|
|
Post by sludge on Jul 7, 2017 3:42:26 GMT
What if one of those "old timers" was Grace Park?
|
|
|
|
Post by sludge on Jul 7, 2017 3:49:14 GMT
Again, finishing 30 strokes behind the winner kind of shows they aren't ready. Furthermore, selling tickets is a big deal. I doubt that anyone paid to watch Gwladys Nocera golf. And many golfers had a gallery of zero. "They should not be given the spot of a young golfer trying to keep her card." Well, we are being philosophical now. Change the rule, and those last ten or so no longer have any right to golf in the tournament. They will just have to get better. Tough love.  How can they get better if they can't play in a tournament. The same way those ranked, say, 157 through 166 get better. Finishing 30 strokes off the lead while only playing two rounds...........well, how does 50 strokes off the lead sound (if they were allowed to play all four rounds)? Pretty embarrassing. Also, this was a major. It's not a training ground. |
|
|
|
Post by jumpcut on Jul 7, 2017 4:25:52 GMT
I can see both points. But personally I'd rather see young no-names than old has-beens.
Doesn't the JTBC Founders Cup have a foursome of oldtimers playing after the final group on the weekend?
|
|
|
|
Post by mr3putt on Jul 7, 2017 5:47:47 GMT
What if one of those "old timers" was Grace Park? I was think about Grace when I previously posted, but didn't bother to type it out. Grace will still be a hottie at age 60. Maybe on her debut and comeback....she'll sport pantyhose and knee highs that were missing during her playing years. To be honest...I could take or leave.....seeing Mannika, Se Ri and Lorena. |
|
|
|
Post by ponkyplayer on Jul 7, 2017 13:22:39 GMT
What if one of those "old timers" was Grace Park? Case in point. The sponsor has the right to give sponsors exemptions. They very often increase the gate, which improves the tournament. Even if they don't, it is still the perogotive of the sponsor. In any case, no pro golfer can argue with a sponsors exemption, as without the sponsor, nobody gets to play. |
|
|
|
Post by don on Jul 7, 2017 16:24:08 GMT
What if one of those "old timers" was Grace Park? Case in point. The sponsor has the right to give sponsors exemptions. They very often increase the gate, which improves the tournament. Even if they don't, it is still the perogotive of the sponsor. In any case, no pro golfer can argue with a sponsors exemption, as without the sponsor, nobody gets to play. Well you can argue w/ a sponsors exemption when it's demeaning like the shop rite's beauty pageant. |
|
|
|
Post by ponkyplayer on Jul 7, 2017 19:55:01 GMT
Case in point. The sponsor has the right to give sponsors exemptions. They very often increase the gate, which improves the tournament. Even if they don't, it is still the perogotive of the sponsor. In any case, no pro golfer can argue with a sponsors exemption, as without the sponsor, nobody gets to play. Well you can argue w/ a sponsors exemption when it's demeaning like the shop rite's beauty pageant. You can argue all you want, but you have no standing and you will lose. That contest brought lots more eyes to the tournament and was an excellent promo ahead of the event. Every one of the participants was a golfer that was capable. What is good for the sponsor is good for everyone. Bottom line remains the same. The sponsor trumps everything in terms of other arguments, especially on the women's tours. If not for the sponsor, nobody plays because there is no tournament. So argue all you want. |
|
|
|
Post by mr3putt on Jul 7, 2017 20:01:41 GMT
You can argue all you want, but you have no standing and you will lose. That contest brought lots more eyes to the tournament and was an excellent promo ahead of the event. Every one of the participants was a golfer that was capable. What is good for the sponsor is good for everyone. Bottom line remains the same. The sponsor trumps everything in terms of other arguments, especially on the women's tours. If not for the sponsor, nobody plays because there is no tournament. So argue all you want. I agree with ponky....sponsor's money...their decision end of story. If a sponsor wants to invite the IDIOT, Caitlyn Jenner.....it's their money....I will throw up and throw a golf ball at my TV...but the sponsor doesn't care what I'm think. |
|
|
|
Post by ponkyplayer on Jul 7, 2017 20:04:09 GMT
Also, while I understand that some people considered it "demeaning", I heard none of the participants voice such a view.
Therefore, demeaning is in the eyes of the beholder, and is an opinion and not a fact.
If you want to sponsor a tournament, then your opinions count as much as Shop Rite.
|
|
|
|
Post by mr3putt on Jul 7, 2017 21:09:38 GMT
What a GOAT TRACK...even Yani is -7 after 36 holes and well within the cut line.
|
|
|
|
Post by don on Jul 7, 2017 21:37:19 GMT
Also, while I understand that some people considered it "demeaning", I heard none of the participants voice such a view. Therefore, demeaning is in the eyes of the beholder, and is an opinion and not a fact. If you want to sponsor a tournament, then your opinions count as much as Shop Rite. Of course the other players aren't going to rip on the sponsors for doing it. That doesn't mean it wasn't demeaning. Did any of them say they thought it was a great idea either??? Anybody can act like an idiot on Twitter and draw attention to themselves. That doesn't mean they should have done it. And nobody is arguing they CAN'T do it. People are arguing they SHOULDN'T do it. |
|
|
|
Post by fourwaymiss on Jul 7, 2017 21:40:43 GMT
It goes without saying that our opinions "do not count", as in we don't write the checks.
But we are still entitled to our opinions. That's kind of the whole point of having a discussion board.
|
|
|
|
Post by fourwaymiss on Jul 7, 2017 21:59:47 GMT
Invites to eye candies is an standard and accepted practice in women's golf. But this Instagram voting thing is pushing the envelope.
Anything further you risk blowback from the LPGA players and turning the event into a freak show.
|
|
|
|
Post by don on Jul 7, 2017 22:05:49 GMT
It goes without saying that our opinions "do not count", as in we don't write the checks. But we are still entitled to our opinions. That's kind of the whole point of having a discussion board. They do too count. Our business is the reason Shop Rite can write a check at all. I mean your point is that we don't count as individuals but the market never reacts as just one individual at a time. Many ppl though that it was tasteless and demeaning and anybody with any sense. I'm sure it was some business school bros and broettes that think you should do whatever you can do based on a version of biz ethics they got from a toilette. |
|
|
|
Post by don on Jul 7, 2017 22:27:35 GMT
Why do you guys make me yell at you!
|
|
