1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,800
Speaker 1: I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. When

2
00:00:02,800 --> 00:00:04,920
Speaker 1: I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset.

3
00:00:05,000 --> 00:00:06,320
Speaker 1: And when I find my ball.

4
00:00:06,120 --> 00:00:08,920
Speaker 2: In a bride egg Friday Egg, the dreaded Frida Egg,

5
00:00:09,039 --> 00:00:11,880
Speaker 2: Frida Egg, frid Egg Egg, fride Egg, bride Egg Lie,

6
00:00:11,920 --> 00:00:13,320
Speaker 2: I'm about ready to run off.

7
00:00:13,200 --> 00:00:13,680
Speaker 1: Of the hump.

8
00:00:35,520 --> 00:00:38,199
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Frida Egg Podcast. I'm Garrett Morrison, and

9
00:00:38,240 --> 00:00:40,919
Speaker 2: today we are digging into the debates around the Official

10
00:00:41,000 --> 00:00:44,239
Speaker 2: World Golf Ranking. The ow g R, which is the

11
00:00:44,640 --> 00:00:49,000
Speaker 2: dominant global ranking system in men's professional golf, has somewhat

12
00:00:49,040 --> 00:00:52,760
Speaker 2: surprisingly become a lightning rod for controversy this year. There

13
00:00:52,800 --> 00:00:55,600
Speaker 2: are two main reasons for that. One, a few months ago,

14
00:00:55,680 --> 00:00:59,400
Speaker 2: the OWGR introduced a new formula that critics say, we'll

15
00:00:59,440 --> 00:01:03,440
Speaker 2: do may damage to any tour not named the PGA Tour.

16
00:01:04,040 --> 00:01:07,120
Speaker 2: And two, the Upstart League Live Golf has not yet

17
00:01:07,160 --> 00:01:11,360
Speaker 2: been approved by the OWGR and probably won't be anytime soon.

18
00:01:11,920 --> 00:01:15,240
Speaker 2: LIV is desperate to change this because world ranking points

19
00:01:15,280 --> 00:01:19,039
Speaker 2: are an important way that players qualify for the four majors,

20
00:01:19,319 --> 00:01:22,240
Speaker 2: and Live's advocates have pointed out that the OWGR is

21
00:01:22,280 --> 00:01:25,480
Speaker 2: governed by a board that includes PGA Tour Commissioner j

22
00:01:25,640 --> 00:01:30,119
Speaker 2: Monahan and others invested in golf's status quo. So it's

23
00:01:30,120 --> 00:01:33,600
Speaker 2: a big conspiracy, except not really. It's more complicated than that.

24
00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:36,600
Speaker 2: And to sort it all out, I'm talking to Joseph Lamanna.

25
00:01:37,000 --> 00:01:39,920
Speaker 2: Joseph is the co founder of Optimal Approach Golf, which

26
00:01:39,959 --> 00:01:43,800
Speaker 2: advises elite golfers on data and strategy. He's also the

27
00:01:43,800 --> 00:01:46,559
Speaker 2: writer of the Finding the Edge newsletter, where he's done

28
00:01:46,560 --> 00:01:51,040
Speaker 2: some excellent stuff recently about the OWGR issue. Joseph, how

29
00:01:51,080 --> 00:01:51,360
Speaker 2: you doing.

30
00:01:51,960 --> 00:01:54,760
Speaker 1: I'm great, thanks for having me. Garrett really excited to

31
00:01:55,160 --> 00:01:58,760
Speaker 1: talk about OWGR. I think I was pretty slow to

32
00:01:59,440 --> 00:02:02,440
Speaker 1: formalize my thoughts on it. I wanted to give it

33
00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:05,160
Speaker 1: some time and see how the formula was shaking out.

34
00:02:05,200 --> 00:02:07,880
Speaker 1: But this is the perfect forum to have a more

35
00:02:07,960 --> 00:02:10,680
Speaker 1: nuanced conversation around it. There's probably a lot of topics

36
00:02:10,680 --> 00:02:14,120
Speaker 1: that we get worked up around that aren't worth the conversation.

37
00:02:14,760 --> 00:02:17,799
Speaker 1: I think this one is an important topic and is

38
00:02:17,880 --> 00:02:21,440
Speaker 1: worth a long conversation, so I'm really excited to do this. Cool.

39
00:02:21,520 --> 00:02:24,960
Speaker 2: Yeah, this one actually does have an impact on the

40
00:02:25,040 --> 00:02:28,680
Speaker 2: landscape of professional golf, and we've also been kind of

41
00:02:28,720 --> 00:02:32,200
Speaker 2: slow to do a podcast about it. We've done a

42
00:02:32,200 --> 00:02:35,960
Speaker 2: few newsletter pieces about it. But when this started to

43
00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:39,240
Speaker 2: become controversial, when the OWGR started to become something that

44
00:02:39,280 --> 00:02:42,520
Speaker 2: people were debating, I remember thinking to myself, I am

45
00:02:42,639 --> 00:02:46,960
Speaker 2: so unprepared to have an opinion about this because I

46
00:02:47,080 --> 00:02:49,720
Speaker 2: just don't know how it works. And I think that

47
00:02:49,760 --> 00:02:53,520
Speaker 2: I might still not know really how it works, which

48
00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:54,919
Speaker 2: is part of why I'm talking to you. I think

49
00:02:54,919 --> 00:02:57,680
Speaker 2: you understand it a little bit better, but I'm starting

50
00:02:57,720 --> 00:03:01,600
Speaker 2: to get there, and hopefully we can listeners there as well.

51
00:03:02,200 --> 00:03:06,519
Speaker 2: I wanted to first talk about the new formula, right

52
00:03:07,120 --> 00:03:09,600
Speaker 2: This is a big bone of contention right now. A

53
00:03:09,639 --> 00:03:12,720
Speaker 2: lot of people are angry about it, some more performatively

54
00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:16,239
Speaker 2: so than others. Shout out Lee Westwood. John Rahm has

55
00:03:16,320 --> 00:03:20,840
Speaker 2: repeatedly called it laughable. Tiger Woods doesn't even seem sold

56
00:03:20,880 --> 00:03:23,920
Speaker 2: on it. So maybe you could just describe to me

57
00:03:24,840 --> 00:03:29,480
Speaker 2: what the perceived problem was with the old OWGR formula

58
00:03:29,919 --> 00:03:32,480
Speaker 2: and then what the new one tries to do differently.

59
00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:36,800
Speaker 1: Yep. I think that's the perfect starting point. So I

60
00:03:36,840 --> 00:03:40,320
Speaker 1: think the best way to lay the framework for talking

61
00:03:40,320 --> 00:03:43,680
Speaker 1: about the official World Golf Rankings, whether it's pre August

62
00:03:43,760 --> 00:03:45,800
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty two, which is when the change went

63
00:03:45,840 --> 00:03:49,800
Speaker 1: into effect or post August of twenty twenty two. It's

64
00:03:50,280 --> 00:03:54,680
Speaker 1: important to always keep in mind that fundamental to calculating

65
00:03:54,680 --> 00:03:58,120
Speaker 1: an official World Golf ranking is evaluating strengths of field.

66
00:03:58,880 --> 00:04:03,040
Speaker 1: That is the fundamental piece of assessing a ranking. Right,

67
00:04:03,120 --> 00:04:06,240
Speaker 1: there are golfers all around the world playing every weekend,

68
00:04:06,440 --> 00:04:10,760
Speaker 1: not altogether, so you can't do an official World Golf

69
00:04:10,840 --> 00:04:14,920
Speaker 1: rankings based on their scoring average. Right, somebody shoots sixty eight,

70
00:04:15,160 --> 00:04:17,440
Speaker 1: that could be a much better score than somebody who

71
00:04:17,520 --> 00:04:21,320
Speaker 1: shot seventy one across the world, but not necessarily conditions change.

72
00:04:21,839 --> 00:04:25,159
Speaker 1: You have to have some way of standardizing performance, and

73
00:04:25,240 --> 00:04:29,920
Speaker 1: what that relies upon is overlap and basically being able

74
00:04:29,920 --> 00:04:33,600
Speaker 1: to link between tours. So you have some golfers playing

75
00:04:33,920 --> 00:04:37,480
Speaker 1: European Tour events, you can compare their performance in European

76
00:04:37,520 --> 00:04:41,640
Speaker 1: Tour events, DP World Tour events to their performance in

77
00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:44,800
Speaker 1: PGA Tour events or to other tours around the world,

78
00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:48,040
Speaker 1: and you can start to understand the relative strengths of field.

79
00:04:48,480 --> 00:04:51,080
Speaker 1: The way the system used to work was that it

80
00:04:51,240 --> 00:04:55,000
Speaker 1: determined the strengths of the field based on your official

81
00:04:55,000 --> 00:04:59,760
Speaker 1: World Golf ranking. Specifically of top two hundred ranked players,

82
00:05:00,360 --> 00:05:03,000
Speaker 1: and it gave out points to the field based on

83
00:05:03,320 --> 00:05:06,240
Speaker 1: how many top two hundred Official World Golf ranked players

84
00:05:06,240 --> 00:05:09,279
Speaker 1: there were in their rankings. The issue you can run

85
00:05:09,279 --> 00:05:14,479
Speaker 1: into is if that system is biased, it becomes circular,

86
00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:20,480
Speaker 1: where the issue with the ranking itself then perpetuates the

87
00:05:20,520 --> 00:05:22,920
Speaker 1: issue of the official World Golf ranking because you are

88
00:05:23,120 --> 00:05:26,159
Speaker 1: basing the strength of the field on the ranking. The

89
00:05:26,279 --> 00:05:29,560
Speaker 1: change that happened in August of twenty twenty two was

90
00:05:29,560 --> 00:05:34,159
Speaker 1: basically an attempt to abstract themselves from that issue. So

91
00:05:34,320 --> 00:05:38,240
Speaker 1: now instead of deciding how strong a field is based

92
00:05:38,240 --> 00:05:41,520
Speaker 1: on your official World Golf ranking, they're going to be

93
00:05:41,600 --> 00:05:44,719
Speaker 1: they are deciding it based on their strokes gained, world

94
00:05:44,839 --> 00:05:48,200
Speaker 1: rating a lot of words. Basically, what it means is

95
00:05:48,320 --> 00:05:52,160
Speaker 1: a standardized way of assessing your performance over the last

96
00:05:52,240 --> 00:05:56,360
Speaker 1: two years. I think proponents of the new system would

97
00:05:56,360 --> 00:06:00,279
Speaker 1: say the biggest issue before was this circular issue basing

98
00:06:00,520 --> 00:06:02,960
Speaker 1: strengths of field based on your official World Golf ranking

99
00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:04,920
Speaker 1: itself and which.

100
00:06:04,720 --> 00:06:08,840
Speaker 2: In turns which in turn determines your official World Golf ranking. Right,

101
00:06:08,920 --> 00:06:11,960
Speaker 2: That's the circular piece of it. That was the problem.

102
00:06:12,360 --> 00:06:15,800
Speaker 2: So then it could you know, eventually over time result

103
00:06:15,920 --> 00:06:19,320
Speaker 2: in some inaccuracy. So the new system is a way

104
00:06:19,360 --> 00:06:24,520
Speaker 2: to get away from that by using this strokes gained rating.

105
00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:28,279
Speaker 2: And so then what is that and why is that different?

106
00:06:28,640 --> 00:06:32,720
Speaker 1: Right? So your strokes gained rating is based on how

107
00:06:32,760 --> 00:06:36,040
Speaker 1: you've played over the past two years, and they basically

108
00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:41,160
Speaker 1: adjust your scores based on the it's called a fixed

109
00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:43,440
Speaker 1: effects model. I don't know that people need to go

110
00:06:43,480 --> 00:06:45,080
Speaker 1: two into the weeds of what that does, but it's

111
00:06:45,080 --> 00:06:48,520
Speaker 1: basically saying, hey, if Garrett Morrison shot seventy one at

112
00:06:48,560 --> 00:06:51,839
Speaker 1: the Players Championship in round one, how does that stack

113
00:06:51,960 --> 00:06:56,560
Speaker 1: up with a seventy four in the BMWPGA Championship based

114
00:06:56,560 --> 00:07:00,440
Speaker 1: on this overlapping of players. Once you've standardized that for ormance,

115
00:07:00,880 --> 00:07:03,400
Speaker 1: you can understand where a player stacks up globally and

116
00:07:03,520 --> 00:07:06,640
Speaker 1: use that to assess how strong a field is. And

117
00:07:06,680 --> 00:07:09,520
Speaker 1: instead of just doing the top two hundred ranked players,

118
00:07:09,840 --> 00:07:12,880
Speaker 1: it'll it'll do the entire field. It'll rank the entire field.

119
00:07:13,240 --> 00:07:18,120
Speaker 1: So other point to call out is with this circular

120
00:07:18,200 --> 00:07:22,800
Speaker 1: issue that I was mentioning before, if there's a bias

121
00:07:22,800 --> 00:07:27,320
Speaker 1: within the system, it perpetuates itself. Well, if was true

122
00:07:27,360 --> 00:07:30,240
Speaker 1: there was a bias within the system, and there was

123
00:07:30,280 --> 00:07:33,080
Speaker 1: a mechanism for that, which was minimum points given to

124
00:07:33,240 --> 00:07:36,040
Speaker 1: particular events, which we can get more into. But Mark

125
00:07:36,080 --> 00:07:39,520
Speaker 1: Brody had written a large study in twenty twelve on

126
00:07:39,600 --> 00:07:41,960
Speaker 1: how there was bias within the system, so this was

127
00:07:42,000 --> 00:07:45,120
Speaker 1: not hypothetical that they were solving for some issue that

128
00:07:45,200 --> 00:07:48,720
Speaker 1: didn't exist. There was bias within the system, namely against

129
00:07:48,760 --> 00:07:51,240
Speaker 1: PGA Tour players. They were not being ranked as high

130
00:07:51,360 --> 00:07:54,440
Speaker 1: as they should have based on a true, accurate methodology.

131
00:07:54,800 --> 00:07:58,680
Speaker 2: Mark Brody, being the inventor of Strokes Gain, Yeah, that

132
00:07:58,720 --> 00:08:01,640
Speaker 2: was wonderfully clear, Joseph. I actually learned quite a bit

133
00:08:01,680 --> 00:08:05,400
Speaker 2: from that myself, because this Strokes Gained piece of it.

134
00:08:05,480 --> 00:08:09,320
Speaker 2: I didn't properly understand before. One thing that I think

135
00:08:09,360 --> 00:08:11,760
Speaker 2: I did hear about before, and that has been discussed

136
00:08:11,800 --> 00:08:15,280
Speaker 2: a lot, is this issue of the previous bias of

137
00:08:15,720 --> 00:08:19,880
Speaker 2: the OWGR formula, which Mark Brody pointed out in that

138
00:08:20,000 --> 00:08:23,160
Speaker 2: well known paper where he basically showed that players on

139
00:08:23,200 --> 00:08:28,400
Speaker 2: the European Tour were somewhat overrated by the OWGR European

140
00:08:28,400 --> 00:08:31,640
Speaker 2: Tour and other tours in the world compared to the

141
00:08:31,640 --> 00:08:34,840
Speaker 2: PGA Tour, where the competition was quite a bit stronger.

142
00:08:35,360 --> 00:08:40,160
Speaker 2: Because of these minimums that the OWGR had, players who

143
00:08:40,160 --> 00:08:44,679
Speaker 2: were playing on weaker tours could kind of get gradually

144
00:08:44,880 --> 00:08:48,880
Speaker 2: better and better world rankings, better and better starts, better

145
00:08:48,920 --> 00:08:53,720
Speaker 2: opportunities to get more OWGR points because they were kind

146
00:08:53,760 --> 00:08:57,199
Speaker 2: of playing mainly on a tour that was being propped

147
00:08:57,280 --> 00:08:59,480
Speaker 2: up somewhat by the old system.

148
00:09:00,160 --> 00:09:03,440
Speaker 1: That is true. And to reiterate that point, Okay, if

149
00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:06,319
Speaker 1: a player is ranked fifty second in the world when

150
00:09:06,320 --> 00:09:09,720
Speaker 1: they actually should be ranked closer to eightieth, well, now

151
00:09:09,800 --> 00:09:13,280
Speaker 1: they're going the fields that they're going to enter, they're

152
00:09:13,320 --> 00:09:16,800
Speaker 1: being represented as the fifty second ranked player in the world.

153
00:09:16,880 --> 00:09:21,240
Speaker 1: So and then that issue perpetuates itself. So that is

154
00:09:21,280 --> 00:09:25,000
Speaker 1: the nature of the circular issue that I was describing,

155
00:09:25,160 --> 00:09:28,200
Speaker 1: And I think anecdotally what would often happen is you'd

156
00:09:28,240 --> 00:09:32,800
Speaker 1: have these international players ranked somewhere around sixty to fifty,

157
00:09:33,080 --> 00:09:36,400
Speaker 1: you know, forty five, they'd get into a WGC and

158
00:09:36,440 --> 00:09:38,760
Speaker 1: they'd finish at the bottom of the leader board. This

159
00:09:38,920 --> 00:09:43,640
Speaker 1: wasn't people's eyes betraying them. This was actually happening. And

160
00:09:43,679 --> 00:09:48,720
Speaker 1: it's sometimes an inconvenient truth to call out that actually

161
00:09:48,800 --> 00:09:52,000
Speaker 1: the strengths of field between different tours is pretty different.

162
00:09:52,520 --> 00:09:54,560
Speaker 1: So it's not just that, you know, we think the

163
00:09:54,559 --> 00:09:58,000
Speaker 1: margins are so so thin and that sixty fifth player

164
00:09:58,080 --> 00:10:01,000
Speaker 1: actually is the sixty fifth best player the world. The

165
00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:03,480
Speaker 1: margins are a bit wider than that, and that's sort

166
00:10:03,480 --> 00:10:06,720
Speaker 1: of an inconvenient truth that's necessary to the conversation and

167
00:10:06,840 --> 00:10:09,480
Speaker 1: addressing some of the issues around the official World Golf rankings.

168
00:10:10,080 --> 00:10:12,800
Speaker 2: The top ten players in the world aren't just a

169
00:10:12,920 --> 00:10:17,080
Speaker 2: little bit better than you know, someone closer to one

170
00:10:17,200 --> 00:10:20,200
Speaker 2: hundred in the world. There is a bigger gap there.

171
00:10:20,640 --> 00:10:24,760
Speaker 2: Now players can move between those places in the world ranking,

172
00:10:24,840 --> 00:10:27,280
Speaker 2: but the quality of play that gets you to the

173
00:10:27,280 --> 00:10:30,560
Speaker 2: top ten in the world is quite different, and it's

174
00:10:30,600 --> 00:10:33,400
Speaker 2: not just a it's not like a you know, a

175
00:10:33,520 --> 00:10:37,720
Speaker 2: razor thin margin, and so these are meaningful differences now

176
00:10:37,960 --> 00:10:41,320
Speaker 2: in that old system. I think that the WGCs really

177
00:10:41,880 --> 00:10:45,839
Speaker 2: were the place that exposed this because the WGCs were

178
00:10:45,960 --> 00:10:50,280
Speaker 2: no cut events right with small fields, and you'd see

179
00:10:50,320 --> 00:10:52,760
Speaker 2: players get into the wgc's This is part of the

180
00:10:52,800 --> 00:10:56,320
Speaker 2: idea of the WGC that players from these other tours

181
00:10:56,400 --> 00:10:59,679
Speaker 2: other than the PGA Tour would get an opportunity like this.

182
00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:03,040
Speaker 2: But they'd arrive at these events and often they would

183
00:11:03,080 --> 00:11:05,920
Speaker 2: kind of get slaughtered, and so it seems like that's

184
00:11:06,000 --> 00:11:12,160
Speaker 2: where this issue in the owgr really became legible in

185
00:11:12,200 --> 00:11:15,800
Speaker 2: a specific way to golf fans and other people in

186
00:11:15,840 --> 00:11:16,400
Speaker 2: the golf world.

187
00:11:16,480 --> 00:11:18,839
Speaker 1: I guess I agree, and the part I would kind

188
00:11:18,840 --> 00:11:22,120
Speaker 1: of dig my heels in and this could spark a

189
00:11:22,120 --> 00:11:25,040
Speaker 1: little bit of tension. But some people would argue, well,

190
00:11:25,080 --> 00:11:26,719
Speaker 1: it's not they're not finishing at the bottom of the

191
00:11:26,800 --> 00:11:30,880
Speaker 1: leaderboards necessarily because they aren't as strong with players. There

192
00:11:30,920 --> 00:11:33,719
Speaker 1: could be other factors at play, like the style and

193
00:11:33,840 --> 00:11:37,079
Speaker 1: golf course being different. Right, So they do well on

194
00:11:37,280 --> 00:11:39,319
Speaker 1: the Japanese Golf Tour, but then when they go to

195
00:11:39,400 --> 00:11:42,640
Speaker 1: an American style course, their games don't translate as well.

196
00:11:42,760 --> 00:11:45,280
Speaker 1: That's why they're finishing near the bottom of the leader board.

197
00:11:45,600 --> 00:11:48,880
Speaker 1: I would vehemently disagree, and I would not attribute that

198
00:11:48,880 --> 00:11:51,960
Speaker 1: to differences in the golf course. You could sell me

199
00:11:51,960 --> 00:11:53,920
Speaker 1: on there being a little bit of a travel component,

200
00:11:54,520 --> 00:11:56,959
Speaker 1: you know. I know Padre Harrington on Twitter put out

201
00:11:56,960 --> 00:12:00,880
Speaker 1: a couple reasons that he suspects for some of this underperformance.

202
00:12:01,240 --> 00:12:04,160
Speaker 1: I would dig my heels in and say, this is almost,

203
00:12:04,360 --> 00:12:08,800
Speaker 1: you know, ninety plus percent explained by differences in skill quality,

204
00:12:08,880 --> 00:12:10,319
Speaker 1: not differences in the golf course.

205
00:12:10,880 --> 00:12:14,800
Speaker 2: All right, So the new formula tries to take away

206
00:12:14,840 --> 00:12:20,560
Speaker 2: some of those biases that elevated players on other tours. Now,

207
00:12:20,600 --> 00:12:24,400
Speaker 2: what do you think the downstream effects of this new

208
00:12:24,400 --> 00:12:29,439
Speaker 2: formula will be? What are you know, whether it's immediate,

209
00:12:29,559 --> 00:12:33,360
Speaker 2: next year or a few years down the line, how

210
00:12:33,400 --> 00:12:36,240
Speaker 2: do you think that the landscape of professional golf is

211
00:12:36,280 --> 00:12:38,599
Speaker 2: going to start to look different in both good and

212
00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:40,320
Speaker 2: potentially bad ways.

213
00:12:41,000 --> 00:12:43,800
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this is where the conversation starts to get nuanced.

214
00:12:43,840 --> 00:12:47,400
Speaker 1: So you know, I think a necessary part of this

215
00:12:47,520 --> 00:12:51,800
Speaker 1: conversation becomes the question of what is the role of

216
00:12:51,840 --> 00:12:55,600
Speaker 1: the official World Golf rankings? And so there are people

217
00:12:55,640 --> 00:12:59,080
Speaker 1: who would maintain that all the official World Golf Rankings

218
00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:02,200
Speaker 1: should be doing is providing an accurate assessment of where

219
00:13:02,240 --> 00:13:06,400
Speaker 1: golfers stack up for the purpose of qualification into the

220
00:13:06,400 --> 00:13:09,120
Speaker 1: majors or determining who the number one ranked golfer in

221
00:13:09,120 --> 00:13:12,640
Speaker 1: the world is. So issues like, hey, well, now this

222
00:13:12,800 --> 00:13:17,240
Speaker 1: might disincentivize top professionals from showing up in particular events.

223
00:13:18,080 --> 00:13:20,360
Speaker 1: Somebody might make that argument, and then on the other

224
00:13:20,360 --> 00:13:22,599
Speaker 1: side they'd say, but that's not the role of the

225
00:13:22,640 --> 00:13:26,439
Speaker 1: official World Golf rankings to go and incentivize John Rahm

226
00:13:26,480 --> 00:13:29,120
Speaker 1: to show up at a particular event. So I do

227
00:13:29,160 --> 00:13:31,319
Speaker 1: think this is a question that we'll probably keep coming

228
00:13:31,400 --> 00:13:35,240
Speaker 1: back to throughout the conversation. But to address directly your question,

229
00:13:36,040 --> 00:13:38,800
Speaker 1: there is less of an incentive now for top players

230
00:13:38,840 --> 00:13:42,679
Speaker 1: to show up in some weekly fielded, particularly international events.

231
00:13:43,840 --> 00:13:48,760
Speaker 1: I do think this will weaken the non PGA tours

232
00:13:49,640 --> 00:13:51,520
Speaker 1: a bit because it just doesn't provide as much of

233
00:13:51,520 --> 00:13:53,760
Speaker 1: an incentive for you to go up and get as

234
00:13:53,760 --> 00:13:56,760
Speaker 1: many points. A clear example of this is that if

235
00:13:56,760 --> 00:13:58,440
Speaker 1: you win an event by one, or if you win

236
00:13:58,520 --> 00:14:02,400
Speaker 1: an event by six, you're not getting a different number

237
00:14:02,400 --> 00:14:06,520
Speaker 1: of official World Golf Rankings points. So for John Rahm

238
00:14:06,640 --> 00:14:10,640
Speaker 1: to play really, really well in a strong fielded PGA

239
00:14:10,760 --> 00:14:13,880
Speaker 1: Tour event, he might win by one and get all

240
00:14:13,920 --> 00:14:16,160
Speaker 1: of those official World Golf Rankings points. But if he

241
00:14:16,200 --> 00:14:19,080
Speaker 1: then goes and plays in the Australian Open, for example,

242
00:14:19,120 --> 00:14:23,360
Speaker 1: and wins by six plays similarly, he doesn't get the

243
00:14:23,360 --> 00:14:25,200
Speaker 1: same number of points that he would get on the

244
00:14:25,240 --> 00:14:28,760
Speaker 1: PGA Tour. So if you think about like an expected

245
00:14:28,840 --> 00:14:32,320
Speaker 1: points per start, his expectations would be better in these

246
00:14:32,360 --> 00:14:36,200
Speaker 1: strong fielded PGA tour events, which, if you follow the

247
00:14:36,280 --> 00:14:40,560
Speaker 1: train of thought here, can destabilize some of these tours

248
00:14:40,560 --> 00:14:43,120
Speaker 1: that have sort of been reduced down to feeder tours

249
00:14:43,320 --> 00:14:46,880
Speaker 1: to the PGA Tour. So that's the main I would

250
00:14:46,880 --> 00:14:50,640
Speaker 1: say downstream effect is how it incentivizes play across the world.

251
00:14:51,360 --> 00:14:55,680
Speaker 2: You can easily see how this new formula will certainly

252
00:14:55,800 --> 00:14:59,480
Speaker 2: weaken tours across the world because one thing that these

253
00:14:59,520 --> 00:15:04,600
Speaker 2: tours really rely on is big players occasionally showing up

254
00:15:05,160 --> 00:15:08,840
Speaker 2: right and kind of making some of their bigger events

255
00:15:09,160 --> 00:15:13,040
Speaker 2: a bigger deal. Now, PGA tour players who were born

256
00:15:13,080 --> 00:15:17,600
Speaker 2: in Europe, like John Rahm, are certainly less incentivized to

257
00:15:17,680 --> 00:15:21,840
Speaker 2: go support their national opens. John ram consistently goes back

258
00:15:21,840 --> 00:15:26,480
Speaker 2: to Spain every year, plays in the Spanish Open, plays

259
00:15:26,480 --> 00:15:33,120
Speaker 2: often in the Andalusian Masters, and makes those events a

260
00:15:33,680 --> 00:15:37,960
Speaker 2: much higher profile deal than they would be if he

261
00:15:38,000 --> 00:15:40,560
Speaker 2: didn't show up because he is a major, major star.

262
00:15:41,800 --> 00:15:44,400
Speaker 2: I think that we want those players to do that.

263
00:15:45,120 --> 00:15:47,760
Speaker 2: But the question is to go back to your point

264
00:15:47,920 --> 00:15:54,800
Speaker 2: whether the OWGR should be in the business of promoting players.

265
00:15:54,480 --> 00:15:56,880
Speaker 1: To do that. Yeah, and I will come back to

266
00:15:56,920 --> 00:15:58,720
Speaker 1: that in a second. I want to address one thing

267
00:15:58,800 --> 00:16:01,800
Speaker 1: you said on the I should John Rahm go and

268
00:16:01,840 --> 00:16:04,240
Speaker 1: play in some of these events that he supported over

269
00:16:04,280 --> 00:16:06,960
Speaker 1: the years. I know I'm kind of annoying about this,

270
00:16:07,040 --> 00:16:10,640
Speaker 1: but just to stay on brand here, part of the

271
00:16:10,680 --> 00:16:13,520
Speaker 1: issue is that the FedEx Cup incentivizes you to play

272
00:16:13,560 --> 00:16:16,960
Speaker 1: as much PGA Tour golf as possible. Right, Yes, And

273
00:16:17,040 --> 00:16:20,160
Speaker 1: so if you're already if John Ram has to deal

274
00:16:20,200 --> 00:16:22,680
Speaker 1: with that, right that, if I want to win the

275
00:16:22,720 --> 00:16:24,480
Speaker 1: FedEx Cup, I need to be playing in as many

276
00:16:24,520 --> 00:16:28,880
Speaker 1: events as possible. And you're telling him we're already having

277
00:16:29,120 --> 00:16:31,840
Speaker 1: an issue getting him to show up to the Spanish Open,

278
00:16:31,960 --> 00:16:35,480
Speaker 1: or you could Australian Open. Now there's even less of

279
00:16:35,480 --> 00:16:39,640
Speaker 1: an incentive to show up plus travel. Right, you can

280
00:16:39,680 --> 00:16:43,760
Speaker 1: see how these changes would make it even more difficult

281
00:16:43,800 --> 00:16:45,320
Speaker 1: to get some of these top players to show up

282
00:16:45,320 --> 00:16:48,720
Speaker 1: in some of those events. But to more directly answer

283
00:16:48,760 --> 00:16:52,120
Speaker 1: your question of do I think that's the role of

284
00:16:52,160 --> 00:16:55,920
Speaker 1: the official World Golf rankings to promote golf globally in

285
00:16:55,960 --> 00:16:59,120
Speaker 1: the health of all of these global tours, I don't

286
00:16:59,120 --> 00:17:01,440
Speaker 1: know that I have this strongest opinion on it, but

287
00:17:01,480 --> 00:17:03,680
Speaker 1: you could sell me that the answer is yes, Because

288
00:17:03,720 --> 00:17:07,399
Speaker 1: if it's not them, who is it not saying that

289
00:17:07,400 --> 00:17:10,760
Speaker 1: that's necessarily my opinion. I see both sides of this argument,

290
00:17:11,960 --> 00:17:15,480
Speaker 1: but I do think it does drive the health of

291
00:17:15,520 --> 00:17:18,680
Speaker 1: these tours, and if there's not another governing body that's

292
00:17:18,720 --> 00:17:22,399
Speaker 1: overseeing this, there has to be a cohesiveness to the

293
00:17:22,440 --> 00:17:25,160
Speaker 1: tours and what incentives it's providing top players. Because we're

294
00:17:25,160 --> 00:17:26,960
Speaker 1: telling John Ram, hey, we want you to stay on

295
00:17:27,000 --> 00:17:29,160
Speaker 1: the PGA Tour, we don't want you to join live,

296
00:17:29,680 --> 00:17:32,560
Speaker 1: but you're also telling you're also not providing him a

297
00:17:32,600 --> 00:17:36,200
Speaker 1: clean infrastructure to play in the events that he wants

298
00:17:36,240 --> 00:17:40,560
Speaker 1: to play in and be rewarded appropriately. So personally, and

299
00:17:40,640 --> 00:17:42,080
Speaker 1: I could be wrong, I don't want to put words

300
00:17:42,080 --> 00:17:44,439
Speaker 1: in John Ram's mouth. I think part of the reason

301
00:17:44,480 --> 00:17:46,640
Speaker 1: he has such an issue with the new official World

302
00:17:46,640 --> 00:17:52,040
Speaker 1: Golf rankings is less of a methodology tension and more

303
00:17:52,160 --> 00:17:56,160
Speaker 1: him not appreciating the golf landscape that's been laid out

304
00:17:56,160 --> 00:17:58,680
Speaker 1: for him that has some flaws and the incentives it provides.

305
00:17:58,880 --> 00:18:02,800
Speaker 1: That's my personal opinion, but that is sort of where

306
00:18:02,800 --> 00:18:03,600
Speaker 1: I stand.

307
00:18:04,119 --> 00:18:08,080
Speaker 2: And part of John Rahm's specific problem with all of

308
00:18:08,119 --> 00:18:12,320
Speaker 2: this certainly must have to do with the new emerging

309
00:18:12,359 --> 00:18:16,359
Speaker 2: PGA Tour requirements that top players play in a certain

310
00:18:16,440 --> 00:18:20,439
Speaker 2: number of elevated PGA Tour events exactly, and so you know,

311
00:18:20,600 --> 00:18:24,320
Speaker 2: his grievance is probably more broad than just what's going

312
00:18:24,320 --> 00:18:28,439
Speaker 2: on with the OWGR, But the new OWGR formula and

313
00:18:28,480 --> 00:18:32,000
Speaker 2: the effect that it has on secondary tours might have

314
00:18:32,200 --> 00:18:35,400
Speaker 2: just been kind of a further twist of the knife.

315
00:18:35,800 --> 00:18:38,960
Speaker 2: Now for John Rams specifically, and for European tour players

316
00:18:39,520 --> 00:18:44,439
Speaker 2: European sorry born players as well. One of the issues

317
00:18:44,520 --> 00:18:46,479
Speaker 2: is that they have to play in a certain number

318
00:18:46,560 --> 00:18:50,320
Speaker 2: of dp World Tour only events in order to qualify

319
00:18:50,359 --> 00:18:52,360
Speaker 2: for the Ryder Cup. So they have to do this anyway,

320
00:18:53,080 --> 00:18:56,080
Speaker 2: and American players on the PGA Tour don't have the

321
00:18:56,119 --> 00:18:59,680
Speaker 2: same requirement, and so really, you know, they're being kind

322
00:18:59,720 --> 00:19:04,679
Speaker 2: of pushed in different ways. The new overall requirements of

323
00:19:04,720 --> 00:19:08,480
Speaker 2: the PGA Tour, the OWGR formula, all of it seems

324
00:19:08,480 --> 00:19:13,120
Speaker 2: to be affecting European born players in worse ways than

325
00:19:13,320 --> 00:19:17,280
Speaker 2: American players, and arguably also affecting players who were born,

326
00:19:17,480 --> 00:19:21,000
Speaker 2: say in Australia or South Africa or Japan or in

327
00:19:21,080 --> 00:19:25,040
Speaker 2: another Asian country worse than it affects American born players.

328
00:19:25,040 --> 00:19:27,720
Speaker 2: It's all kind of part of the same change in

329
00:19:27,760 --> 00:19:30,960
Speaker 2: the world of golf in this live era. Now. Uh.

330
00:19:31,760 --> 00:19:35,399
Speaker 2: One point that I have always been confused about with

331
00:19:35,480 --> 00:19:40,040
Speaker 2: this is that the OWGR governing Board consists of the

332
00:19:40,040 --> 00:19:44,760
Speaker 2: following people. There's the chairman of it, Peter Dawson, There's

333
00:19:44,800 --> 00:19:49,479
Speaker 2: a representative from Augusta National. There's Keith Pelley, the CEO

334
00:19:49,680 --> 00:19:53,960
Speaker 2: of the dp World Tour. There's Sethwah of the PGA

335
00:19:54,040 --> 00:19:57,399
Speaker 2: of America. There's j Monahan of the PGA Tour, Martin

336
00:19:57,440 --> 00:20:00,719
Speaker 2: Slumbers of the RNA, Mike Wan of the USGA, and

337
00:20:00,760 --> 00:20:05,440
Speaker 2: a representative of the International Federation of PGA Tours. When

338
00:20:05,960 --> 00:20:10,160
Speaker 2: coming up with this new formula, where in the world

339
00:20:10,760 --> 00:20:14,360
Speaker 2: was Keith Pelly, Where was Martin Slumbers of the RNA.

340
00:20:14,960 --> 00:20:18,280
Speaker 2: Where was the International Federation of the PGA Tours. Maybe

341
00:20:18,280 --> 00:20:20,520
Speaker 2: I just don't understand the process very well, but I'm

342
00:20:20,560 --> 00:20:25,320
Speaker 2: baffled as to why they Maybe they did raise an objection,

343
00:20:26,280 --> 00:20:28,440
Speaker 2: but I'm a little confused as to how this new

344
00:20:28,480 --> 00:20:31,880
Speaker 2: formula could get by this committee. I mean, JAYE. Monahan

345
00:20:31,960 --> 00:20:35,399
Speaker 2: is on there, yes, and he benefits from this, but

346
00:20:35,480 --> 00:20:38,600
Speaker 2: I'm not sure who else on the committee would have

347
00:20:38,640 --> 00:20:41,120
Speaker 2: been like, yeah, this is this is a great idea.

348
00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:44,880
Speaker 2: You know that they're supposed to be representing the interests

349
00:20:44,880 --> 00:20:47,880
Speaker 2: of their tours and their organizations, and for a lot

350
00:20:47,920 --> 00:20:51,720
Speaker 2: of them, this new formula doesn't seem to serve those interests.

351
00:20:52,000 --> 00:20:54,480
Speaker 1: Well, I think you could spin it and you could say, well,

352
00:20:55,080 --> 00:20:59,560
Speaker 1: we're removing bias from a system. We should all everyone

353
00:20:59,560 --> 00:21:02,320
Speaker 1: at this table should agree that there shouldn't be bias

354
00:21:02,440 --> 00:21:06,600
Speaker 1: baked into the system. Therefore, what is your objection? And

355
00:21:06,640 --> 00:21:09,760
Speaker 1: that becomes a little bit of a difficult position to

356
00:21:09,800 --> 00:21:13,920
Speaker 1: put somebody like Keith Pelly in to actually make him

357
00:21:14,040 --> 00:21:16,960
Speaker 1: answer that question. But I think what you're bringing up

358
00:21:17,480 --> 00:21:20,600
Speaker 1: is kind of a natural transition to one point that

359
00:21:20,680 --> 00:21:23,199
Speaker 1: I had wanted to bring up, which I don't know

360
00:21:23,200 --> 00:21:27,840
Speaker 1: how incendiary I want to be here. But if the

361
00:21:27,880 --> 00:21:31,399
Speaker 1: official with golf rankings, the new methodology, if the point

362
00:21:31,400 --> 00:21:35,480
Speaker 1: of it is purely to remove all bias and to

363
00:21:35,840 --> 00:21:39,560
Speaker 1: just rank players how they should be ranked, why are

364
00:21:39,600 --> 00:21:43,720
Speaker 1: there still minimum points given to the majors into the

365
00:21:43,720 --> 00:21:48,920
Speaker 1: players Championship. I think that's an uncomfortable question for them

366
00:21:48,960 --> 00:21:50,520
Speaker 1: to potentially have to defend.

367
00:21:50,920 --> 00:21:54,000
Speaker 2: Hey, so Joseph wanted me to clarify something here. When

368
00:21:54,000 --> 00:21:57,520
Speaker 2: he said minimum points, what he really meant was that

369
00:21:57,560 --> 00:22:02,440
Speaker 2: the Majors and the Players now get fixed point allocations basically,

370
00:22:02,840 --> 00:22:07,040
Speaker 2: which makes them unique. Because other events get points based

371
00:22:07,040 --> 00:22:09,399
Speaker 2: on their strength of field. That's not the case with

372
00:22:09,480 --> 00:22:12,720
Speaker 2: the Majors and the Players. That's all he was trying

373
00:22:12,720 --> 00:22:14,120
Speaker 2: to say. There, all right, back to it.

374
00:22:14,720 --> 00:22:18,119
Speaker 1: Why if we've tried to remove all of the bias

375
00:22:18,119 --> 00:22:21,119
Speaker 1: from the system, why not just let the system exist

376
00:22:21,200 --> 00:22:23,359
Speaker 1: on its own. Why do we have to give eighty

377
00:22:23,400 --> 00:22:26,560
Speaker 1: first place points to the Players Championship and one hundred

378
00:22:26,600 --> 00:22:29,639
Speaker 1: to the Majors. Why is that distinction being drawn? I

379
00:22:29,720 --> 00:22:32,280
Speaker 1: think I know the answer, which is that they might

380
00:22:32,359 --> 00:22:35,439
Speaker 1: even say, well, we don't want the Players Championship to

381
00:22:35,480 --> 00:22:40,120
Speaker 1: get more points than the Masters, for example, because that.

382
00:22:40,040 --> 00:22:43,679
Speaker 2: Could happen because the field is so much stronger and is.

383
00:22:43,680 --> 00:22:47,639
Speaker 1: A bigger field. So we're actually doing this to prop

384
00:22:47,760 --> 00:22:51,639
Speaker 1: up the majors, designate them explicitly as the pinnacle of golf,

385
00:22:52,000 --> 00:22:55,280
Speaker 1: and make sure that, for example, the Players Championship doesn't

386
00:22:55,280 --> 00:22:59,040
Speaker 1: exceed it. But my counter argument to that would be,

387
00:23:00,080 --> 00:23:04,360
Speaker 1: and you are acknowledging that the Official World Golf Rankings

388
00:23:04,680 --> 00:23:07,880
Speaker 1: is trying to do something beyond the scope of purely

389
00:23:07,960 --> 00:23:11,439
Speaker 1: ranking the players so if you've already broken down that wall,

390
00:23:11,760 --> 00:23:13,560
Speaker 1: then why can't we use it as a way to

391
00:23:13,560 --> 00:23:17,520
Speaker 1: facilitate the growth of golf globally. That is the argument

392
00:23:17,560 --> 00:23:19,720
Speaker 1: that I would start to bring up, and I think

393
00:23:19,760 --> 00:23:22,920
Speaker 1: it's it gets into a lot of difficult conversations about

394
00:23:22,960 --> 00:23:25,000
Speaker 1: what the purpose of the Official World Golf Rankings is.

395
00:23:25,080 --> 00:23:27,119
Speaker 2: Does that make sense that I've done that? Absolutely, that

396
00:23:27,160 --> 00:23:30,240
Speaker 2: makes sense. Well, basically you're using the logic, the new

397
00:23:30,280 --> 00:23:34,480
Speaker 2: logic of the OWGR against itself by pointing out that, yes,

398
00:23:34,640 --> 00:23:38,000
Speaker 2: it is actually doing something other than just purely ranking

399
00:23:38,040 --> 00:23:43,280
Speaker 2: the players. Because clearly this policy of minimum points for

400
00:23:43,359 --> 00:23:47,120
Speaker 2: the majors and the players is a way to pacify

401
00:23:47,760 --> 00:23:52,399
Speaker 2: objections from Augusta National because the Masters would get hit

402
00:23:52,480 --> 00:23:56,879
Speaker 2: pretty hard by the new formula. In relation to tournaments

403
00:23:56,920 --> 00:23:59,960
Speaker 2: like the Players or the PGA Championship, which have tradition

404
00:24:00,440 --> 00:24:04,520
Speaker 2: had big, very strong fields, the Masters, because of its

405
00:24:04,600 --> 00:24:08,760
Speaker 2: various odd traditions, doesn't have a huge field and has

406
00:24:08,800 --> 00:24:10,600
Speaker 2: a lot of players in that field who aren't the

407
00:24:10,640 --> 00:24:15,200
Speaker 2: strongest players. And so clearly the od WJR Is making

408
00:24:15,240 --> 00:24:19,199
Speaker 2: a compromise on that specific front, but doesn't seem to

409
00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:22,919
Speaker 2: be giving the same consideration to some of the weaker

410
00:24:22,920 --> 00:24:26,119
Speaker 2: tours around the world who might need some help as well.

411
00:24:26,240 --> 00:24:30,600
Speaker 2: So yeah, it's tricky, I mean, and we're not privy

412
00:24:30,640 --> 00:24:33,320
Speaker 2: to all the conversations that this governing board had. I'm

413
00:24:33,320 --> 00:24:36,320
Speaker 2: sure there were many considerations that they went through that

414
00:24:36,359 --> 00:24:39,000
Speaker 2: we haven't gone through. But on its face, it just

415
00:24:39,040 --> 00:24:42,000
Speaker 2: seems like the ODEBJR is making a statement we are

416
00:24:42,119 --> 00:24:44,960
Speaker 2: just a world ranking system except when it comes to

417
00:24:45,000 --> 00:24:47,520
Speaker 2: the except when it comes to the Masters, and we

418
00:24:47,560 --> 00:24:49,480
Speaker 2: don't want to piss those guys off because they'll they'll

419
00:24:49,520 --> 00:24:50,119
Speaker 2: have us murdered.

420
00:24:50,160 --> 00:24:52,040
Speaker 1: And that's where I want to be somewhat cautious with

421
00:24:52,080 --> 00:24:53,920
Speaker 1: what I say, because I'm not privy to any of

422
00:24:53,960 --> 00:24:59,080
Speaker 1: those conversations, and there could be considerations beyond the ones

423
00:24:59,080 --> 00:25:02,520
Speaker 1: that I've come cross and doing independent research. But that

424
00:25:03,080 --> 00:25:05,239
Speaker 1: being said, and this is where I want to be

425
00:25:05,320 --> 00:25:08,959
Speaker 1: careful about how incendiary I want to be. If you

426
00:25:09,040 --> 00:25:12,080
Speaker 1: were live golf and you were trying to build the

427
00:25:12,119 --> 00:25:14,960
Speaker 1: case that there's collusion against you or that there's some

428
00:25:15,080 --> 00:25:19,119
Speaker 1: cooperation between the tours, the PGA Tour specifically, and like

429
00:25:19,160 --> 00:25:23,000
Speaker 1: the official World Golf rankings, this is probably a point

430
00:25:23,000 --> 00:25:24,960
Speaker 1: that I would explore pretty thoroughly.

431
00:25:25,560 --> 00:25:29,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure. Why don't we make an example here

432
00:25:30,040 --> 00:25:31,920
Speaker 2: to give people something to kind of hold on to

433
00:25:32,600 --> 00:25:35,920
Speaker 2: going forward. So, you know, a few weeks ago, the

434
00:25:36,040 --> 00:25:40,080
Speaker 2: DP World Tour Championship on the European Tour happened on

435
00:25:40,200 --> 00:25:43,000
Speaker 2: the same week as the RSM Classic on the PGA Tour.

436
00:25:43,680 --> 00:25:46,879
Speaker 2: The DP World Tour Championship had a fifty player field

437
00:25:47,520 --> 00:25:51,080
Speaker 2: with seven of the top twenty five players in the OWGR.

438
00:25:51,800 --> 00:25:54,280
Speaker 2: The RSM Classic had one hundred and fifty five player

439
00:25:54,280 --> 00:25:57,280
Speaker 2: field with none of the top twenty five players. So

440
00:25:58,400 --> 00:26:01,840
Speaker 2: the winner of the RSM Class got about thirty seven

441
00:26:02,160 --> 00:26:05,600
Speaker 2: OWGR points, whereas the winner of the DP World Tour

442
00:26:05,680 --> 00:26:09,840
Speaker 2: Championship got twenty two points or so. A lot of

443
00:26:09,840 --> 00:26:12,200
Speaker 2: people said, this is unfair. Look at the DP World

444
00:26:12,240 --> 00:26:15,280
Speaker 2: Tour Championship. That's a big event. It's the capstone event

445
00:26:15,680 --> 00:26:18,199
Speaker 2: of the European Tour schedule. The RSM Classic is just

446
00:26:18,240 --> 00:26:22,199
Speaker 2: a fall series, almost hitting Giggle Out on Sea Island.

447
00:26:22,840 --> 00:26:28,480
Speaker 2: This is ridiculous, And on its face that might seem

448
00:26:28,560 --> 00:26:30,960
Speaker 2: to be a legitimate point because just according to the

449
00:26:31,040 --> 00:26:35,680
Speaker 2: eye test, the DP World Tour Championship is a bigger event.

450
00:26:35,800 --> 00:26:39,800
Speaker 2: It's just that a win there is more meaningful than

451
00:26:39,880 --> 00:26:43,280
Speaker 2: a win at the RSM Classic in terms of just

452
00:26:43,440 --> 00:26:46,360
Speaker 2: like legacy and how good it looks on your resume.

453
00:26:47,240 --> 00:26:51,320
Speaker 2: I think it's hard to argue otherwise, but the new

454
00:26:51,359 --> 00:26:54,880
Speaker 2: OWGR system doesn't take those kinds of things into consideration.

455
00:26:56,000 --> 00:27:00,240
Speaker 2: So why was the RSM Classic stronger and do you

456
00:27:00,280 --> 00:27:03,480
Speaker 2: think it should have been or what should people understand

457
00:27:04,119 --> 00:27:09,280
Speaker 2: better about why it was given more status on the OWTR.

458
00:27:10,240 --> 00:27:14,600
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the main thing to understand is that the

459
00:27:14,600 --> 00:27:17,720
Speaker 1: Official World Golf Ranking methodology is really trying to give

460
00:27:17,720 --> 00:27:23,200
Speaker 1: out points based pretty purely on how hard a championship

461
00:27:23,240 --> 00:27:25,520
Speaker 1: is to win. And when there are one hundred and

462
00:27:25,600 --> 00:27:30,280
Speaker 1: fifty five players in an event, many of them you know,

463
00:27:30,400 --> 00:27:32,879
Speaker 1: really strong PGA Tour players. They might not be the

464
00:27:32,920 --> 00:27:34,960
Speaker 1: top ranked players in the world, but there you still

465
00:27:34,960 --> 00:27:38,240
Speaker 1: get one hundred and fifty five really strong players together.

466
00:27:38,840 --> 00:27:42,640
Speaker 1: It's extremely difficult to beat them over a four day period.

467
00:27:42,960 --> 00:27:47,120
Speaker 1: And so the RSM Classic, even if it seems at

468
00:27:47,160 --> 00:27:51,600
Speaker 1: its face easier to win than the DP World Tour Championship,

469
00:27:51,960 --> 00:27:54,919
Speaker 1: it's not necessarily I had the RSM as slightly harder

470
00:27:54,920 --> 00:27:57,000
Speaker 1: to win. I do think that you can make a

471
00:27:57,000 --> 00:28:00,720
Speaker 1: pretty compelling argument that the thirty seven versus the twenty

472
00:28:00,720 --> 00:28:03,159
Speaker 1: two was a little bit wide in terms of how

473
00:28:03,160 --> 00:28:06,240
Speaker 1: those points were given to the winner. So potentially the

474
00:28:06,240 --> 00:28:10,879
Speaker 1: official World Golf Rankings you maybe have could play around

475
00:28:10,960 --> 00:28:13,240
Speaker 1: with their distributions a little bit and shouldn't have given

476
00:28:13,720 --> 00:28:16,720
Speaker 1: the difference between a winning RSM versus winning the DP

477
00:28:16,840 --> 00:28:19,159
Speaker 1: World Tour shouldn't have been as wide as it was.

478
00:28:19,800 --> 00:28:23,520
Speaker 1: But on its face, you have to appreciate that when

479
00:28:23,520 --> 00:28:27,400
Speaker 1: there's a large field, it's going to be rewarded more

480
00:28:27,440 --> 00:28:30,200
Speaker 1: heavily in this new system of the ficial World Golf

481
00:28:30,280 --> 00:28:35,240
Speaker 1: Rankings than the previous And I would say to John

482
00:28:35,359 --> 00:28:37,120
Speaker 1: Rahm and to the others who played in the DP

483
00:28:37,280 --> 00:28:41,200
Speaker 1: World Championship, the system kind of vindicated itself with the

484
00:28:41,280 --> 00:28:44,760
Speaker 1: leader board. Jhon rom Won and the other top players

485
00:28:44,800 --> 00:28:46,960
Speaker 1: in the world. I think five of the seven of

486
00:28:47,000 --> 00:28:48,520
Speaker 1: them finished like in the top six.

487
00:28:49,080 --> 00:28:53,200
Speaker 2: They romped, They beat the rest of the field pretty handily.

488
00:28:53,600 --> 00:28:55,400
Speaker 1: And that's what I'm saying where that there actually are

489
00:28:55,480 --> 00:28:58,560
Speaker 1: these pretty big differences in quality of play between the

490
00:28:58,640 --> 00:29:01,320
Speaker 1: thirtieth best player in that field and the thirtieth best

491
00:29:01,320 --> 00:29:05,000
Speaker 1: player in the RSM Classic. So I actually think the

492
00:29:05,040 --> 00:29:07,800
Speaker 1: Official Golf Rankings didn't end up looking like a bad

493
00:29:07,840 --> 00:29:11,840
Speaker 1: methodology here, contrary to some of the outrage around.

494
00:29:11,600 --> 00:29:17,640
Speaker 2: It, if the OWGR were a completely independent organization, so

495
00:29:17,800 --> 00:29:21,520
Speaker 2: if its governing board did not consist of representatives from

496
00:29:21,560 --> 00:29:25,880
Speaker 2: the various tours that constitute the status quo in the

497
00:29:25,880 --> 00:29:29,080
Speaker 2: golf world right now, if it were instead an utterly

498
00:29:29,240 --> 00:29:37,320
Speaker 2: independent organization, what differences between the new formula and this invented,

499
00:29:37,560 --> 00:29:40,640
Speaker 2: completely independent one do you think there would be?

500
00:29:41,280 --> 00:29:43,360
Speaker 1: I think it would look almost identical to how it

501
00:29:43,360 --> 00:29:45,880
Speaker 1: looks now. The main difference would be that you would

502
00:29:45,880 --> 00:29:49,160
Speaker 1: not have those minimum points given to the majors and

503
00:29:49,160 --> 00:29:52,720
Speaker 1: given to the players championship. Frankly, I think it's pretty

504
00:29:52,720 --> 00:29:55,000
Speaker 1: hard to defend why those exist.

505
00:29:57,600 --> 00:30:01,080
Speaker 3: Now for a quick word from our sponsor, this is

506
00:30:01,080 --> 00:30:04,240
Speaker 3: all about hygiene. Men's hygiene, you know, making sure you're

507
00:30:04,240 --> 00:30:06,960
Speaker 3: a groomed man and below the belt. Trimming tends to

508
00:30:06,960 --> 00:30:10,160
Speaker 3: be a taboo topic, but Meridian is breaking the stigma

509
00:30:10,280 --> 00:30:13,520
Speaker 3: and helping everyone take better care of their bodies. They

510
00:30:13,520 --> 00:30:16,320
Speaker 3: have a new trimmer's the Trimmer Plus. It's got a

511
00:30:16,400 --> 00:30:19,080
Speaker 3: lot of new bells and whistles, features that are uh,

512
00:30:19,240 --> 00:30:23,240
Speaker 3: They're gonna make trimming easier six thousand rpm motor that's

513
00:30:23,400 --> 00:30:28,400
Speaker 3: very fast, flexible ceramic blade anti Nick shavidguard that seems

514
00:30:28,480 --> 00:30:32,760
Speaker 3: really important. It is waterproof also, which which is nice,

515
00:30:32,880 --> 00:30:35,160
Speaker 3: and cordless and ninety minutes a charge, so if you're

516
00:30:35,560 --> 00:30:39,080
Speaker 3: traveling whatever, you can bring it with you and you

517
00:30:39,120 --> 00:30:41,480
Speaker 3: don't have to worry about it it dying on you

518
00:30:41,520 --> 00:30:43,959
Speaker 3: while you're out on the road without the charger. They

519
00:30:43,960 --> 00:30:46,560
Speaker 3: have a nice travel case that I actually use when

520
00:30:46,600 --> 00:30:50,200
Speaker 3: I travel, so I would check it out. Meridian Grooming

521
00:30:50,400 --> 00:30:52,920
Speaker 3: dot com is where you go, and if you use

522
00:30:52,960 --> 00:30:56,000
Speaker 3: the promo code fried Egg, you'll get ten percent off.

523
00:30:56,440 --> 00:30:59,920
Speaker 3: Thank you for Meridian coming back and supporting the show again.

524
00:31:00,400 --> 00:31:02,840
Speaker 3: You could go to Meridian Grooming dot com and check

525
00:31:02,840 --> 00:31:06,600
Speaker 3: out their wide array of grooming products, including their world

526
00:31:06,600 --> 00:31:08,040
Speaker 3: class trimmers.

527
00:31:09,280 --> 00:31:12,240
Speaker 2: All right, let's get into the live stuff. The reason

528
00:31:12,840 --> 00:31:16,840
Speaker 2: Live doesn't have OWGR points right now is that the

529
00:31:16,880 --> 00:31:20,840
Speaker 2: OWGR has certain criteria for membership. Right First of all,

530
00:31:21,520 --> 00:31:25,400
Speaker 2: there's a waiting period before a new tour's application gets approved.

531
00:31:26,000 --> 00:31:29,240
Speaker 2: There are also requirements like the majority of a tour's

532
00:31:29,280 --> 00:31:32,640
Speaker 2: events need to have seventy two holes thirty six hole

533
00:31:32,720 --> 00:31:36,320
Speaker 2: cut field sizes of seventy five or above and so on.

534
00:31:37,240 --> 00:31:39,560
Speaker 2: A tour needs to have an open qualifying process. That's

535
00:31:39,560 --> 00:31:43,480
Speaker 2: another thing. All of these things are, you know, these

536
00:31:43,480 --> 00:31:46,719
Speaker 2: are things that Live doesn't have right now. But before

537
00:31:46,760 --> 00:31:51,960
Speaker 2: we get into like specific criteria, why does the OWGR

538
00:31:52,120 --> 00:31:56,120
Speaker 2: need to have criteria for admission at all? What's the

539
00:31:56,120 --> 00:31:56,920
Speaker 2: logic behind that?

540
00:31:57,520 --> 00:31:59,720
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a great question, and I think with all

541
00:31:59,760 --> 00:32:03,560
Speaker 1: of these type questions it is often useful to go

542
00:32:03,600 --> 00:32:07,440
Speaker 1: to a logical extreme. So the extreme I would present

543
00:32:07,520 --> 00:32:09,800
Speaker 1: you with is if you have a group of fifty

544
00:32:09,800 --> 00:32:13,880
Speaker 1: golfers and they all sign a ten year contract guaranteed

545
00:32:14,840 --> 00:32:16,760
Speaker 1: it's gonna be the same fifty golfers for each of

546
00:32:16,800 --> 00:32:19,880
Speaker 1: the next ten years in these events, how would you

547
00:32:19,960 --> 00:32:23,520
Speaker 1: evaluate the strength of that field in year one? Well,

548
00:32:24,440 --> 00:32:28,600
Speaker 1: you kind of know, based on their current official golf

549
00:32:28,640 --> 00:32:31,360
Speaker 1: ranking and how they've been playing on other tours where

550
00:32:31,360 --> 00:32:33,320
Speaker 1: they should stack up, So doing it in year one

551
00:32:33,800 --> 00:32:36,120
Speaker 1: probably not that big of an issue. But let's say

552
00:32:36,440 --> 00:32:39,600
Speaker 1: this tour is isolated and those players are never going

553
00:32:39,880 --> 00:32:43,240
Speaker 1: and playing any other events, how would you evaluate the

554
00:32:43,280 --> 00:32:46,240
Speaker 1: strength of that field in year five? Because now they've

555
00:32:46,240 --> 00:32:48,760
Speaker 1: just been playing against each other for five straight years

556
00:32:48,800 --> 00:32:52,520
Speaker 1: and never participating in another event, there's no overlap between

557
00:32:52,560 --> 00:32:54,960
Speaker 1: them and other tours of the players getting older and

558
00:32:55,000 --> 00:32:57,760
Speaker 1: their performance is starting to drop off, how would we know?

559
00:32:58,640 --> 00:33:03,080
Speaker 1: So the point I'm making is that overlap between tours

560
00:33:03,360 --> 00:33:06,960
Speaker 1: is an integral part of assessing strengths of field, which

561
00:33:06,960 --> 00:33:09,240
Speaker 1: is kind of why we started the discussion there. And

562
00:33:09,280 --> 00:33:12,600
Speaker 1: so there needs to be some adherence to standards so

563
00:33:12,640 --> 00:33:15,200
Speaker 1: that we can rank these players properly. Now, is all

564
00:33:15,240 --> 00:33:21,240
Speaker 1: the criteria necessary? I think reasonable minds can argue that point,

565
00:33:21,400 --> 00:33:23,320
Speaker 1: But I think it's hard to argue that there doesn't

566
00:33:23,360 --> 00:33:25,880
Speaker 1: need to be adherence to any criteria at.

567
00:33:25,800 --> 00:33:29,880
Speaker 2: All, because you just let chaos in and so you're

568
00:33:29,960 --> 00:33:33,080
Speaker 2: essentially forced as a world ranking system to come up

569
00:33:33,120 --> 00:33:38,040
Speaker 2: with criteria of some kind. Otherwise it would just be

570
00:33:38,120 --> 00:33:42,400
Speaker 2: a free for all and it would be absurd. And

571
00:33:42,440 --> 00:33:45,520
Speaker 2: so the folks who are saying why are these criteria

572
00:33:45,840 --> 00:33:49,360
Speaker 2: there in the first place, Well, there seems to be

573
00:33:49,600 --> 00:33:53,920
Speaker 2: a pretty solid reason why certain criteria need to exist.

574
00:33:53,920 --> 00:33:58,600
Speaker 2: And these criteria need to define what a real golf

575
00:33:58,600 --> 00:34:05,880
Speaker 2: event looks like. So which requirements along those lines FORWGR

576
00:34:05,920 --> 00:34:09,640
Speaker 2: points do you think are actually important? You know, in

577
00:34:09,760 --> 00:34:12,440
Speaker 2: defining a legitimate golf event.

578
00:34:13,400 --> 00:34:14,840
Speaker 1: It's a good question. I mean, to be honest, I

579
00:34:14,840 --> 00:34:18,160
Speaker 1: think the only the spirit of the only requirement that

580
00:34:18,320 --> 00:34:20,840
Speaker 1: I may have would have to do with overlap. So

581
00:34:21,239 --> 00:34:23,080
Speaker 1: we need a way for new players to get onto

582
00:34:23,080 --> 00:34:26,239
Speaker 1: your tour and for your players to be participating in

583
00:34:26,280 --> 00:34:32,719
Speaker 1: other tours. I think other parts like field size could

584
00:34:32,760 --> 00:34:35,239
Speaker 1: be important. You don't have three person tour like that

585
00:34:35,280 --> 00:34:40,239
Speaker 1: wouldn't make any sense. But could you rank players even

586
00:34:40,239 --> 00:34:43,520
Speaker 1: if you didn't adhere to all this criteria? Yes, So

587
00:34:43,640 --> 00:34:47,040
Speaker 1: for example, like having a cut, I don't think is necessary.

588
00:34:47,160 --> 00:34:49,680
Speaker 1: I don't see why to rank players you need to

589
00:34:49,719 --> 00:34:53,879
Speaker 1: have a cut personally, right, there's nothing preventing you from

590
00:34:53,960 --> 00:34:56,600
Speaker 1: rating players performance in a no cut event.

591
00:34:57,320 --> 00:34:57,560
Speaker 2: Yeah.

592
00:34:57,640 --> 00:35:00,120
Speaker 1: So the only criteria that I would say is necessary

593
00:35:00,200 --> 00:35:03,319
Speaker 1: is has to do with the flow of players and

594
00:35:03,440 --> 00:35:04,840
Speaker 1: having an interconnected system.

595
00:35:05,400 --> 00:35:08,840
Speaker 2: Well, and if you had an eighteen hole tour event

596
00:35:09,520 --> 00:35:13,200
Speaker 2: with a four player field, then it just wouldn't get

597
00:35:13,200 --> 00:35:16,200
Speaker 2: many points, right, Maybe it could get o WGR points,

598
00:35:16,640 --> 00:35:19,040
Speaker 2: but it would get so few that it would be

599
00:35:19,120 --> 00:35:23,319
Speaker 2: totally insignificant. That's kind of an extreme example, but that's

600
00:35:23,360 --> 00:35:26,399
Speaker 2: sort of what the new system allows to happen. Right,

601
00:35:26,440 --> 00:35:30,400
Speaker 2: You can have a sliding scale of you know, different

602
00:35:30,480 --> 00:35:35,360
Speaker 2: quality events, and if it's not a fairly big field

603
00:35:35,840 --> 00:35:38,360
Speaker 2: seventy two hole event, then it's just not going to

604
00:35:38,440 --> 00:35:43,000
Speaker 2: get significant world ranking points in a way that's going

605
00:35:43,040 --> 00:35:45,040
Speaker 2: to upset the world order of golf.

606
00:35:45,600 --> 00:35:48,440
Speaker 1: Right, And you're saying that's an extreme example, eighteen holes

607
00:35:48,480 --> 00:35:50,400
Speaker 1: four players, But I actually think that's the way you

608
00:35:50,440 --> 00:35:52,759
Speaker 1: should go about this thought exercise is taking it to

609
00:35:52,800 --> 00:35:56,880
Speaker 1: extremes to understand why the criteria is in place. I

610
00:35:56,920 --> 00:35:59,640
Speaker 1: think it's reasonable for them to insist that a tournament

611
00:35:59,640 --> 00:36:02,040
Speaker 1: needs to be of a certain length. I don't think

612
00:36:02,120 --> 00:36:05,560
Speaker 1: eighteen holes it's so noisy that I don't think eighteen

613
00:36:05,560 --> 00:36:09,320
Speaker 1: holes gives you the best representation of how performance happened,

614
00:36:09,400 --> 00:36:13,239
Speaker 1: especially if, like something there's a weird weather phenomenon that

615
00:36:13,280 --> 00:36:16,719
Speaker 1: has a bigger impact on an eighteen hole sample than

616
00:36:16,760 --> 00:36:18,919
Speaker 1: over seventy two holes. So I think having some length

617
00:36:18,920 --> 00:36:22,880
Speaker 1: of a tournament requirement is reasonable. But some of the

618
00:36:22,880 --> 00:36:25,640
Speaker 1: other requirement, like having a cut, I don't think needs

619
00:36:25,680 --> 00:36:26,560
Speaker 1: to exist.

620
00:36:26,880 --> 00:36:28,920
Speaker 2: And we can talk about cut in a second, but

621
00:36:29,560 --> 00:36:32,560
Speaker 2: fifty four holes, is there anything about that that you

622
00:36:32,640 --> 00:36:37,080
Speaker 2: think is illegitimate or that shouldn't be admissible for the

623
00:36:37,080 --> 00:36:41,440
Speaker 2: OWGR criteria. So you know, just to be clear, fifty

624
00:36:41,480 --> 00:36:45,879
Speaker 2: four hole events do exist on OWGR tours. Events get

625
00:36:45,920 --> 00:36:48,760
Speaker 2: OWGR points that have fifty four holes, but in general

626
00:36:49,160 --> 00:36:52,040
Speaker 2: a tour needs to have kind of an average of

627
00:36:52,120 --> 00:36:55,280
Speaker 2: seventy two holes or a majority of its events being

628
00:36:55,360 --> 00:36:59,000
Speaker 2: seventy two holes in order to be admitted to the

629
00:36:59,040 --> 00:37:04,000
Speaker 2: OWGR and so Live currently because it holds only fifty

630
00:37:04,000 --> 00:37:07,799
Speaker 2: four whole events does not meet that criterion. So do

631
00:37:07,840 --> 00:37:11,040
Speaker 2: you think fifty four holes is too noisy in order

632
00:37:11,120 --> 00:37:13,440
Speaker 2: to get ob JR points or is that enough?

633
00:37:14,000 --> 00:37:16,120
Speaker 1: If it were so impermissible, then I don't think we'd

634
00:37:16,120 --> 00:37:19,560
Speaker 1: count fifty four hole tournaments that were shortened due to

635
00:37:19,600 --> 00:37:23,200
Speaker 1: weather as wins, right, And I think there are some

636
00:37:23,239 --> 00:37:26,680
Speaker 1: instances where they haven't counted as official wins. But my

637
00:37:26,719 --> 00:37:28,560
Speaker 1: point would be, I think you can rank players based

638
00:37:28,600 --> 00:37:31,040
Speaker 1: on fifty four holes. If you said it had to

639
00:37:31,080 --> 00:37:33,040
Speaker 1: be seventy two, well why is it seventy two? Why

640
00:37:33,080 --> 00:37:36,120
Speaker 1: isn't it ninety or one hundred and eight? Like obviously,

641
00:37:36,160 --> 00:37:40,080
Speaker 1: the more holes you have, the higher quality of a

642
00:37:40,120 --> 00:37:42,200
Speaker 1: winner you should expect to rise to the top, But

643
00:37:42,920 --> 00:37:46,440
Speaker 1: why seventy two versus ninety versus one hundred and eighth

644
00:37:46,520 --> 00:37:48,279
Speaker 1: versus fifty four. I think you could do it with

645
00:37:48,320 --> 00:37:51,200
Speaker 1: fifty four, even if it's a little bit noisier. You

646
00:37:51,200 --> 00:37:53,880
Speaker 1: could just penalize that by giving fewer points. So I

647
00:37:53,880 --> 00:37:57,600
Speaker 1: think it's possible. There are other things live is not

648
00:37:57,640 --> 00:38:01,360
Speaker 1: adhering to that are bigger issues. But I think there's

649
00:38:01,480 --> 00:38:03,719
Speaker 1: a world where you could give points to a tour

650
00:38:03,760 --> 00:38:05,320
Speaker 1: that only has fifty four whole events.

651
00:38:05,680 --> 00:38:08,680
Speaker 2: Okay, the cut issue, why do you think it is

652
00:38:09,680 --> 00:38:14,399
Speaker 2: that a cut is required in the criteria. I find

653
00:38:14,400 --> 00:38:15,279
Speaker 2: that to be an odd one.

654
00:38:16,239 --> 00:38:18,319
Speaker 1: I'm honestly not sure, and I know that you pose

655
00:38:18,360 --> 00:38:21,520
Speaker 1: this question before, like what benefit does a cut provide

656
00:38:21,840 --> 00:38:23,959
Speaker 1: to a golf tournament? I think there are reasons why

657
00:38:24,000 --> 00:38:28,359
Speaker 1: a cut is a cool feature of a tournament, but

658
00:38:28,400 --> 00:38:32,560
Speaker 1: in terms of that being an obstacle to ranking players objectively,

659
00:38:33,080 --> 00:38:35,480
Speaker 1: I don't think that a cut is necessary. So I

660
00:38:35,520 --> 00:38:39,240
Speaker 1: can't speak exactly to what the rationale is behind requiring

661
00:38:39,280 --> 00:38:41,680
Speaker 1: a cut. Maybe it's just that it's within the spirit

662
00:38:41,719 --> 00:38:45,359
Speaker 1: of golf to have something like that, but I don't

663
00:38:45,360 --> 00:38:47,879
Speaker 1: think it's necessary personally. I could be somebody could present

664
00:38:47,920 --> 00:38:51,120
Speaker 1: account your argument that I'm open minded about accepting, so

665
00:38:51,800 --> 00:38:55,040
Speaker 1: would be happy to hear from from the proponents of

666
00:38:55,320 --> 00:38:57,040
Speaker 1: having a cut to rank players, But no, you can

667
00:38:57,120 --> 00:38:58,760
Speaker 1: rank a player without having a cut.

668
00:38:59,440 --> 00:39:01,560
Speaker 2: It does seem like a spirit of the game thing,

669
00:39:02,280 --> 00:39:05,440
Speaker 2: which I kind of endorse. I think I've come to

670
00:39:05,480 --> 00:39:08,480
Speaker 2: think that cuts are a pretty good part of a

671
00:39:08,520 --> 00:39:13,080
Speaker 2: golf tournament. But like you, I don't really see why

672
00:39:13,760 --> 00:39:16,960
Speaker 2: having a cut would facilitate ranking players. If the purpose

673
00:39:16,960 --> 00:39:20,040
Speaker 2: of the OWGR is just to rank players and not

674
00:39:20,080 --> 00:39:22,799
Speaker 2: to defend the spirit of the game, then I'm not

675
00:39:22,840 --> 00:39:25,160
Speaker 2: sure why a cut is there now. The reason that

676
00:39:25,239 --> 00:39:27,799
Speaker 2: I think cuts can be good is that they do

677
00:39:28,000 --> 00:39:32,359
Speaker 2: introduce a little bit of intensity and demand. It just

678
00:39:32,520 --> 00:39:36,000
Speaker 2: makes a tournament more of a challenge, and it makes

679
00:39:36,000 --> 00:39:39,759
Speaker 2: it so that players who are not bringing it immediately

680
00:39:41,080 --> 00:39:44,360
Speaker 2: just get ejected from the tournament, don't get any money,

681
00:39:44,400 --> 00:39:48,000
Speaker 2: don't get any points. And there's like a kind of

682
00:39:48,040 --> 00:39:51,239
Speaker 2: fairness to that because it facilitates getting those players who

683
00:39:51,280 --> 00:39:54,880
Speaker 2: are just missing cut after cut after cut off the tour.

684
00:39:55,520 --> 00:39:58,040
Speaker 2: Because if you aren't making cuts, then you shouldn't be

685
00:39:58,080 --> 00:40:00,360
Speaker 2: on the tour. There should be other people on there

686
00:40:00,719 --> 00:40:04,759
Speaker 2: who are making cuts, right and who are competing at

687
00:40:04,760 --> 00:40:08,239
Speaker 2: a high level in every round. So I like the

688
00:40:08,320 --> 00:40:11,280
Speaker 2: fact that cuts are there in a majority of big

689
00:40:11,320 --> 00:40:16,920
Speaker 2: time events, But again, I don't really see why it's

690
00:40:16,960 --> 00:40:20,360
Speaker 2: necessary for ranking players, and so the fact that the

691
00:40:20,400 --> 00:40:24,440
Speaker 2: ODWGR has it as one of its criteria is a

692
00:40:24,480 --> 00:40:25,400
Speaker 2: little bit confusing.

693
00:40:25,440 --> 00:40:28,200
Speaker 1: I guess yeah, And look from an entertainment perspective, I

694
00:40:28,239 --> 00:40:31,440
Speaker 1: think there's a huge benefit to having players sitting on

695
00:40:31,480 --> 00:40:35,680
Speaker 1: the couch while their fellow PGA Tour players are hoisting

696
00:40:35,719 --> 00:40:37,719
Speaker 1: a trophy on Sunday because they missed the cut. Like,

697
00:40:38,000 --> 00:40:39,880
Speaker 1: you don't have to sell me on that being of

698
00:40:39,960 --> 00:40:42,399
Speaker 1: benefit to the game of golf. But it goes back

699
00:40:42,400 --> 00:40:44,960
Speaker 1: to the central question of what is the role of

700
00:40:45,000 --> 00:40:48,560
Speaker 1: the Official World Golf Rankings Because they're not it's not

701
00:40:48,760 --> 00:40:52,960
Speaker 1: explicitly mentioned that part of their mission is to facilitate

702
00:40:53,000 --> 00:40:56,480
Speaker 1: the entertainment of golf worldwide, it's to rank players. So

703
00:40:56,640 --> 00:40:58,480
Speaker 1: it just everything we're going to talk about is going

704
00:40:58,520 --> 00:41:00,520
Speaker 1: to go back to that question. That's the role of

705
00:41:00,520 --> 00:41:02,279
Speaker 1: the Official World Golf Rankings, and that's why it's such

706
00:41:02,320 --> 00:41:03,880
Speaker 1: an important question to answer.

707
00:41:04,840 --> 00:41:08,400
Speaker 2: Do you think if Live stays in its current form

708
00:41:08,600 --> 00:41:14,640
Speaker 2: an invitational fifty four holes, no cut, fields of forty

709
00:41:14,680 --> 00:41:19,480
Speaker 2: eight team golf. If it sticks with that, do you

710
00:41:19,480 --> 00:41:22,239
Speaker 2: think it should ever get OWGR points.

711
00:41:22,719 --> 00:41:26,239
Speaker 1: If it's an isolated entity. No. If there is this

712
00:41:27,000 --> 00:41:31,239
Speaker 1: constant players are locked into contracts. Therefore they're getting a

713
00:41:31,239 --> 00:41:33,520
Speaker 1: bunch of guaranteed starts, and it's hard for somebody to

714
00:41:33,640 --> 00:41:36,839
Speaker 1: enter the system. There's no guarantees that those players are

715
00:41:36,840 --> 00:41:39,320
Speaker 1: going to be playing a significant number of non live events,

716
00:41:39,760 --> 00:41:41,800
Speaker 1: then no, I do not believe Live should get Official

717
00:41:41,800 --> 00:41:44,960
Speaker 1: World Golf Ranking points. If it's a much more open

718
00:41:45,080 --> 00:41:47,680
Speaker 1: qualification and you have those players playing a lot of

719
00:41:47,719 --> 00:41:50,520
Speaker 1: other tournaments worldwide so that there's enough overlap you can

720
00:41:50,560 --> 00:41:53,279
Speaker 1: consistently rank the strengths of field even if they don't

721
00:41:53,280 --> 00:41:55,480
Speaker 1: have a cut, then yes, I would be fine on

722
00:41:55,960 --> 00:41:58,840
Speaker 1: Live receiving Official World Golf Rankings points. There needs to

723
00:41:58,880 --> 00:42:04,040
Speaker 1: be in sured encoded some level of interconnectedness between Live

724
00:42:04,120 --> 00:42:06,280
Speaker 1: and other golf tours, and that kind of runs against

725
00:42:06,280 --> 00:42:08,320
Speaker 1: the spirit of the entity that they're trying to create.

726
00:42:08,760 --> 00:42:12,239
Speaker 1: So there are some philosophical differences between how Live views

727
00:42:12,280 --> 00:42:16,000
Speaker 1: itself and how another tour that's a participant within the

728
00:42:16,040 --> 00:42:19,040
Speaker 1: Official World Golf Rankings views itself, and that's what needs

729
00:42:19,080 --> 00:42:19,600
Speaker 1: to change.

730
00:42:20,160 --> 00:42:23,960
Speaker 2: So this interconnectedness between live and other tours, what are

731
00:42:24,000 --> 00:42:29,240
Speaker 2: the main institutions through which that can be made to happen.

732
00:42:29,960 --> 00:42:32,440
Speaker 1: Yeah, it has to be some form of open qualification,

733
00:42:32,520 --> 00:42:35,359
Speaker 1: and I think you'd almost have to have. Ideally you'd

734
00:42:35,360 --> 00:42:38,359
Speaker 1: have non live players playing in live tour events so

735
00:42:38,440 --> 00:42:41,319
Speaker 1: you could get a feel for how people are stacking up,

736
00:42:41,320 --> 00:42:46,640
Speaker 1: but that's not necessarily practical. But yes, the answer here

737
00:42:46,680 --> 00:42:49,680
Speaker 1: is that it's some form of open qualification and ensuring

738
00:42:49,680 --> 00:42:53,040
Speaker 1: that there's overlap between those players and the players on

739
00:42:53,080 --> 00:42:55,279
Speaker 1: live and the players that are on every other tour

740
00:42:55,320 --> 00:42:55,760
Speaker 1: in the world.

741
00:42:56,719 --> 00:42:59,040
Speaker 2: Do you see that happening with live. I've tried to

742
00:42:59,040 --> 00:43:02,719
Speaker 2: figure this out where I've been trying to think, like

743
00:43:03,280 --> 00:43:06,280
Speaker 2: what would open qualifying look like for a live event.

744
00:43:06,520 --> 00:43:10,280
Speaker 2: Would it be something ridiculous like there are four spots

745
00:43:10,320 --> 00:43:12,880
Speaker 2: and you can qualify for those, or maybe that wouldn't

746
00:43:12,880 --> 00:43:16,080
Speaker 2: be ridiculous. I don't know. How do you think they

747
00:43:16,120 --> 00:43:20,320
Speaker 2: could actually facilitate this given their current structure.

748
00:43:20,600 --> 00:43:22,760
Speaker 1: I think it's difficult because the PGA Tour is imposing

749
00:43:22,800 --> 00:43:24,839
Speaker 1: a ban on players who participate in a live event.

750
00:43:24,920 --> 00:43:28,280
Speaker 1: So even if you have open qualification, if a player

751
00:43:28,360 --> 00:43:31,239
Speaker 1: is on an Asian Tour and they end up qualifying

752
00:43:31,239 --> 00:43:33,560
Speaker 1: and playing. It's not like they'd be bringing a lot

753
00:43:33,560 --> 00:43:36,200
Speaker 1: of points into that live event for live players to

754
00:43:36,239 --> 00:43:39,399
Speaker 1: consume anyway. So it's hard to get to a point

755
00:43:39,440 --> 00:43:43,440
Speaker 1: where live players, by entering the official World Golf Ranking

756
00:43:43,480 --> 00:43:46,600
Speaker 1: ecosystem could start to kind of work their way back up.

757
00:43:46,680 --> 00:43:49,839
Speaker 1: That's very unlikely. So if you're thinking about this from

758
00:43:49,880 --> 00:43:53,840
Speaker 1: like the PGA Tours perspective, the savvy move is to

759
00:43:53,960 --> 00:43:55,960
Speaker 1: just stall this thing as long as possible and then

760
00:43:56,000 --> 00:43:58,760
Speaker 1: give them points because they won't be getting many points anyway,

761
00:43:58,800 --> 00:44:02,399
Speaker 1: So I just thinking of game theory wise, or however

762
00:44:02,400 --> 00:44:04,319
Speaker 1: you want to think about it, that's kind of the

763
00:44:04,360 --> 00:44:07,520
Speaker 1: savvy strategy is just hey, we're reviewing the application and

764
00:44:07,520 --> 00:44:09,279
Speaker 1: then you approve it like a year from now, and

765
00:44:09,400 --> 00:44:11,680
Speaker 1: all their Official World Golf rankings will be down pretty

766
00:44:11,680 --> 00:44:15,120
Speaker 1: far and they're locked into guaranteed contracts, so there aren't

767
00:44:15,120 --> 00:44:16,720
Speaker 1: a lot of new points entering the system.

768
00:44:17,280 --> 00:44:19,440
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that was going to be my next question.

769
00:44:19,600 --> 00:44:22,919
Speaker 2: If Live were to get points, how many points would

770
00:44:22,920 --> 00:44:27,360
Speaker 2: it get and would Live still be a viable pathway

771
00:44:27,400 --> 00:44:30,520
Speaker 2: to the majors, Because that's the big question about OWR points.

772
00:44:30,520 --> 00:44:33,600
Speaker 2: I think that's what players care about. Can I earn

773
00:44:33,840 --> 00:44:37,120
Speaker 2: enough OWGR points at this event or on this tour

774
00:44:37,920 --> 00:44:45,520
Speaker 2: to continue to qualify for majors through the OWGR. Will Live, ever,

775
00:44:46,640 --> 00:44:51,640
Speaker 2: especially under the new formula, be able to offer that pathway.

776
00:44:51,719 --> 00:44:54,200
Speaker 1: It's not likely right now. But one of the ways

777
00:44:54,239 --> 00:44:56,600
Speaker 1: you do that is you bring players. You sign players

778
00:44:56,640 --> 00:45:00,480
Speaker 1: who have a strong stroke skiined world rating to your

779
00:45:00,480 --> 00:45:04,040
Speaker 1: tour once you've become approved, which is part of why

780
00:45:04,080 --> 00:45:05,920
Speaker 1: I thought, like, maybe they'll wait on cam Smith a

781
00:45:05,960 --> 00:45:08,320
Speaker 1: little bit before bringing him over, like, go let him

782
00:45:08,719 --> 00:45:11,839
Speaker 1: keep getting his keeping his official World Golf ranking up.

783
00:45:12,520 --> 00:45:14,520
Speaker 1: I think the other thing this does is it really

784
00:45:14,600 --> 00:45:17,399
Speaker 1: raises the stakes out of major championship. Now, if you're Live,

785
00:45:17,920 --> 00:45:20,120
Speaker 1: you need your guys to go play well in the majors,

786
00:45:20,160 --> 00:45:22,480
Speaker 1: not just from an optics perspective on how strong your

787
00:45:22,480 --> 00:45:25,320
Speaker 1: tour is, but you need them bringing those that strokes

788
00:45:25,320 --> 00:45:29,160
Speaker 1: gained world rating back into your fields. So I don't

789
00:45:29,880 --> 00:45:33,319
Speaker 1: I don't really anticipate a world where Live gets accredited

790
00:45:33,560 --> 00:45:35,920
Speaker 1: and has enough points in their system for players to

791
00:45:35,960 --> 00:45:40,560
Speaker 1: gain entrance into the majors unless they bring When that happens,

792
00:45:40,560 --> 00:45:43,640
Speaker 1: they bring like four really highly rated players over and

793
00:45:43,680 --> 00:45:46,760
Speaker 1: then their own players have decent strokes, gained world ratings

794
00:45:46,760 --> 00:45:49,479
Speaker 1: from majors, and the can kind of start to get

795
00:45:49,480 --> 00:45:52,120
Speaker 1: points that way. But it's going to be an uphill battle.

796
00:45:52,680 --> 00:45:55,520
Speaker 2: Yeah, what do you think the endgame here is for Live?

797
00:45:55,600 --> 00:45:59,879
Speaker 2: If you were making decisions about the future of Live

798
00:46:00,120 --> 00:46:03,800
Speaker 2: as a viable world golf tour where players could play

799
00:46:04,040 --> 00:46:07,719
Speaker 2: on Live full time and also participate in the majors.

800
00:46:08,680 --> 00:46:11,440
Speaker 2: What is the goal, right, Is it to get the

801
00:46:11,440 --> 00:46:14,120
Speaker 2: forty eight best players in the world on the tour

802
00:46:14,239 --> 00:46:17,279
Speaker 2: so that even if they are small field events and

803
00:46:17,320 --> 00:46:21,279
Speaker 2: are getting docked by THEWGR formula, that the fields are

804
00:46:21,320 --> 00:46:24,200
Speaker 2: so strong that players will still get enough points to

805
00:46:24,239 --> 00:46:27,640
Speaker 2: qualify for the majors. Or is the goal to negotiate

806
00:46:27,680 --> 00:46:32,719
Speaker 2: with the majors and establish a non OWGR pathway from

807
00:46:32,840 --> 00:46:36,040
Speaker 2: Live to the Masters, to the PGA Championship to the

808
00:46:36,120 --> 00:46:41,440
Speaker 2: US Open. Do you think that's a more likely outcome

809
00:46:41,880 --> 00:46:46,320
Speaker 2: or strategy for Live to get its players into the majors.

810
00:46:46,560 --> 00:46:48,960
Speaker 1: I mean, you're asking me to put my self in

811
00:46:49,000 --> 00:46:52,000
Speaker 1: the shoes of people that live in those boardrooms, and

812
00:46:52,160 --> 00:46:54,400
Speaker 1: I'm comfortable doing that. Like that is sort of the

813
00:46:54,719 --> 00:46:57,720
Speaker 1: question here. I think and I feel pretty high conviction

814
00:46:57,800 --> 00:47:00,960
Speaker 1: about this without having any knowledge of I've never been

815
00:47:00,960 --> 00:47:03,880
Speaker 1: in contact with Live once. I believe that they are

816
00:47:03,920 --> 00:47:06,640
Speaker 1: saying to themselves, we're going to shift the balance of

817
00:47:06,680 --> 00:47:08,880
Speaker 1: power to where we have the players, or they need

818
00:47:08,880 --> 00:47:12,839
Speaker 1: to negotiate with us, because I don't think they've gone

819
00:47:12,920 --> 00:47:16,000
Speaker 1: too far down the scenarios of how are we an

820
00:47:16,040 --> 00:47:21,040
Speaker 1: integrated body with other tours and what happens if our

821
00:47:21,080 --> 00:47:23,160
Speaker 1: players are playing in their events. I think they're just

822
00:47:23,239 --> 00:47:25,640
Speaker 1: thinking about this as once we have enough top players,

823
00:47:26,080 --> 00:47:29,200
Speaker 1: they have to accommodate us because we are the biggest

824
00:47:29,200 --> 00:47:32,160
Speaker 1: show in town and all of golf can go ahead

825
00:47:32,160 --> 00:47:34,319
Speaker 1: and die. That's fine. People are still going to be

826
00:47:34,360 --> 00:47:38,160
Speaker 1: watching our events. So personally, I think that's what the

827
00:47:38,200 --> 00:47:41,000
Speaker 1: strategy is. I don't think there's any math happening in

828
00:47:41,000 --> 00:47:44,279
Speaker 1: those boardrooms around the new methodology and how what it

829
00:47:44,360 --> 00:47:46,680
Speaker 1: means for when Cam Smith goes up and plays shows

830
00:47:46,719 --> 00:47:49,160
Speaker 1: up and plays the RBC Heritage, if he's ever allowed again.

831
00:47:49,239 --> 00:47:50,600
Speaker 1: I don't think they're worrying about that.

832
00:47:51,360 --> 00:47:54,480
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, they just want to be the center of

833
00:47:54,520 --> 00:47:57,719
Speaker 2: power in the golf world so that if there's a

834
00:47:57,800 --> 00:48:02,400
Speaker 2: new owgr it forms it self around Live instead of

835
00:48:02,440 --> 00:48:05,080
Speaker 2: forming itself around the PGA Tour, which seems to be

836
00:48:05,200 --> 00:48:07,359
Speaker 2: kind of the shape of it right now.

837
00:48:07,719 --> 00:48:09,399
Speaker 1: I think they're trying to say to the official Golf

838
00:48:09,440 --> 00:48:14,200
Speaker 1: rankings like it's it's us or it's obsolescence, right like

839
00:48:14,239 --> 00:48:18,000
Speaker 1: that is I think the ultimately what the card that

840
00:48:18,040 --> 00:48:21,080
Speaker 1: they're trying to play, which makes sense. I mean, that's

841
00:48:21,120 --> 00:48:24,160
Speaker 1: that's a reasonable route to go. But you have to

842
00:48:24,160 --> 00:48:27,120
Speaker 1: be pretty dismissive of a lot of their comments around

843
00:48:27,160 --> 00:48:31,120
Speaker 1: them wanting to be growing the game and a cooperative

844
00:48:31,160 --> 00:48:33,960
Speaker 1: actor if you believe what I believe about what their

845
00:48:34,000 --> 00:48:34,680
Speaker 1: intentions are.

846
00:48:35,040 --> 00:48:41,520
Speaker 2: Yeah, now that raises my last question. You mentioned obsolescence

847
00:48:41,520 --> 00:48:44,040
Speaker 2: for the OWGR, which is which seems to be kind

848
00:48:44,080 --> 00:48:48,160
Speaker 2: of a possibility if you believe in the potential of

849
00:48:48,239 --> 00:48:50,960
Speaker 2: Live to kind of spend its way to the very

850
00:48:51,000 --> 00:48:53,880
Speaker 2: top of the golf world. The OWGR could get really

851
00:48:53,920 --> 00:48:57,239
Speaker 2: marginalized if it doesn't work with Live in that situation.

852
00:48:58,239 --> 00:49:02,000
Speaker 2: But I want to go like a different another counterfactual,

853
00:49:02,400 --> 00:49:06,319
Speaker 2: very speculative. What would happen. What would the world of

854
00:49:06,360 --> 00:49:09,160
Speaker 2: golf look like if we just did away with the

855
00:49:09,160 --> 00:49:12,839
Speaker 2: OWGR tomorrow, if we dissolved it and didn't have World

856
00:49:12,920 --> 00:49:16,400
Speaker 2: ranking points anymore, Would things be worse? Would things be better?

857
00:49:17,040 --> 00:49:19,080
Speaker 1: Well? Yeah, and I think the Official World Golf Rankings

858
00:49:19,120 --> 00:49:21,200
Speaker 1: is pretty safe for now and as long as you

859
00:49:21,200 --> 00:49:23,600
Speaker 1: live doesn't sign too many more top players, right, that's

860
00:49:23,640 --> 00:49:27,839
Speaker 1: the domino that kind of shatters every other domino if

861
00:49:28,080 --> 00:49:31,160
Speaker 1: if that were to happen. I have thought about, like, well,

862
00:49:31,200 --> 00:49:34,360
Speaker 1: what is an alternative to the official World Golf Rankings,

863
00:49:34,400 --> 00:49:36,520
Speaker 1: which is sort of the question you're asking kind of

864
00:49:36,920 --> 00:49:38,919
Speaker 1: like what would it look like? What would the world

865
00:49:38,920 --> 00:49:41,680
Speaker 1: without Official World Golf Rankings look like. I think there's

866
00:49:41,680 --> 00:49:46,360
Speaker 1: a world where you reframe what entrance into the majors

867
00:49:46,400 --> 00:49:48,799
Speaker 1: looks like, and you start to give points based off

868
00:49:48,840 --> 00:49:52,440
Speaker 1: of the tour and maybe instead of staying points like

869
00:49:52,560 --> 00:49:57,440
Speaker 1: spots like hey, Japan tour, historical analysis shows that you

870
00:49:57,560 --> 00:50:00,839
Speaker 1: have one player per year that's of quality to play

871
00:50:00,880 --> 00:50:03,799
Speaker 1: in the Masters. We want to facilitate the growth of

872
00:50:03,840 --> 00:50:05,960
Speaker 1: golf worldwide, so we're going to give you three spots,

873
00:50:06,520 --> 00:50:08,759
Speaker 1: and so you can start to think about entrance into

874
00:50:08,760 --> 00:50:11,120
Speaker 1: the majors based on like how many spots are being

875
00:50:11,600 --> 00:50:14,480
Speaker 1: designated throughout the world, and that kind of props up

876
00:50:14,520 --> 00:50:19,040
Speaker 1: the tours. I think that's possible. I'm not advocating for it,

877
00:50:19,400 --> 00:50:21,759
Speaker 1: but if you're asking me to do the thought exercise

878
00:50:21,800 --> 00:50:25,000
Speaker 1: and what the world could look like without official wood

879
00:50:25,000 --> 00:50:26,959
Speaker 1: golf rankings, that's kind of where my head goes.

880
00:50:27,680 --> 00:50:30,520
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I just think of the majors kind

881
00:50:30,560 --> 00:50:34,880
Speaker 2: of revising their criteria not to include OWGR points.

882
00:50:35,200 --> 00:50:37,120
Speaker 1: But then what purpose is the ficial wood golf rankings

883
00:50:37,120 --> 00:50:37,720
Speaker 1: even serving?

884
00:50:37,760 --> 00:50:41,759
Speaker 2: That's yeah, none, right, I guess that's sort of the point.

885
00:50:42,200 --> 00:50:45,400
Speaker 2: Is that right now the relevance of the OWGR beyond

886
00:50:45,440 --> 00:50:49,080
Speaker 2: just kind of like symbolic. I'm ranked this in the OWGR.

887
00:50:49,160 --> 00:50:52,760
Speaker 2: Maybe it's tied to certain incentives with my sponsors getting

888
00:50:52,920 --> 00:50:56,920
Speaker 2: a particular ranking. Being number one is a really meaningful

889
00:50:56,960 --> 00:50:59,439
Speaker 2: thing that players seem to be bought into. But all

890
00:50:59,480 --> 00:51:03,439
Speaker 2: of that is symbolic stuff, right The main thing right

891
00:51:03,480 --> 00:51:09,120
Speaker 2: now is the interface between the tours, the OWGR, and

892
00:51:09,200 --> 00:51:13,080
Speaker 2: the majors. That's what it is really doing right now,

893
00:51:13,600 --> 00:51:16,759
Speaker 2: and so if you cut that off, then you know,

894
00:51:17,480 --> 00:51:19,760
Speaker 2: why do we have this system in the first place,

895
00:51:20,200 --> 00:51:23,080
Speaker 2: and is it doing any good for the golf world?

896
00:51:23,239 --> 00:51:24,879
Speaker 2: I guess that's the real question I want to ask.

897
00:51:25,120 --> 00:51:27,600
Speaker 2: Do you think the OWGR is good for the golf world.

898
00:51:27,960 --> 00:51:32,080
Speaker 1: I think it serves an important purpose in the golf world. Yes, do.

899
00:51:32,160 --> 00:51:35,319
Speaker 1: I think that those point minimums may have ended up

900
00:51:35,360 --> 00:51:38,120
Speaker 1: serving some benefit on net to the golf world too,

901
00:51:38,160 --> 00:51:40,640
Speaker 1: like maybe to the flagship events so that you get

902
00:51:41,080 --> 00:51:43,799
Speaker 1: some more players into the majors. But that's not really

903
00:51:43,840 --> 00:51:46,840
Speaker 1: the purpose of the Official Golf Rankings. So it's a

904
00:51:46,920 --> 00:51:51,200
Speaker 1: nuanced conversation. I think it's difficult to figure out exactly

905
00:51:51,239 --> 00:51:55,160
Speaker 1: what the optimal system is. But to your point of like, well,

906
00:51:55,440 --> 00:51:58,160
Speaker 1: maybe the Masters then is just going to let create

907
00:51:58,160 --> 00:52:01,359
Speaker 1: some other avenue for live players to get in. Live

908
00:52:01,400 --> 00:52:04,799
Speaker 1: is at to get the Masters, Like I fully believe it,

909
00:52:04,800 --> 00:52:08,440
Speaker 1: Live is trying to disrupt golf in such meaningful ways

910
00:52:08,440 --> 00:52:10,399
Speaker 1: that I'm not sure it's in the Master's best interest

911
00:52:10,480 --> 00:52:15,400
Speaker 1: to cooperate. So that the question, but the Masters was involved.

912
00:52:15,560 --> 00:52:18,000
Speaker 1: They're on the board of the Official World Golf Rankings Committee.

913
00:52:18,000 --> 00:52:22,600
Speaker 1: They none of these changes, these downstream effects of the

914
00:52:22,640 --> 00:52:25,719
Speaker 1: Official with Golf Rankings should be of any surprise to them.

915
00:52:25,880 --> 00:52:29,720
Speaker 1: So personally, I think it's beneficial for all of those

916
00:52:29,920 --> 00:52:33,799
Speaker 1: people in that room to be aligned. And yeah, whether

917
00:52:33,880 --> 00:52:36,640
Speaker 1: or not the Fficial World Golf Rankings is of benefit

918
00:52:36,640 --> 00:52:38,600
Speaker 1: to the world. I think depends on your perspective. I

919
00:52:38,640 --> 00:52:40,840
Speaker 1: would say yes, it is mostly a benefit.

920
00:52:41,640 --> 00:52:43,840
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and I'm just poking at it because

921
00:52:43,880 --> 00:52:46,600
Speaker 2: I'm trying to figure out what are the ways in

922
00:52:46,640 --> 00:52:50,560
Speaker 2: which the OWGR has kind of enmeshed itself in the

923
00:52:50,560 --> 00:52:54,880
Speaker 2: professional golf world. And what I'm finding here is that

924
00:52:54,920 --> 00:52:58,760
Speaker 2: it's like deeply, deeply enmeshed. It's got its tentacles way

925
00:52:58,840 --> 00:53:01,799
Speaker 2: in there. You know, you mentioned the Masters. Why would

926
00:53:01,840 --> 00:53:04,080
Speaker 2: the Masters open up a pathway to live given that

927
00:53:04,800 --> 00:53:07,799
Speaker 2: Augusta National sits on the OWGR board, And that's a

928
00:53:07,840 --> 00:53:13,480
Speaker 2: great point because the OWGR has enmeshed itself with the

929
00:53:13,520 --> 00:53:16,680
Speaker 2: majors in this way, and so it's like this really

930
00:53:17,400 --> 00:53:20,720
Speaker 2: established institution in golf. But the thing is, it didn't

931
00:53:20,760 --> 00:53:24,200
Speaker 2: exist until the eighties, right, It hasn't been around forever.

932
00:53:24,800 --> 00:53:30,480
Speaker 2: And I don't think that the majors had OWGR criteria

933
00:53:30,520 --> 00:53:34,319
Speaker 2: available until even more recently than that. I think it

934
00:53:34,440 --> 00:53:37,920
Speaker 2: happened sometime around the late nineties and early two thousands

935
00:53:38,360 --> 00:53:44,560
Speaker 2: when the majors began to include OWGR qualification as an option,

936
00:53:45,160 --> 00:53:47,759
Speaker 2: and so all of this is pretty recent. But at

937
00:53:47,800 --> 00:53:51,680
Speaker 2: the same time, to disentangle the OWGR from the golf

938
00:53:51,719 --> 00:53:55,200
Speaker 2: world would be really, really difficult at this point, and

939
00:53:55,239 --> 00:53:57,560
Speaker 2: that is kind of what LIVE is trying to do.

940
00:53:58,280 --> 00:54:01,239
Speaker 2: And the only way that it seems like LIV can

941
00:54:01,320 --> 00:54:04,799
Speaker 2: do that is just the brute force of we're going

942
00:54:04,880 --> 00:54:07,200
Speaker 2: to recruit all the best players in the world and

943
00:54:07,239 --> 00:54:10,400
Speaker 2: we're going to start staging our own majors, and the

944
00:54:10,440 --> 00:54:13,440
Speaker 2: rest of the tours, along with the OWGR, which is

945
00:54:13,440 --> 00:54:17,640
Speaker 2: so connected with those tours, would be marginalized. That seems

946
00:54:17,640 --> 00:54:18,839
Speaker 2: to be liv's play here.

947
00:54:19,400 --> 00:54:21,400
Speaker 1: And I guess I'd like to revise my answer to

948
00:54:21,719 --> 00:54:23,880
Speaker 1: what benefit is the Official World Golf Rankings? And I

949
00:54:23,880 --> 00:54:26,359
Speaker 1: don't know how profound this is, but I think the

950
00:54:26,400 --> 00:54:29,920
Speaker 1: benefit of the Official World Golf Rankings is it's providing context,

951
00:54:30,480 --> 00:54:34,959
Speaker 1: and that is across the world, what does this event mean?

952
00:54:35,760 --> 00:54:38,439
Speaker 1: How good are the guys who are playing here? That's

953
00:54:38,480 --> 00:54:41,480
Speaker 1: the question that it's answering. And so when you have

954
00:54:41,560 --> 00:54:43,959
Speaker 1: a major and you say why is this player here, Well,

955
00:54:44,000 --> 00:54:47,719
Speaker 1: that's because he was ranked forty eighth at the end

956
00:54:47,719 --> 00:54:50,439
Speaker 1: of the year. That's why he's here. The Official World

957
00:54:50,480 --> 00:54:53,080
Speaker 1: Golf Rankings are providing context, and I think what you're

958
00:54:53,160 --> 00:54:56,600
Speaker 1: hitting on and why this conversation is difficult and nuanced

959
00:54:57,040 --> 00:55:00,240
Speaker 1: is that by having players on live that aren't ranked,

960
00:55:00,680 --> 00:55:04,480
Speaker 1: we are starting to lose context, and ultimately, context is

961
00:55:04,600 --> 00:55:07,720
Speaker 1: probably the answer to what the official of golf rankings

962
00:55:07,800 --> 00:55:08,320
Speaker 1: is providing.

963
00:55:08,800 --> 00:55:12,279
Speaker 2: All right, Joseph, this was really interesting. Your company is

964
00:55:12,320 --> 00:55:15,680
Speaker 2: called Optimal Approach Golf. Your newsletter is called Finding the Edge.

965
00:55:15,719 --> 00:55:18,319
Speaker 2: I'd highly recommend Finding the Edge. I read every edition

966
00:55:18,360 --> 00:55:21,040
Speaker 2: when it comes out. Thanks for coming on the podcast

967
00:55:21,040 --> 00:55:22,279
Speaker 2: and talk to you again soon.

968
00:55:22,600 --> 00:55:24,000
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for having me us respond.

969
00:55:35,280 --> 00:55:38,040
Speaker 2: This episode of the Frida Egg podcast was edited by

970
00:55:38,120 --> 00:55:40,920
Speaker 2: Meg Atkins. So the big thing going on at the

971
00:55:40,920 --> 00:55:43,960
Speaker 2: Frida Egg right now is that we're launching a membership.

972
00:55:44,080 --> 00:55:47,760
Speaker 2: It's called Club TFE and it's going to involve course

973
00:55:47,800 --> 00:55:51,640
Speaker 2: reviews and ratings. It's going to involve the Club TFE blog.

974
00:55:52,000 --> 00:55:54,280
Speaker 2: There's going to be all sorts of perks to the membership,

975
00:55:54,400 --> 00:55:58,480
Speaker 2: like early access to events and much much more. Check

976
00:55:58,480 --> 00:56:01,400
Speaker 2: out all the details in side up at the fridagg

977
00:56:01,600 --> 00:56:05,560
Speaker 2: dot com slash membership. We're really excited about Club TFE

978
00:56:05,800 --> 00:56:08,520
Speaker 2: and we hope you join us. All right, thanks for listening,

979
00:56:08,760 --> 00:56:09,839
Speaker 2: and we'll see you again soon.