Greg Norman thinks today's pros are sheep

[Mr_Theoo]

 

Most Tour pros, Norman said, don't really want to reach the top, not down deep, not in a sport where 20th place can pay six figures. “Certain players are happy just going through the motions. They don't want to be the leader, they would rather be a sheep. They enjoy grazing the field and getting fat and sassy,” he said.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

With the exception of a few the Shark thinks most of these guys on tour are content with being in the middle of the pack. His logic is hard to disagree with when 20th pays 6 figures its easy to see how one could become content with making a great living for playing a game.

 

Do you agree with Norman or not?

[TIBA_Putt - Kyle]

I can certainly see where he's coming from. Back in the day(before the Tiger big $$ era), you had to be at the top to earn a lot of money. Middle of the pack just wasnt good enough. Id certainly be happy finishing top 25-30 week in and week out even if I didn't ever win.

[Aotearoa_Brad]

I disagree wholeheartedly. Yes they can make great money coming in 20th - they make even more money by being marketable, and through sponsor contracts. A lot of the guys on tour can buy pretty much what they like... they cannot, however, buy wins or the respect of their peers. I think that this is probably what motivates the majority of them.

 

If there are golfers who are happy being 'also rans' (there probably are a handful) they won't last long - unless they're totally committed to improving all the time they'll be left behind.

[Severtheties]

I have to disagree as well. I've met Norman a few times and he was always a grade A jerk. Ever since then I've never had any respect for him or anything he has to say.

[revkev]

I actually have to agree with the Shark on this one but frankly I think his generation of golfer started it. Those of us who are old enough will recall that Palmer and Nicklaus were against the all exempt or 125 exempt tour because they believed it would remove the hunger for winning.

 

It started already in Norman's day! And if by his comments he is trying to get us to believe the competition was better in his day than today, he's whacked. The worst generation of golfers in the modern era and its not even close.

 

Having written that unless I were a very top player I would be in favor of the all exempt tour, it ensures that more people will be able to make a living at the game. For that reason it may be the best way for the very top players to develope. It could be why this generation is so good. They get to hang in and learn from better players.

[Kenny B]

Every player that makes it to the PGA Tour got there by winning. They probably won at the junior level, college level, and many won on the web.com tour. They are used to winning; they want to win. However, when they get to the big stage, they either make it or they don't. They make it by winning more than one tournament. Sure some may get lucky and have a hot week but they succeed by doing it again. Once they win, they will continue to want to win. If they can't win or only win once, then they will mostly likely realize they can't compete at the highest level consistently, and then Norman's statement is correct. They will fall out of the top 125 soon because the new young winners moving up to the Tour believe they can win... And the cycle continues.

 

I don't really think many players like to stay in the middle of the pack because although the prize money is good, the expenses are high and the stress is even higher. They will work really hard to get back to the top (Harrington this week) or at some point family life will dictate a more steady job, probably at a prestigious golf course.

[markb]

Norman's opinion is echoed precisely in this month's "undercover tour pro" article in Golf Digest.   This pro, who claims three wins on Tour, says that almost everyone is just in it for the paycheck and would rather win the Fedex Cup than any major.

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2015-03/undercover-tour-pro

[xxio]

I'm thinking the demands on winners- multiple ads/shoots for sponsors, the extra chitchat time for/with the event sponsors the year after or even throughout the year, etc may make 10 tops 20s and having control of most of your schedule seem more attractive for family time, rest/recovery, and just having less attention wherever you go. 

[wbealsd]

I'm thinking the demands on winners- multiple ads/shoots for sponsors, the extra chitchat time for/with the event sponsors the year after or even throughout the year, etc may make 10 tops 20s and having control of most of your schedule seem more attractive for family time, rest/recovery, and just having less attention wherever you go. 

I don't disagree that a lighter and less demanding schedule can be attractive for a pro, but given the level of competition, to even stay "in the middle of the pack," I doubt very many can manage to stay on the Tour for long if they're not willing to "stay hungry" for the win.

 

Tour players are really a small elite, and only the elite of THAT group, can really afford to take too much time away from it.  Most players are fighting to maintain their position because there's always new batch of players trying to take their spot.

 

It wasn't THAT many years ago, even Steve Stricker went back to Q School!  He's been in the Top 50 for years now with guarranteed slots in major tournaments, but now?  "Stricker finished No. 89 on the money list. He did not compete in any of the FedExCup Playoff events because of a hip injury. His ranking has plunged 30 spots to No. 38. He will be eligible for the Masters next year by finishing the year in the top 50. He is not guaranteed a spot in any of the other majors...  after his most unproductive year since 2005 when he didn't have his card, Stricker realized he probably won't be eligible for Doral. If he doesn't play until March, he will be out of the top 50."

[BK in TEXAS]

That's an idiotic statement.  The amount of skill and dedication it takes just to get to the "middle of the pack" is unreal.  Norman makes it sound like the guys in the middle are just "riding it out".  Sorry, but the top 125 are insanely talented, and have to be just to stay there.

[revkev]

I'm going in for one more round....

 

What Norman is saying about today's players may be true to an extent.  It was absolutely true of the guys that he competed against - that was the only way he was able to win so many tournaments and stay on top of the PGA tour.  As soon as you put him in the big pond with the best players in the world in the mix in the majors he was a middle of the pack guy himself - go figure.  An historical accident, a brilliant agent and a CBS producer are really all that make him relevant today.

 

The more I read this thread the more I am reminded of how much more competitive golf is today than it was in Norman's era.  It was true then that mid pack could cruise because there was very little competition from below.  There were mini-tours but nothing like the web.com (the Hogan/Nike/nationwide/web.com tour didn't exist until the early 90's).  It was very hard for anyone not on the Euro of PGA tour to make a living at golf and unless they were a young up and comer who had it early they often dropped out.  Prior to the all exempt tour guys could travel from tour stop to tour stop catch lightening in a bottle, qualify, finish high eventually win and stick - it was brutal but lead to more seasoned players on the circuit among the survivors.

 

That's changed, there's a logical progression, a very young player can make enough money on the Hooters Tour so that sponsorship dollars last.  After a year or two there he can do well enough on the web.com to break even while his game continues to develop.  Having tasted the other tours he will do what ever he can to stay on top once he sees life on the big tour.

 

I've changed my opinion through this thread.  Norman is totally wrong and trying to cover for predictable transitional period between eras struggles that the guys he competed against underwent. 

[mr_divots]

Norman was probably insulated from a rabid press in Australia and got to be a national hero.

Seems to me, this indusrty now latches onto anyone with even mediocre succeess. I'm sure this "run of the mill" player is probably pulled in many directions by sponsors and such.

 

It's a different world in this sport now. When you see guys on the money list for the year who barely tee it up anymore and are raking in the bucks off-course, you'd think their understanding of the demand on players' time would be a little better with all these corporate deals of their own.

 

And Greg Norman helped put the dagger in the heart of MacGregor. Shame. Hard to forgive him there.

[xxio]

I don't disagree that a lighter and less demanding schedule can be attractive for a pro, but given the level of competition, to even stay "in the middle of the pack," I doubt very many can manage to stay on the Tour for long if they're not willing to "stay hungry" for the win.

 

Tour players are really a small elite, and only the elite of THAT group, can really afford to take too much time away from it. Most players are fighting to maintain their position because there's always new batch of players trying to take their spot.

 

It wasn't THAT many years ago, even Steve Stricker went back to Q School! He's been in the Top 50 for years now with guarranteed slots in major tournaments, but now? "Stricker finished No. 89 on the money list. He did not compete in any of the FedExCup Playoff events because of a hip injury. His ranking has plunged 30 spots to No. 38. He will be eligible for the Masters next year by finishing the year in the top 50. He is not guaranteed a spot in any of the other majors... after his most unproductive year since 2005 when he didn't have his card, Stricker realized he probably won't be eligible for Doral. If he doesn't play until March, he will be out of the top 50."

Not saying these guys are not good or hardworking.

 

Just as it takes more effort to get to a 2 index from a 6, from initially starting out as a 10. It will take more sacrifice and effort to get into the top 20 from being a top 50 guy.

 

Play more tournaments, travel, toll on your body and family life. All always with the risk of an MC. It is easier for a top 50 guy to choose what may benefit him overall, that includes career longetivity.

[Kor.A.Door]

From what I see about the game of golf is that I don't think the Norman to far off the mark. There are a lot of men, and women making a lot if money playing golf, and we haven't heard anything from any of them. I don't think Norman was saying these guys don't want to win, but the fact is you don't have to win to make a very good living on tour.

[mr_divots]

Can't help but think of CHIII in such scenarios. Banks money in practical anonymity.

[dcorun]

In a way he is right but, like everyone here says the competition is a lot better than when he played. That doesn't mean there weren't exceptional  players when he played but, not like today. Look at the under 25 talent out there and the one's in their 30's who are starting to reach their potential. Is it easier to make a great living playing golf now without winning, for sure but, if you don't think every golfer on tour wants to win then you missed James Hahn's interview after winning in LA.

[TIBA_Putt - Kyle]

Saw this graphic today and I thought of this thread. It was part of a "What Tiger Has Done for Golf" thing. While players may be happy finishing top 25 week in and week out, this graphic certainly shows how much more difficult it has become to win. And win consistently. With that many players with a scoring average under 71, damn near every guy week in and week out can win. Not the case back in Normans day.

 

[Kenny B]

When they add in this year's number, 2015 will likely be even more.  That's nearly every one that tees it up on the PGA Tour, unless they are also counting the web.com tour.