Thought for the Day
The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers
Back to proper golf
Some years ago when working for a British golf magazine I was scheduled to report on a US Open Championship. ‘Wouldn’t it be a good idea,’ I said to the editor, ‘to stand in the gallery and, when some chump screams out “mashed potato!” or some other inanity, to interview him’ (and it is always a man)? ‘What would you ask him?’ he said.
‘I would enquire why on earth he felt the need to scream nonsense, and if he realised that 90% of golf fans regarded him as a prat of the highest order.’ ‘Go for it,’ my editor said, showing what I later realised was a masochistic streak I had not previously noted.
A few weeks later I was in the bleachers at Medinah CC, the nearest city to which is Chicago, known for its raucous and excitable sports fans. The asinine bellows from around me emanated from large gentlemen, invariably with a can of beer in their hands, who looked as if they were recently retired NFL linebackers. I experienced a rare moment of sanity and decided that I could look for feature ideas elsewhere.
I was reminded of this while watching the 122nd US Open because, as irritating as these raucous fans can be, what they demonstrated yet again is that proper golf tournaments, especially the majors, matter in a way that glorified exhibitions, like the Saudi-backed LIV series, never will.
It caused me to reflect on the series in an effort to dispassionately list the pros and cons of this new circuit.
Pro: It pays the participants huge amounts of money, no matter how they perform.
Con: No-one cares
Pro: It pays the participants huge amounts of money, no matter how they perform.
Con: They can barely give tickets away.
Pro: It pays the participants huge amounts of money, no matter how they perform.
Con: Most of the competitors are at, or beyond their sell-by date, or golfers who haven’t made their mark on the regular tours.
Pro: It pays the participants huge amounts of money, no matter how they perform.
Con: The shotgun start and team format don’t work.
Pro: It pays the participants huge amounts of money, no matter how they perform.
Con: There are no terrestrial or mainstream broadcasts.
Pro: It pays the participants huge amounts of money, no matter how they perform.
Con: The whole shebang is funded by Saudi Arabia.
Pro: It pays the participants huge amounts of money, no matter how they perform.
Con: There are no world ranking points on offer, so the golfers will quickly fall down the pecking order.
And ultimately it is this last point that will matter most. Without world ranking points the LIV series will struggle and the application to be considered for OWGR approval has to be sanctioned by its governing board’s nine members. These are representatives (usually the CEO) of the PGA of America, PGA Tour, DP World Tour, USGA, R&A, Augusta National, International Federation of World Tours and a secretary, under the chairmanship of Peter Dawson, formerly chief executive of the R&A.
It is difficult to imagine a group of people more allied to the way things are, or more committed to the status quo. So once LIV competitors slip outside the world’s top-50 (where many already languish), the only ones of their number automatically eligible to compete in majors will be former champions. And even that might change. This year the four grand slam events have adopted a wait-and-see approach, largely because they didn’t want to change their eligibility criteria retrospectively. But for 2023 they could decide to follow the PGA Tour’s lead and ostracise the rebels.
You only need to look at the last two weeks on the PGA Tour and compare them to the first LIV event to envisage what that will mean. At the RBC Canadian Open Rory McIlroy was chased home by Justin Thomas, Tony Finau and Sam Burns, while Justin Rose had a very real chance of shooting 58, on his way to a final round 10-under par score.
But even this drama was bettered by the US Open, in which an apparently nerveless Matt Fitzpatrick thrillingly withstood everything that Will Zalatoris and Scottie Scheffler could throw at him. It didn’t hurt, either, that going into the last round Collin Morikawa, Rory McIlroy and Jon Rahm were also in the mix. It’s not often that the three highest-ranked players in the world (Scheffler, Rahm and McIlroy) are in with a shout in the last round of a major.
For the moment, at least, that’s the huge problem that the LIV series is facing – its tournaments don’t matter. Huge amounts of money are obviously important to the participants but golf fans don’t really care. Fitzpatrick collected $3.15 million at Brookline but I’m certain he would give it back as long as he could keep the trophy.
Of course, when Kerry Packer launched World Series Cricket in the late 1970s, traditionalists were aghast at the idea but much of what he introduced has subsequently been adopted by governing bodies the world over. And is the idea of professional sportsmen going where the money is, so unusual? Do we damn footballers, rugby players or anyone else for signing up for whoever will pay them the most? The word ‘professional’ in this context means being paid for your efforts, as opposed to amateurs who do it for love (or, more likely, dreams of future potential earnings).
These athletes, however, continue to perform in tournaments and events that have significance, unlike those in the LIV series.
Quote of the Week
When people say they dream of playing in the US Open someday, what they’re really saying is, they’d like to be good enough to play. Trust me, the US Open is not fun.
Tom Weiskopf