Presidents Cup picks, over-paid pros and range-finders on Tour
Each week we ask our panel of writers, PGA members and golf industry experts to weigh in with their views on the hot topics of the day.
The Top Six players for each Presidents Cup team are set and both US Captain Jim Furyk and International Captain Mike Weir now have to select the next six players to round out their 12-man teams. For the Americans, Max Homa is in the 12thspot and not had much to get excited about lately. Chris Kirk and Akshay Bhatia are both playing well but outside the Top 12. For the Internationals, Taylor Pendrith moved into the 11th spot with his good play at the BMW and bumped Adam Hadwin out of the Top 12. Should either Captain look beyond the current Top 12 to round out his team or just go with the players as ranked?
Jim Deeks, Fairways Magazine (@jimdeeks): I’d say that they should always go with ranked players, UNLESS there’s a compelling reason to go outside… like, a good player who’s just outside the ranking, but who comes from the country (or US state) in which the competition is being played, to add local interest. With Conners already set at #7, and Pendrith and Taylor in, Hadwin could make it a Canadian foursome, and that would be exciting for all of us. I dunno who Weir will be forced to drop for Hadwin, but I would hope the dropped guy would take it like a man. Too bad Mac Hughes is just outside the cut line (at #15), but maybe there’ll be a couple of withdrawals, and he’ll sneak in.
Craig Loughry, Golf Ontario (@craigloughry): I think both captains should look beyond the 12, but not much outside it. On the American side, I’d look at Bhatia(14), but who do you leave off (Harmon or Henley)? Homa makes my team due to experience. The International Team, I’d only consider; Hadwin (13) or Si Wo Kim (14), but in place of who (that’s inside the top 12)? Tough call. But Kim and An have good chemistry, if I’m trying to win, I’d lean to that as the reason to take Kim. Does Hadwin have good chemistry with any of the other Canadians? Enough to take him? That would put an awful lot of pressure on Hadwin to perform, and Weir too if he takes him. I could see that being a thing though, fire up the crowd having Canadians on the team. I will definitely be tuning into this.
Michael Schurman, Master Professional / Hall of Fame Member, PGA of Canada: Any Captain who deviates from the top 12 is taking a chance. Except for injury or request by a player earning a top 12 standing is an accomplishment highly regarded by one’s peers. It could be considered disrespectful or even a slight. There is a case to be made for a player who was having a mediocre season outside the top 12 and suddenly had several high finishes and/or wins but under normal circumstances, it should be the top 12.
TJ Rule, Golf Away Tours (@GolfAwayTJ): That never happens and likely won’t this time either. Max Homa you’d think will be a lock given his history and the fact he’s liked by his teammates. Keegan has to be a lock after what happened in the last Ryder Cup selection and his hot streak. But I can see them replacing Harman and Henley with a couple of other guys down the list. JT is lurking down there at 19 on the list but has to be considered a possible choice. For the International side, it would be nice if he stuck with the top 12 since that would put three Canadians on the team. Could there be four Canucks on the team? I guess that would leave Bezuidenhout as the odd man out? I could actually see Mike leaving Nick Taylor off the team given his late season struggles. It will be interesting to see!
Hal Quinn, Freelance Writer, Vancouver: The only reason the Prez Cup is even vaguely interesting is because it’s being played in Quebec. With this and the Ryder, the Yanks play one too many of these. But even, against most odds, if making these teams has even been in the back of the players’ minds, the top 12 should have to go. There’s not going to be a Keegan-like meltdown if some guy isn’t chosen, for either side.
Peter Mumford, Fairways Magazine (@FairwaysMag): Until the Spitter played his way in, the Americans were lacking that prototypical fist-pumping, rah-rah, in-your-face obnoxious cheerleader type guaranteed to lead the U.S.A. chants and get under everybody’s skin. They might have had to dig deep and grab a Billy Horschel or Justin Thomas, but Keegan Bradley will do just fine. The Internationals are set too. A fourth Canadian (Hadwin) would be awesome for the fans but not likely to add much to the team’s strength.
Now that the Official Money Season is over on the PGA Tour (Tour Championship earnings from this week are considered bonus money), ten players have made more than $6 million with Scottie Scheffler topping the list at $29.2 million followed by Xander Schauffele at $18.3 million. Coincidentally, the Top 10 LIV golfers are all over $7 million although none are close to Scheffler’s total. Top players in other sports routinely make even more but this is new territory for golf. Are the top golfers appropriately rewarded?
Deeks: Depends on how you define “appropriately”. In the sense of morality and decency, I’d say these golf numbers are obscene, even if they don’t compare to other professional sports. In the sense of pro sports comparison, maybe they’re below what they could/should be, but I still say they’re obscene. (But I’m just jealous and annoyed that I didn’t spend every moment of my youth working on my game.)
Loughry: I think the top players are properly paid, but other sports sure draw more eyeballs even for their regular season. I do wonder what the cap is, because at some point, the business model has to make bottom line economic sense to both the product and those partners ROI (defined by them, whether that’s their product awareness, sales, or charitable connection, or all of it).
Schurman: Why single out golfers? Two factors determine prize money. TV ratings and ROI for sponsors. I don’t know how or why the PGA TOUR suddenly became an advertising/marketing vehicle that attracted these purses but I’m glad to see golfers finally be compensated with ‘on-course’ earnings. I don’t ever recall reading that Tiger or Arnie were unduly paid ‘off-course’ earnings so, why are ‘on-course’ cheques analyzed to this extent?
Rule: What’s “appropriate” these days? They certainly make a lot more than prior to LIV coming into our world. But I still feel the wealth should be more evenly distributed so that more guys can make a living playing the game. I see why they are doing this as they can’t lose any more of their top guys to LIV but hopefully it reverses a bit in the near future.
Quinn: In the previous century, said to then-PGA Tour commish Deane Beman that golf was the last pro sport with players’ money relatable to the average salaried fans, but wasn’t the quest for ever-bigger purses threatening that connection? Beman replied: “I want the 125th player on the money list making NY Yankee backup shortstop money.” Back then, that figure was an other-worldly US $125,000. The times, and the bottom lines, done change. This so-called season, the 125th guy collected $808,000. At this week’s post-so-called season finale, the last place guy gets $550,000. But just like in Beman’s old good days, it’s all about box office. The NFL superstars make tonnes more than Scheffler because more eyes are glued to the NFL’s lowest rated game than the Tour’s top event. The math is simple, though complicated by the Saudi money pressure, and the fans are well and truly disconnected.
Mumford: If the sponsors are there, paying the bottom dwellers roughly equivalent to league minimum in a team sport and the top players stratospheric amounts seems reasonable. It’s an equitable split based on long-standing accepted guidelines. One big problem is the restricted access that makes it difficult for those on the outside to get a foothold. That’s not a ‘merit-based’ Tour. The other issue is whether it’s sustainable. Sponsors of second-tier events may not like their new status and stop writing cheques. Then, it’s back to the drawing board.
During a podcast last week CBS golf analyst Ian Baker-Finch suggested that one way to cure slow play on the PGA tour would be to allow the use of distance measuring devices. Do you agree that this would help speed up play? Do you think these devices should be allowed anyway?
Deeks: On normal public/private golf courses, I find range-finders slow things down marginally, as 20-handicappers insist on knowing that their approach measures precisely 118 yards and take 30-seconds to consult their devices… (and then proceed to top, skull, shank, or chunk their shot). In a pro tournament, however, using a range gun might well speed things up by eliminating the need for players or caddies to walk up and measure the shot, or calculate the precise distance from their yardage books. Range-finders are so ubiquitous now, I don’t think the purity of the game will be compromised if the pro’s are allowed to use them.
Loughry: I don’t like the use of rangefinders in general for tournament play. I really don’t like them to try and solve pace of play issues. First, there should be a penalty for hitting an errant/bad shot. If I’m in another fairway, I should have to do some math to figure out my distance. Second, that math and figuring it out should be timed (with a stopwatch) as you are only allotted so much time to hit your next shot. That IMO, is the only way to resolve pace issues. I also believe it should be a penalty stroke vs a fine. Strokes equate to $ and could be substantial.
Schurman: Not only do I agree, but signal pylons should also be buried at the edge of Penalty Areas, bunkers and greens. Players spend hours previewing courses on Google Earth long before they play them. They have yardages and carry distances mapped within inches. Once they play a practice round all that is required is target lines and green contours. Thinking players don’t already have this information is naive. If everything was measured and marked players could use a devise that gave them accurate information they already have. Baker-Finch is right!
Rule: I don’t think that measuring distances is what takes so long, although measuring devices would likely help a slight bit. But it’s more the players’ pre-shot routines that are the issue. And reading putts from 15 different angles. They just need to start enforcing the time penalties more often. That will speed guys up. It worked for baseball!
Quinn: I agree with B-F but it would only speed up play if the #$%*ing players and caddies don’t wait till the other guy — or other two guys — have finally played their shot (s) before starting their #$%*ing calculations. Of course, then there’s the mind-numbing pre-shot routine to be executed (executions do come to mind with a couple of Tour guys, we know who they are). It doesn’t speed up the high handicappers who have no idea how far they hit any of their expensive new clubs. But if stroke penalties were in place, if might help move the Tour’s worst offending dawdlers along a bit.
Mumford: I don’t think they’ll help speed up play much but really have no issue with the pros using them. As we’ve said ad nauseum, the only way to speed up play is to hit the turtles with delay of game penalties in the form of added strokes. And maybe ban that Aim Point putting system.
