golfrewind.com

Care to explain that to me.........and the 125 guys on the PGA Tour (and the 1000's more that are trying to get there)? If "a lot more that matters other than money" mattered to the players on the PGA Tour, again, we wouldn't be discussing this.

As much as you and I want golf to be about winning Majors and creating history.....it's not. It's all about the money. Can you refute that? There are only a handful of players that play for a sense of history and to bring the game to the world. All the others play golf for the money. It's a business and a job to the vast majority them and they play where the money and the perks are. They could care less about "history" and bringing the game to fans. The same goes for your Euro stars. The top players are playing over here at the expense of the European Tour. Why is that?

I'm not saying the current situation is right, but it is what it is, and you're the one that doesn't seem to see it.

Whenever you hear the phrase "it's not about the money"....... It's about the money.

You may be right in many cases, but my rose coloured view is different.

Most pros hitting the Tour play for the right to remain on Tour. To do this , they must win money, because the money list determines their future. Initially, it is card retention , then it 's about automatic entry to Majors, top 64 events , and increased sponsorship deals. Once a player is in the top 50 , he does not have to worry about money , except when buying his new boat/airplane. Most players (some will disagree) are more motivated by recognition in the game, leaving their name on a trophy , repect from players and so on. Once you made the first couple of million , the rest become less important. Tiger may go for a new deal with Nike to beat his current deal ,but the higher figure is seen as a measure of his success. He wants more money than Phil because he has won more majors and the higher sponsorship price reflects his higher status in the game.

Offer the pro a Major win or $20 million, only a sad man would take the money, because a Major win will generate enough money to keep most people happy, and bring respect as a member of an elite group.

In pro golf , prize money measures respect and success ,it should not be confused as the only measure . Colin Montgomerie has won more prize money than Jack Nicklaus ,but is not comparable.

Lefty, if your point is that you think that US pros should play in other countries to "expand their horizons" and "experience the rest of the world", I'm sure that most of them do so... on their time and at their leisure. There is simply not enough incentive for them to do that sort of traveling to do their jobs.

My point is that all pros should play wherever the best golf is and that the world game should be spread around the world, more big tournaments held in countries such as South Africa and Australia , where USA players contribute by turning up. At present, too much is in USA and that can not change until USA professionals travel.Other factors such as improved purses will come if USA pros travel. In the past, when purses are increased, USA pros stay at home, devaluing te tournaments and upsetting sponsors. When the Open qualifying is made easier for the uSA pros they ignore it and stay at home.

But they do and always will each July at The Open. Some even play another European Tour tournament while they are there. Mark O'Meara comes to mind. Seems to me though, that trip more than quenches their desire to play in Europe, ESPECIALLY for the top tier American golfers who travel for the Ryder and President's Cups.

Golfers play in the country where they grew up unless the competition and the money is elsewhere. Some Europeans opt to live in the United States for the climate, comfort and the PGA Tour. It's certainly a formula and I don't pretend to know how much the money aspect plays into it quite frankly (90%, 80%, 50%, 30%). I'm sure it's a different mix for each individual. Other factors also exist such as women (those they want to be with as well as those they don't mind being away from), business ventures, ability to succeed/compete, etc.

Two Words.......College Golf

It seems to me a player in the States cant get on tour unless he was a college player. They are all identikit golfers who learnt from the same teachers and played the same courses in the same company for years and all use the same soundbites in the interviews. When they come on the tour its a very different environment. I think you would probably find the average age of a tour pro on the PGA tour is lower than the average age of a pro on the european tour. Guys who play on the european tour play very different courses from week to week in very different conditions. In the states the courses only vary in length and as soon as some adverse conditions appear then the US players have problems whereas the Euro players have a lot more experience.

College players were never the huge stars of the US tour. Player, Nicklaus, and Watson all went to college of course but they had always been special players, even before college. Trevino was very much from a different mould as well as was Snead. Mickelson and Woods were also special players but I wonder if either of them would have been able to make it if they hadn't went to college?

US golf had it pretty much its own way for most of the last 50 years of the 20th century. But as more european players worked their way through the same system and took heart from the achievements of Ballesteros, Langer, Lyle, Faldo, Woosnam, Olazabal and Montgomerie and especially the Ryder Cup teams they realised that the US tour was there for the taking. The only reason US players do comparitively worse on their own tour now is that non US players no longer think that the US tour is too demanding for them to make their mark on. There are also a huge number of american Pro's just there for the incredible money and willing to accept that 4 rounds of 70 every week will make them a pretty sweet living so why take a risk at a silly shot that might cost you a twenty grand. A lot of golfers these days see it as a job rather than as a game and a good living comes before the amassing of titles.

US tour players are also more insular than their european counterparts and this is no more obvious than at the Ryder Cup.

D.

LOL

They come over for two whole weeks, well that is a huge effort on their part.

European golfers have learnt that on the three occasions they travel to USA for a MAjor, they need longer to aclimatise.

You sure didn't make that statement when we were kicking your

The Ryder Cup has nothing to do with professional golf other than the fact it's played by professionals. The Euro's have shown that they're a closer knit group and play better as a team. Neither of which amounts to squat on the PGA Tour.

I would much rather see Americans winning Majors and strong field events than the Ryder Cup. I enjoy the Ryder Cup as much as the next guy but just as the Ryder Cup didn't define the state of golf when the US was dominating it, it sure doesn't mean any more than that now. It's a "team" competition in an individual sport. The Euro's won handily and are likely to continue to do for some time to come unless the US makes an "attitude adjustment" toward playing it. Comparing Ryder Cup performance to PGA Tour performance just doesn't work.

"Rose coloured" does not do you view justice.

How does moving the Major Championships or asking players to travel and compete in events around the world help golf? A 6 million dollar purse in Australia isn't near as attractive to American, or European players as a 5 million dollar purse in the US (which happens weekly BTW).

Don't kid yourself....only the Top 4-5 in the world aren't "as" concerned about the money as the rest of the world's players. Throw $20 million dollars on the table alongside the four Major Championship trophies and give every professional player the option of taking just one. You'd be left with empty pockets and a table full of hardware. :nodsmiley

I'm sure that if you offered Tod Hamilton,Ben Curtis,Calc, Duval,DL3, Zinger ,Lawrie and any other one hit wonder $20 mil for their only major, they would say no , just as I,m sure that if you asked Perry,Garcia and Montgomerie to chose they would grab the one thing missing from their collection. If you remember Funk after winning the TPC , which is not a MAjor, he talked about the winning not the spending.

The priorities for all profesionals are :
1.Retain playing rights
2.Entry to elite events
3.Winning tournaments
4.Winning MAjors

All pros are seeking to move from one level to the next in this four level hiearchy.

Funny how the losing side play down the Ryder Cup. USA verses UK (an island smaller than Florida with less golfers and half the golf courses , was a mismatch, since it became Europe competing, it has progressed towards a mismatch where USA v UK needs to be reconsidered. As USA are on a losing streak with the Walker Cup , and the Solheim Cup, there is only the Curtis Cup left.Why is USA so allergic to International team sports?

With the possible exception of DLIII...you are kidding , right?

If you said "multiple majors" I would agree with you, but these guys aren't passing up $20 million for just one.

Your priority ranking has merit but I wouldn't lump "all pros" into any number past Retain playing rights. I see a whole lot of players that seem very content on simply securing their card for the next year and making a great living in the process. Many seem to have the attitude that if I play well, numbers 2, 3, and 4, will take care of themselves. If I don't, then I just have to play well enough to keep my card. They find their niche' and play to stay there. Great for their wallets, but it makes for dull competition.

I find it funnier that after finally winning a few times, the winning side puts so much stock in a bi-annual team event that, in all reality, has nothing to do with professional golf. I'm not downplaying our loss.....not from my perspective. I sincerely wish the US players would do the things necessary to play better as a "team." Sadly, we Americans don't play much team golf and the professionals play even less. It's obvious that the Euro Team has the knack for pressing that advantage.

Have you looked at the Olympic record books lately?

International team sports?

Olympics are series of individual events ,not co ordinated teams such as proper football, cricket, rugby,rugby league , all of whom have World Cups (not Series) where more than one country is represented.

"Proper football, cricket, rugby, rugby league?" Why not throw table tennis is there too? With the exception of soccer, (BTW When's the last time YOU won a World Cup?) we don't play those sports in this country.

I nominate football (not soccer), baseball, basketball, and hockey. All international team sports in every sense of the word and our amateurs would kill any UK team you'd care to submit. That makes about as much sense as your list.

You mentioned "allergic"......and it's obvious why. :nodsmiley You should see a doctor about that nasty rash you break out with whenever you think of AMERICANS.

The only sport there with a World Champion is hockey, which Great Britain won gold medal at the olympics some time ago.oh, do you means grass or ice ?

None of the other sports are played seriously elsewhere, with the possible exception of basketball.