Still no shortage of crazy out there, so have that tin foil hat handy...
Mayakoba Musings - I did watch just a couple of minutes of the broadcast and, despite the sponsorship upgrade, it seems very much an event made for November. My interest in the event is asymptotically approaching zero, yet there were a couple of bits of note. The first and most obvious comes from the leaderboard, triggering the typical "Is he back" storyline, to which we have this dissenting opinion:
Despite tying his career-low round to lead in Mexico, Matthew Wolff doesn't think he's back. But he's confident.
Seems like that which we like to call a distinction without a difference, no? Of course, you should be wondering who this "we" I speak of is...
On a day where low numbers were the theme, nobody was better than Matthew Wolff. After his well-documented struggles over the last year, the former star at Oklahoma State tied his career low with a 61 on the par-71 El Camaleon Golf Club at the Mayakoba Resort in Playa del Carmen, Mexico, to take the early lead at the 2021 World Wide Technology Championship at Mayakoba.In his first two starts of the new PGA Tour season, Wolff finished T-17 at the Sanderson Farms Championship and solo second at the Shriners Children’s Open. He’s been under par in each of his nine rounds this season, with eight rounds in the 60s.“I feel like I’ve definitely gone through some stuff in the last six or seven months, but to be able to come out of it, have a really good attitude and, you know, everything did go right today,” explained Wolff, who hit 11 out of 14 fairways, found the green in regulation 14 times and made 10 birdies and no bogeys for a steady, care-free round. “But even on the second hole I think I landed it a few feet from the hole and it ripped off the green. Or on 11, my second hole. I think just my attitude about making good swings is all I can really control, it’s definitely helped me out a lot and probably a good reason why I’m playing so well right now.”
A decent run of play for the young man. It's just more fun with that goofy swing in the mix...
On Sunday I birdied the first hole, and then bored my playing partners with my experience that an opening birdie hasn't typically been an augur of a good which, which is exactly how Sunday played out. Not sure how I'd react to this opening hole (which can only happen on rare occasions):
Driving to the course, everyone has visions of the perfect start to their round. For most golfers, that means a solid tee shot, nice approach into the green and then holing the putt for birdie. Forthe most ambitious among us, their dreams might stretch to carding an eagle on the 1st, but that borders the line of greed.On Thursday at the World Wide Technology Championship, Chris Kirk took it to another level.With clouds in the sky and the sun just peeking over the horizon, Kirk pulled out his 6-iron and took aim for the green at the par-3 10th hole (his first of the day) at El Camaleón Golf Course. He drew the club back and fired his ball directly toward the pin.The ball landed just short of the pin and started rolling toward the hole. But in the low morning light, the group did not see where it finished up.When they approached the green, there wasn’t a ball in sight.“It’s either in or just over in the rough,” Kirk said.Sure enough, when Kirk’s caddie checked the hole, his player’s pearly white ball was staring back at him. A hole-in-one on the first swing of the day.“Made me feel a little better about my 4:30 wake-up call this morning,” Kirk said. “It was pretty cool.”
He was five under after four holes, but then cooled off considerably (yeah, who wouldn't?) and shot 64.
That pretty much exhausts my interest in the event though, should you crave more, I'll just link to this piece on the defending champion, James Hahn and Danny Lee playing musical drivers. I'm used to them being far more protective of their gamers, but it all seems to have worked out.
Shall we move on to more interesting things? Or at least stories where we can make fun of certain folks, and by certain folks I of course mean Greg Norman.
Can't We All Just Get Along? - You say Premiere League, I say Super League, let's call the whole thing off.... Or at least the wraparound portion.... win-win, baby!
As earlier in the week, let's lead with vitriol over substance, really just because we can. It's said that, if you want to know about someone's character, ask those that know him or her best. I don't know if there's an history between these two, but Peter Fitzsimmons writes this encomium to his famous countryman in the Sydney Morning Herald:
This is not an especially insightful offering, as his history of sportswashing is by the book, as is his characterization of Jamal Khashoggi as some brave journalist. But it's lively writing and he does a particularly good job of exposing the fatuousness of Norman:
Golf Digest asked Our Greg about it this week: “Do you have any concerns as to where the money is coming from, and specifically the Saudi Arabian connection?”Norman replied: “The PIF (Public Investment Fund), which is our majority investor, they’re obviously a commercial operation. They’re very autonomous. They make investment decisions all around the world. They’ve invested in major US corporations because of commercial reasons. They invested in LIV Golf Investments for a commercial opportunity. They’re passionate about the game of golf.”
One amusing aspect of all this is that, each time you read the nonsense, something else jumps out as significant. We had this GD interview earlier in the week, but it's the last bit that hit me today. If you know the least little bit about Wahhabism, you'd know that it pretty much excludes the possibility of enthusiasm for the more temporal aspects of life. But today is for Peter's rant, not my own:
Translation? There is none. Instead of the journalist in question saying what needed to be said – “Oi, dickhead. I didn’t ask for commercial gibberish that no one cares about. I asked how can you take money from a regime that engages in murder and torture, all for something so ephemeral as golf?” – he moved on.’Cos Greg doesn’t want to hear that kind of talk. He’s been to Saudi Arabia many times, and they never showed him any bloody torture chambers, so what are you mob on about?Tell ’em, Greg.“I’ve been going to Saudi Arabia now for three years,” he told the journal. “I was invited to do a golf course design project there. Unless you actually go there and see and understand exactly what’s happening there, you [can’t] sit back and make judgmental calls.”Exactly! What is it with all you human rights organisations, with all your documented atrocities and whistle-blower reports? What makes you think you know more than Greg when he goes there on business trips? Keep going, Greg, please.
Yes, lease let Greg never stop sharing his unique worldview, as it makes for easy blogging.
“I made the journey there to look at what was happening in Saudi Arabia before I made any decision on anything because I’m not a person who makes judgement calls. I make sound decisions on sound facts and information that is presented to you. So, when the PIF wanted to become a majority investor, I knew what was happening in the country.”See? I told you! Greg knows! You jerks from Amnesty International who think you’re so smart – when you probably never even played at Augusta – have got nothing on Saudi Arabia, or Greg!
The self importance is off the charts, although I still believe the world would be a better place if we didn't use professional athletes to support our own belief systems. I've never been a fan of criticizing the players who go to Saudi Arabia, because their tours have chosen to run events there. If it's beyond the pale to play in Saudi Arabia, isn't that less Dustin Johnson's issue than it is, say, Keith Pelley's?
So, regular readers will know that my opinion of Justin Thomas has taken several body blows in recent times, No time to rehash it all here, but he's come across to this observer as increasingly entitled and whiny lately, and this next piece won't repair any of that:
Justin Thomas explains how the PGA Tour’s new rivals have already spurred change
Is this alleged change for the better? You'll be shocked to know that the answer is yes, but probably only in the sense of being better for JT, and then perhaps only in the short-term. So, what is this change he speaks of?
Nobody is silly enough to underestimate the value of a blank check, particularly not the Tour. Which is precisely why the organization has been moving proactively to implement changes that will better endear itself to its highest-earning clientele. Of course, the Player Impact Program (PIP) is the most public example of that shift. The $40 million annual popularity contest — erhm, prize pool — just finished its first year of payouts (ironically, the winners of the program were not announced publicly). Elsewhere, the Tour has bolstered its strategic alliances (notably with the European Tour), and has grown its incentive program to better benefit players.
Ironically? I don't think you understand irony, James. What you describe is outrageous and maddening, but is exactly what we expect from these clowns.
But JT isn't extolling the PIP program.... No, this is the home run caused by competition:
“I know for one, my first couple years I felt like I didn’t necessarily have the place or the voice togo to a Jay Monahan, to go to [chief tournaments and competitions officer] Andy Pazder to say how I feel about what things are going on in the Tour,” Thomas said. “In reality, it sounds disrespectful to say, but they work for us, you know what I mean? It doesn’t matter if you’re the 120th ranked player on the FedExCup or the second, if you have a problem and you think it should be changed, you should go voice that opinion to the Tour and that’s their job to try to fulfill that or at least give you an answer.”In recent months, Thomas said, Tour leadership has been much more proactive with its constituents.“I think that’s kind of been the main thing that’s come out of this is, look, we can better our product and we can get better because of stuff like this, we can learn from it,” he said. “I just think that a lot of it was honestly the players not knowing and also maybe the Tour not understanding that it could be done differently and that the players even felt that way.”
Wow! In order to keep you from defecting, Jay is actually pretending to care what you think? Contrast this with the reality:
In that sense, Thomas sees the proposed tours as a good thing. For one thing, they provide an influx of new ideas into a sport that could use the inspiration. The new tours are rumored to be team-based concepts involving guaranteed salaries, 54-hole tournaments and even ownership stakes for players.
What is that reality? The only "improvements" that have come out of Ponte Vedra Beach have involved imposing sports betting nonsense on the broadcasts and encouraging fans to consume copious quantities of alcohol and to act out on camera.... Gee, thanks, Jay.
Daniel Rappaport writes the same article, but a far more honest version thereof:
Upstart golf leagues give top PGA Tour pros an invaluable commodity: leverage
I'm quite certain that these players will only use their new-found leverage in the service of the game, right?
But Daniel reminds us that our game to date has been rigidly meritocratic:
The common denominator in both proposals is a white whale tour players have coveted for decades: guaranteed money. It’s the reason these proposals remain alive despite the PGA Tour’s repeated attempts to squash them, and at the heart of a debate that seemingly is only getting more heated.Professional golf is perhaps the most meritocratic of professional sports, at least in terms of money doled out by the league itself. How much a player makes per week is a direct result of his on-course performance. It’s been that way for decades and it’s part of the game’s appeal; every man is equal on the first tee Thursday morning.
Though what Daniel elides is the inherent bifurcation in our historical model. As far as the league (Tour) is concerned, players make what their scorecards determine, full stop. But obviously omitted from this discussion is what players make elsewhere (endorsements, appearance fees and the like), which is where the alpha dogs eat.
The premise here is that the elite are underpaid.... But, are they? There's no answer to this question, but here's evidence that brings it into doubt via Sportico:
And yet in golf, 82-time PGA Tour winner Tiger Woods and one-time winner Joel Dahmen receive the same paycheck for finishing 10th. Which, according to Joel Dahmen, is patently ridiculous.“On course, the top guys don’t get enough,” Dahmen said on Wednesday ahead of this week’s World Wide Technology Championship at Mayakoba. “Look, I’m not selling a single ticket. Maybe to a couple buddies, but I probably gave them free tickets anyway. I’m not bringing anyone here. I’m not adding a ton of value outside of maybe some Twitter stuff. The top guys who actually move the needle, who get people to watch, absolutely do not make enough.” Indeed, the player who received the most money directly from the PGA Tour—$7.6 million plus $15 million more for winning the FedEx Cup—during the 2020-21 season was Patrick Cantlay, a top-10 ranked player but not a global superstar.
Have people lost the ability to think?
First and foremost, analyzing the issue through one hypothetical 10th place finish is pretty faulty logic for sure, because Tiger had a few more higher finishes than Joel. The same goes for the Cantlay example, as we've been ridiculing the FedEx Cup for this very reason since its inception.
But the bigger issue, Joel, is that, if you want to make the case that Tiger is underpaid, make the case based upon what he's actually been paid, not an isolated case of a bad week. He's the second-highest paid athlete of all time, which superficially seems to argue he's done very well, especially sinc3e golf doesn't generate the revenue of many of these other sports.
As an aside, Dahmen does make the case that the Tour might have been sitting on their riches (there's also new TV contracts that have kicked in, so I'm not knowledgeable enough on this subject to opine):
The PGA Tour responded to these flirtations by creating the $40 million Player Impact Program, a way to compensate the 10 biggest stars for something not directly related to their on-course performance. The tour is also giving each player who competes in at least 15 events this season a $50,000 bonus. Dahmen believes there is much, much more where that came from.“The PGA Tour has really deep pockets. They magically come up with $40 million for PIP and then there paying us all 50 grand to play 15 events, which is another X million dollars. That’s like, $50 million that they just magically found laying around overnight. The money is there. There’s a way to do it.”
So, increase purses.
What continues to amaze this observer is that these self-important idiots don't see the danger. The important thing to me is that the Tour limit itself to running events and that players get money from the Tour solely by virtue of their performance on the golf course. Why? Because the alternative will very quickly devolve into madness...
What have we learned? jay Monahan has created a $40 million slush fund that's been distributed to players with no accountability or disclosure of methodology. Justin Thomas thinks this is the best thing since sliced bread, so one assumes he got a nice check. But, how is the increasingly whiny Justin Thomas going to feel when he's no longer one of Jay's faves? Ultimately this lack of accountably will devolve into warring fractions, and good luck holding it all together then....
That meritocracy is a critical element of golf's DNA, and we dispense with it at our peril. I don't even think this is an actual problem, though of course the nest players will inevitably feel they are underpaid. But for those that think what golf needs is more guaranteed money (though those making the argument tend to ignore all the guaranteed money in play), I hope you like golf with stars such as Jacoby Ellsbury.
Be The Ball - This is an interesting development, if only because the manufacture of golf balls is far more concentrated than most folks realize:
With its worldwide golf ball market share increasing, TaylorMade made a strategic acquisition on Wednesday with the purchase of Korean-based Nassau Golf Co. Ltd for an undisclosed amount.Nassau has been a key cog in TaylorMade’s ball supply chain for 15-plus years, making urethane and ionomer balls, as well as mantles for the TP5 and TP5x facility in South Carolina.With Nassau in the fold, TaylorMade announced the creation of TM Golf Ball Korea, the company’s “third vertical integration” to go along with TM Golf Ball South Carolina and TM Golf Ball Taiwan. (TM Golf Ball Taiwan was formed in 2019 after TaylorMade acquired Foremost Golf Co. Ltd.)The addition of Nassau allows TaylorMade to meet the global increase in demand for all of its ball products, including TP5/TP5x, Tour Response and Distance+.
TM locking in its supplier probably makes sense given the world of supply-chain issues we see across all industries. But, if there's an issue, these are the parties whose business might be threatened:
Chances are, even if you’re not keenly aware of it, you are familiar with Nassau Golf. The South Korea-based ball factory has produced numerous TaylorMade balls over the years. It’s also the factory responsible for the original Kirkland Signature four-piece golf ball (the one where the covers didn’t rip) and, perhaps most notably, it produces the MTB Black and MTB X for Dean Snell.
We covered the issues with the Kirkland balls, the originals resulting from the sale of excess Nike cores, but the later production cycles involving inferior materials.
The simple fact is that there are precious few facilities that manufacture golf balls, so the second tier players, including Kirkland, Snell, Vice and others, may find their supply chains unreliable in the future, obviously dependent upon demand.
This feels like a good place to wrap.... I will see y'all on Monday.
No comments:
Post a Comment