obligation.

I wonder how many ET tourneys pay apperance fees? The ET should put an end to this IMO. Ruins the tour even more.

pedro wrote:
Re Indonsian Masters. Surely there must be some appearance fee or sponsors obligation.

I wonder how many ET tourneys pay apperance fees? The ET should put an end to this IMO. Ruins the tour even more.

I didn't think I needed to point out the appearance fees aspect.

I have said that a tournament built on a foundation of appearance fees is a house of cards. Abu Dhabi and Dubai have to paying appearance fees.

GPB wrote:

pedro wrote:
Re Indonsian Masters. Surely there must be some appearance fee or sponsors obligation.

I wonder how many ET tourneys pay apperance fees? The ET should put an end to this IMO. Ruins the tour even more.

I didn't think I needed to point out the appearance fees aspect.

I have said that a tournament built on a foundation of appearance fees is a house of cards.  Abu Dhabi and Dubai have to paying appearance fees.

I wonder if Abu Dhabi will continue to pay appearance fees... or if raising their purse to Rolex Series standards will be enough to attract a good field. Abu Dhabi's $7 mil US purse is mountains above any other ET regular event purse until the ET gets to Ireland in July...

Still not sure what the difference is between appearance fees and guaranteed $six figure prize money for coming last . . . . . . . . (I know, I know)

GPB wrote:FWIW:  Indonesia Masters attracted Justin Rose and Henrik Stenson with a 750,000 US Dollars purse.

These are my wishes for any possible OWGR changes  (in order of priority)

1.  A one year system  (with some depreciation aspect)

2.  Strength of Field formulas to reflect the Entire field, not just the top 200 players

3.  Points only allocated to the top half of any field, no automatic points for playing the Tour Championship, ToC, the HWC.

4.  No points for unofficial events like the HWC  (this is a rule that OWGR enacted in 2000)

Maybe Tyson Fury, Anthony Joshua and Deontay Wilder will turn up too.

Interesting article on golfchannel.com about the PGA Of America moving its HQ operations from Florida to the Dallas area, to a complex that will include two new courses, proposed venues for future PGA Championships (2027 & 2034) and Senior PGA's (starting 2023) - and possibly, eventually, a Ryder Cup.

It'll all be part of a half-billion+ dollar project - because they can't think of a better way to spend a half billion bucks, presumably.

kwinigolfer wrote:Interesting article on golfchannel.com about the PGA Of America moving its HQ operations from Florida to the Dallas area, to a complex that will include two new courses, proposed venues for future PGA Championships (2027 & 2034) and Senior PGA's (starting 2023) - and possibly, eventually, a Ryder Cup.

It'll all be part of a half-billion+ dollar project - because they can't think of a better way to spend a half billion bucks, presumably.

Other peoples money. PGA of America is fronting only $30 million of it (for their own headquarters). The rest of it... mostly Omni are coming up with the other $490 million to build hotels, retail, office the courses, etc...

robo,
I get, that from Hoggard's article - but still. And you could probably double or triple the $30M with relocation costs and some sort of disposition of all the facilities they're vacating.

Who owns PGA National? Presumably the PGA, plus the rest of that complex, but perhaps that is all leveraged somehow too.

NedB-H wrote:Tuc sandwiches are fantastic, whatever that mysterious filling actually is. Something about vaguely cheese flavoured sludge that is delicious.

Awarding points for small-field events like the Hero would be the one thing I would change, for the reason that it consolidates rankings for players who are already at the top, without giving the opportunity for fluidity from lower down the rankings. I’ve got less of a problem with points being available for WGCs, for that same reason; there’s a clear route for players outside the top 50 or 100 to gain entry to those events, and then use the ranking points available in them to their advantage.

1st point - agree!

2nd point - don't agree! There is a clear route for players outside the top 50 to gain entry to the Hero (just like the WGC's): play good golf and get into the top 20 in the world. It makes sense to have a few elite events like the Hero. I am much more interested in watching the top guys than the journeymen. It also makes total sense that Finau gets tons of ranking points for beating (nearly) all the best players in the world.

I don't know how the rankings points are distributed lower down the leaderboard. Finishing 18th in a full field event is inside the top 15% so is a good result worth some points. Finishing 18th in the Hero should equate to finishing last in a full field event, so I'm not a fan of points for turning up.

That explains why I just received notice from Aronimink that we will now be hosting the 2026 PGA Championship, not the 2027 (as originally slated).

They haven't told Wikipaedia yet - nothing's official until it's posted there . . . . . . . .

Just saw drone footage of the land. Not exactly inspiring terrain!

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zf8q2ow7ec7xzne/AAB5KL53NRCxm5GGB0DZCgnea?dl=0

kwinigolfer wrote:Still not sure what the difference is between appearance fees and guaranteed $six figure prize money for coming last . . . . . . . . (I know, I know)

No real difference. Other than the US based pros don't have to travel halfway around the world to collect. Florida based pros are 1/2 hour flight away.

Incidentally, The purse for the WC was $3.5 Million in 2000

Last week's Purse for the 2018 HWC was $3.5 Million. It was $5.75 Million in 2009.

IMO the whole kerfuffle over the World Challenge getting OWGR points it's not exactly "Much Ado About Nothing"... More like "Much Ado About Not Very Much" in the grand scheme of things.

IMO, based on the quality of the field, the World Challenge should get points, but the amount they get and awarding them all the way through the field is a reasonable question.  But still, for those points to make much of a difference, players usually have to play very well cuz OWGR  point scales decline really quick.

For example, Graham McDowell's path from success  at the World Challenge in 2009 to the 2010 US Open is well chronicled. But McDowell didn't gain that advantage by going to the WC and mailing it in for "bottom feeder" points. He finished second against a darn good field, and THAT'S what put him on the path to qualify for other events that eventually qualified him for the US Open.

Kwini, not seeing how the relocation cost for the PGA of America would be even a fraction of what you suggest (above the construction cost of new facilities).  I don't know if they lease or own their current headquarters, but I can't imagine exiting that situation would be anything near that costs you suggest.  The PGA of America doesn't own the golf courses or resort at PGA National either, so not sure how there would be much if any liability there.

robopz wrote:IMO the whole kerfuffle over the World Challenge getting OWGR points it's not exactly "Much Ado About Nothing"... More like "Much Ado About Not Very Much" in the grand scheme of things.

IMO, based on the quality of the field, the World Challenge should get points, but the amount they get and awarding them all the way through the field is a reasonable question.  But still, for those points to make much of a difference, players usually have to play very well cuz OWGR  point scales decline really quick.

For example, Graham McDowell's path from success  at the World Challenge in 2009 to the 2010 US Open is well chronicled. But McDowell didn't gain that advantage by going to the WC and mailing it in for "bottom feeder" points. He finished second against a darn good field, and THAT'S what put him on the path to qualify for other events that eventually qualified him for the US Open.

Any event without a cut shouldn't get points in my opinion. Points and money for doing terribly against the field makes no logical sense. You might as well just award someone points because they're a pro golfer.

robopz wrote:

For example, Graham McDowell's path from success  at the World Challenge in 2009 to the 2010 US Open is well chronicled. But McDowell didn't gain that advantage by going to the WC and mailing it in for "bottom feeder" points. He finished second against a darn good field, and THAT'S what put him on the path to qualify for other events that eventually qualified him for the US Open.

The point is that GMAC had an opportunity to play the HWC while other players around the Top 50 bubble did not. A huge competitive advantage against his direct peers.

IIRC, GMac just happened to be in LA (on a layover) whenTiger WDed from the WC. Pure happenstance that set off a chain events that got him into the Masters.

Interesting stat from halfway thru Round 2 of the web.com Final Qualie: Only four men of the 135-strong(?) field are over par.

Is this meant to be a test, or just an enrolment?

Zach Johnson & Damon Green splitting up after 15 years . . . . . . . . who's next?

Just followed my nose (internet searching) regarding Damon Green and came across "The Caddie Network" website. That led me to THIS STORY about a caddie called Eric Larson who was jailed for dealing in cocaine. Bit of a long story but worth a read. Especially the bit about Mark Calcavecchia near the bottom.

kwinigolfer wrote:Zach Johnson & Damon Green splitting up after 15 years . . . . . . . . who's next?

Damon Green to caddie next year for Ollie Schneiderjans - not sure about young Ollie, is he a potential world-beater or just another talented young golfer looking for motivation? Given his record (am & pro) over the past few years, it's tough to tell. Set up by Zach's agent apparently.

I'm never wrong wrote:Just followed my nose (internet searching) regarding Damon Green and came across "The Caddie Network" website. That led me to THIS STORY about a caddie called Eric Larson who was jailed for dealing in cocaine. Bit of a long story but worth a read. Especially the bit about Mark Calcavecchia near the bottom.

There seems to be quite a few caddies with a screw loose.
There's a story about a Scottish guy who was a caddie for Koepka just before he hit the big time, he got smashed in a bar in America, walked into the wrong house and into the bedroom of the owner (so the story goes). Gets arrested for breaking and entering, kicked out of America and therefore not allowed back in so Koepka has to give him his jotters and then Koepka starts winning millions of quid. Imagine how gutted he must be now.

super_realist wrote:

I'm never wrong wrote:Just followed my nose (internet searching) regarding Damon Green and came across "The Caddie Network" website. That led me to THIS STORY about a caddie called Eric Larson who was jailed for dealing in cocaine. Bit of a long story but worth a read. Especially the bit about Mark Calcavecchia near the bottom.

There seems to be quite a few caddies with a screw loose.
There's a story about a Scottish guy who was a caddie for Koepka just before he hit the big time, he got smashed in a bar in America, walked into the wrong house and into the bedroom of the owner (so the story goes). Gets arrested for breaking and entering, kicked out of America and therefore not allowed back in so Koepka has to give him his jotters and then Koepka starts winning millions of quid. Imagine how gutted he must be now.

Sounds like the caddie had a lucky escape. You would expect to get shot for doing that in America.

Confirmation that these golfers, not otherwise exempt, qualified for The Masters via the year-end owgr's Top 50:

Noren
Hatton
Rafa
Aphibarnrat
Grillo
Grace
Fitzpatrick
Pepperell
Poults
Haotong Li
Wallace
Olesen
Bjerregard

Ben An at owgr ranking #52 is the highest-ranked pro not exempt.

Matt Wallace to win The Masters, get your money on now.