golfrewind.com

You don't think the fans would benefit? Really? I personally think I would benefit from seeing golf all over the world. Obviously I don't live in the United States, but I am still (one of millions) a fan of golf.

If I were to add a suggestion, it would be to expand and enhance the WGC series, not eliminate it as some suggest. I would lose the team event, which is a novelty that is not treasured, and replace it with a stroke play event. The match play is iffy IMO, but on the whole a keeper. Obviously it won't last if Tiger, Phil, Els, and Vijay don't support it or bomb out early a few times in a row. I would add to the WGC events, with events in South Africa and Australia, and another event in Europe. If there were, say, 8 WGC events, along with the 4 Majors, AND the OWGR imbalances were addressed, everyone would benefit. That's 8 opportunities for big corporates like AMEX, NEC, accenture etc to sponsor with worldwide exposure. There must be four US events that the golf watching public wouldn't mind missing (84 Lumber Classic anyone?) if super-strong fields were available elsewhere.

With the OWGR imbalances addressed, guys like Poulter, Rose, et al wouldn't feel as compelled to join the PGA Tour (Rose has admitted that all he is interested in is a top 50 ranking, after which he will play European events again). The European PGA tour benefits, the sponsorships there will probably improve. Some US players might decide to play in Europe a bit more since similar OWGR points are up for grabs.

Alternatively, we could just agree with Tim Finchem and his Tour gonzos, agree that the US Tour is all that matters, and be done with it.

BTW, this made me smile apologies if everyone has seen it.

Maybe I'm missing something, but exactly what OWGR imbalances are we talking about? Last I knew, if say Doral and the Scottish Open were to have exactly the same fields as far as the rankings go, they'd net the same number of OWGR points...sounds pretty fair to me. And excuse me about the 84 Lumber...it happens to be the only event played in PA on a regular basis...I happen to like it quite well. :nodsmiley

For stlcard - we had some agreement that the WGR system as it stands favours USPGA events, or rather unfairly reflects the quality of European Tour players.

I don't see how it does...it's calculated in the same way for all events. If you want to get more OWGR points for a field, you get more top players...it's as simple as that. Except it's not so simple, because the purses in Europe aren't up to par with those in the US, and the money is where it's at when it comes to drawing big names. They might be able to tweak the minimum points for each event, but there's no way they will be able to bring an average European Tour event up to the same points (or even close) as an average PGA Tour event without completely undermining the way the system is meant to be set up. It just won't work unless more guys play in other events.

From selfish standpoint, it seems to make sense to have a so-called "World Tour," as what we all would like is to see the top guys in more events. However, IMO the few times these guys do tee it up together in non-major, non-WGC events are a special occasion and I don't think it would have the same excitement if it happened every week...imagine if the NCAA basketball tourney were to be held every month of the year? Or if the Champions League were smashed into a one month timeframe and played over 12 times a year? Where would the anticipation for that be? It would water down that feeling that we get when we do get the top guys in a final-round showdown IMO.

Also, what of the lower-ranked guys? Sure, they get to play still, but for what? Pocket change on the PGA or European Tours compared to what those on the "World Tour" would be getting. The fans and sponsors who support each tour would see their events deminished in stature and prestige unless they were among the select few who got to host "World Tour" events.

Be honest, you can't tell the 14th hole at the 84 Lumber Classic from the 16th at the Volvo Masters :uhuh and unless you're there in person you're watching it on TV anyway. Where's your personal benefit in that? Sure, there are millions of golf fans worldwide, but how many of them have ever actually attended a professional event? I know, I know...if you build it they will come.

Adding more world events looks great on paper but you better scratch off any events the week prior to, and the week following, events held in Australia and South Africa due to the extensive travel required for all but those living in those countries.

The OWGR imbalances have been addressed and will probably continue to be adjusted to help the smaller tournaments but Rose (now there's a force in world golf! ) and his buddies can cry all they want. Poor souls. They have to come to the US to play just so they can try to make the Top 50 and be eligible to play in in more US tournaments. If the international players felt even remotely like changing the system they'd all support the European Tour and play together there more often. If the top 5-6 Euros played together on a weekly basis (in direct competition with the PGA Tour) they'd get their cherished OWGR points and possibly bring about the change you feel is necessary.

The US PGA Tour may not be all that matters........but it's darned close. If the players and sponsors didn't agree with that they'd do something about it. You can call it whatever you want but from this side of the pond it just sounds like envy.

Just to further what has been mentioned before, why would sponsors wish to target the US for events to sponsor? Consider these numbers (you can find them with a little google searching):

Number of golfers in the US: ~25 million
Number of golfers in Europe: ~6 million

Annual spending on golf-related activities in the US: ~$22 billion
Annual spending on golf-related activities in Europe: ~₤1.5 billion (or about $2.87 billion)

These numbers are a few years old (2001 I believe), but I doubt they've changed that much. So, where would you, as a sponsor, likely get the biggest bang for your sponsorship bucks?

Those of us old enough to remember the last time USA won back the Ryder Cup , and even old enough to remember the time before that in Kiawah Island , find it amusing to hear how irrelevant the Ryder Cup is to those who do not win it. I seem to remember the celebrations last times USA won it indicated otherwise.

I think this whole debate has broken down on international lines rather than looking at the best for golf. If my original proposal of a world tour took shape , clearly all events out side the MAjors would need the same purses, say $7.5 mil. That would make the non USA tournaments pony up more money, if they didn't then another tournament would be invited.If you went to Australia or South Africa and asked the local PGA to put together a tournament with a $7.5 m purses, they would have a chance if they knew the top 80 players would make the effort to fly there. Simialarly in Europe, if 5 tournaments were chosen , with a timetable to minimise flying , it would then be possible to find the sponsors with their cash. Unfortunatley, in Europe ther is a distrust of top USA players who do not come over for the big purses (e.g. the World events in Ireland and Spain)

I don't see how it's "best for golf" to basically destroy two tours and the lower-level players on each for the benefit of the top 50 in the world basically, not to mention cost the cities those events are played in all the revenue they take in from those events. Sure, as fans we want to see the top players in the same events more often, but who's to say that these guys would even care to show up in Europe or Australia? The majority still live in the US and that would be a lot of extra travel, especially for those with families. Sure, you MIGHT find a sponsor who can afford to put up that kind of money in South Africa or Australia, but can they do it long-term? I doubt it.

As for the Ryder Cup, of course as fans and hopefully proud citizens of our country, we badly want to see the US win the Ryder Cup, but to the players, what does it mean? Do they really think about "the good of the game" when they play those matches? They play a few matches, win or lose, and move on to the next event where they can earn some cash. The Europeans want it more it seems, and they play better in it, but does that mean they're better players? Take the Ryder Cup teams from this past year and put them in a stroke play event and which team would you bet on to have the higest finishers?

Good golf IS being played outside the US, but the PGA Tour is the biggest and best in the world for a reason: the events/players are marketable to the biggest golf market in the world (right here in the US :nodsmiley) and a "World Tour" would do nothing more than draw events from a bigger market to a much smaller market, which economically makes no sense. It'd be like moving an NFL franchise from New York City to Albany...a nice town I'm sure but not likely a place where such a large enterprise could thrive.

Why do you say 'destroy two tours'

The World events would be run in conjunction with the local tour. After the top 80 , the next top 50 on the 'host ' tour would be invited. So the host tour players would have a crack at the big boys on their home turf.

If the event became a regular draw for the top players the sponsors would flock in. Sponsors get nervous about not getting what thy have paid for, and this is where the 'no shows' hurt the game.

Ah yes, but what about the rest of the events? You said there would be 20...the PGA Tour alone has 44 events I believe. So the other 24 just get left in the dark? From the standpoint of being greedy and wanting to see the best players play more, I would love your idea, but from a standpoint of "best for the game," it makes no sense. The PGA Tour and European Tours' regular stops would become sideshows, and if you don't think sponsorship and purses would decline due to that, you're badly mistaken. The little guy would be getting the short end of the stick any way you look at it. :nodsmiley

The top players in golf typically play no more than 23-24 events a year. With this "World Tour," that wouldn't leave much room for other events in these guys' schedules. The PGA Tour, in essence, would be a mix of lower-tier events which would be virtually meaningless considering that none of the big name guys would consider playing them if they were on the "World Tour." The European Tour would be cheapened as well because none of their top players would be playing in their events either. That's why it'd be destroying two tours...all for the benefit of the top bunch of players.

Look again, I think you will find most players play 25 - 30. Tiger started this debate saying he wanted to play 16- 18 plus majors .

The USPGA tour would have 8 weeks when there was a bigger show elsewhere. The events held while the World events are held overseas would survive they way they do now when the Open is on in UK and the World accenture event was on last month.So woudl the European events on while the USA events are played.Maybe the purses would go down slightly, but the purses are ridiculous now.

Events played in 2004 (at least on the European and PGA Tours):

Vijay:....32
Ernie:....24
Tiger:....20
Phil:......22
Retief:...23
DL3:.....24
Scott:..22
Sergio:..22

Those were the top guys last year as far as I could see, and only one had more than 24 total official events played between the PGA and European tours...Ironman Vijay.

Those "other" events are always on shaky ground and adding 8 more of them to the list opposite a big-name event would be the death knell for several of them. Like I said, the system seems to work fine as is, and I see no reason it needs to be modified at the risk of ruining two fine organizations like the PGA and European Tours.

If it ain't broke.......don't fix it! Because a few don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't work. Where's the outcry from the one group of people who really control the situation? The players themselves. The top players are never going to play more than 20-25 events and they have shown us that they won't all play the same events at the same time. Playing the majority of their events as you suggest is a quick death sentence for events made up of those players outside the top 50. How is that good for golf?

You mentioned Europeans have a "distrust of top USA players who do not come over for the big purses (e.g. the World events in Ireland and Spain)" Can you cite more than a couple of instances of this happening in the last 5 years? Is this perception, or reality?

There is no question the European players want it more. For a lot of American players it's about the money. Mark O'Meara saying players should be paid to play in the Ryder Cup. Also the American players are expected to "donate" their time to play in the Presidents Cup on alternating years

I don't want to turn this into a Ryder Cup thread but saying "For a lot of American players it's about the money." is just not true. The money issue was settled long ago. No American player has resigned his spot on the team recently.

There's no doubt that the Ryder Cup means more to the Euro players than the US players and until that changes (any suggestions? ) the results are a foregone conclusion.