The Senior Tour - Turning Dead Careers into Zombies?

[mizuno_lover]

I read today that Marco Dawson had won the Senior Open.  I thought Marco who?  That has happened on several occasions over the last couple of years.  Guys like Bart Bryant who had ever heard of him.  There's a couple of guys too that never went on tour but qualified for the Champions tour that I have never heard of.  Colin Montgomery who could never win a major on the regular tour and who (I've heard) was inducted into the hall of fame so he could walk straight onto the senior tour.  He did that ahead of guys that had won majors and deserved a place in the hall on merit.  Marco Dawson apparently had no wins on the regular tour but managed to shoot what has been described as a scintillating 64 in the final round at Sunningdale to win the Senior Open and beat out Bernhardt Langer by a shot who definitely belongs there being a two times Masters winner.

 

So what's with this post?  I'm not quite sure how I feel when I read about guys I've never heard of winning tournaments over guys I have heard of like Langer, Freddy C, Tom Watson etc.  I'm sure they obviously played well enough to win but there's something that just doesn't sit right.  I think its great that they have the tour for the over fifties I'm just not sure I like the idea of guys that were never on the regular tour competing alongside those that were.  I don't like the idea that Colin Montgomery who's career was dead and gone being raised from the dead and him cleaning up in the senior majors by virtue of the fact comparatively he is much younger than some of the guys and he sort of back doored the system to have his career revived.

 

I'd sure be interested in hearing what others think about it.  Don't get me wrong I enjoy watching it and I think if the money and sponsors are there why the hell not?

[fozcycle]

As one who is over fifty(by a bunch), I enjoy the Seniors(Champions Tour).  I volunteered for 5 years at the Outback ProAm in Tampa until they shut it down a few years ago.  I worked as a monitor on the Par 3 #6 hole and had great exposure to all the players.  It was so much fun on the course talking with pros like Fuzzy and celebrities like Michael J. Fox.  I would do it again in a heartbeat (if your listening Outback). The Champions Tour was the first to allow cell phones and provided a very relaxed atmosphere for everybody.  I remember when Craig T. Nelson(Coach) was in the top of his backswing on a par 5 hole that I was monitoring when a cell phone started ringing.  Well, he finished his shot then, from the crowd came a feminine voice...."Sorry Daddy" and everybody started laughing, including Nelson.

 

Although these guys are over 50 and considered old, a lot of them still have a great game and it does provide for the few who were no names on Tour but now can compete.

 

All said, if you get the chance to go to or volunteer for a Champions Tour event, it is a blast.....go do it.

[Kenny B]

I have been to PGA, LPGA, and Champions tour events. The old guys are the best because they are more relaxed and willing to interact with fans.

 

I actually like it when pros that didn't make it on the PGA or even never played the PGA, play on the Champions tour. It's tough to compete out there. Except for majors, it's only 3 days and to have a chance to win you have to shoot mid-60's each day. That's good golf no matter who it is.

 

Monte is a very good player and probably should have won majors. I think his attitude held him back. Now, on the Champions tour he is very laid back and the fans are no longer hostile to him. Makes a big difference. As for other no names, I have actually heard of most of them. Marco has been around a long time. He was streaky, so I guess he was streaky for just long enough this time. The ones that get me are the very good golfers that never played on tour. They got older, commitments are gone and when they turned 50, went to Q school to give it a shot. I can respect that. Why not?! You might as well find out if you are as good as everyone says you are!!

 

Maybe one of these days some of you young whippersnappers that can bomb it will give it a try!

[wbealsd]

I made it to the 2013 Senior Open and loved it!  It was great to see the "famous" players, but it was also great to see how well these older guys STILL play, whether I'd heard of them, or not.

 

Some of the lifetime amateurs could have easily played the PGA, if that had been their priority in life when they were younger.

[jkittlesen]

I read today that Marco Dawson had won the Senior Open.  I thought Marco who?  That has happened on several occasions over the last couple of years.  Guys like Bart Bryant who had ever heard of him.  There's a couple of guys too that never went on tour but qualified for the Champions tour that I have never heard of.  Colin Montgomery who could never win a major on the regular tour and who (I've heard) was inducted into the hall of fame so he could walk straight onto the senior tour.  He did that ahead of guys that had won majors and deserved a place in the hall on merit.  Marco Dawson apparently had no wins on the regular tour but managed to shoot what has been described as a scintillating 64 in the final round at Sunningdale to win the Senior Open and beat out Bernhardt Langer by a shot who definitely belongs there being a two times Masters winner.

 

So what's with this post?  I'm not quite sure how I feel when I read about guys I've never heard of winning tournaments over guys I have heard of like Langer, Freddy C, Tom Watson etc.  I'm sure they obviously played well enough to win but there's something that just doesn't sit right.  I think its great that they have the tour for the over fifties I'm just not sure I like the idea of guys that were never on the regular tour competing alongside those that were.  I don't like the idea that Colin Montgomery who's career was dead and gone being raised from the dead and him cleaning up in the senior majors by virtue of the fact comparatively he is much younger than some of the guys and he sort of back doored the system to have his career revived.

 

I'd sure be interested in hearing what others think about it.  Don't get me wrong I enjoy watching it and I think if the money and sponsors are there why the hell not?

I do get what your saying and understand your point of view, that said I don't like the Seniors Tour even though I am one!

 

I don't watch it! Don't much like it either, go figure.

[Jmikecpa]

You may not have heard of a lot of these guys but most of them can flat out play. Something has to be said about guys that can make a career on the PGA Tour and not win, but keep your card for 20 years.

 

I played a round about 10 years back with Ed Dougherty and he could just flat out play. He played my club the day we reopened from the redesign and shot a ho hum 63 (his words not mine). I played well and shot even par 70 and got dusted by a guy twice my age.

[mizuno_lover]

I'm not saying the guys can't play by any stretch of the imagination.  It just makes me smile when there's guys I have never heard of popping up seemingly out of nowhere and winning.  Have their games improved or have the games of the Watson's, Langer's, Couples etc all gone off the boil.  Kenny was saying he has heard of most of the guys I haven't and I guess living on the other side of the planet I'm not going to hear some names unless they are up there a lot.

 

I consistently get my arse handed to me by my good buddy who is off 3 and is 10 years older than me.  He keeps me trying to improve to beat him though which is a good thing.  I guess if I'm honest I don't like seeing my heroes of yesteryear getting beaten by the unknowns of yesteryear

[Kenny B]

Yes, I have heard of a lot of the new guys on the senior tour. I have been following all the tours since the Golf Channel was born. It was about the time I started playing golf and I watched everything. We also had the Hogan, Nike, buy.com, nationwide, web.com (might have missed one) tour in town each year until a few years ago. I always went to all 4 days of that event because we got in free. One of my golfing buddies was a member of the CC where it was held and caddied for one of the pros when he came to town.

 

Marco Dawson bounced around between the web.com and PGA for several years. Seems like if they are late 40's and still feel they can compete, they play on the web.com until going to the Champions Tour Q school. You will notice that most of the new guys you haven't heard of that win when the get to the senior tour just turn 50 or the next few years. Most don't stick around as long as the biggies like Langer, Watson, Couples, O'Meara, etc. They are all good or they wouldn't be playing, but the older guys that won on the PGA a lot, just keep winning year after year. They are really good.

[xxio]

From a different perspective. Guys who probably never really gave a pro career a good shot now have that opportunity.

 

IMHO It would be extremely difficult to put a criteria based on that POV. What would you need to qualify? To have an actual PGA Tour win? To have played on the PGA Tour at least 2 years, 3 years, or even event based 5 events-15 events. What about Europeans/guys who played the European Tour? Even then a few guys who will qualify based on that criteria will still be not familiar names. Camilo Villegas will be a more popular name than Scott Piercy even though I think their careers are similar. Villegas gets in because we recognize his "spiderman" green reads.

 

The sponsors of Champions Tour events 9xs out of 10 give their sponsors exemptions to players people recognize just so spectators come out to watch. It just really is difficult to win. If you want to guarantee a known name to win you would have to limit the field to 25 players, noone will sponsor that.

 

I've even noticed in one tournament there was a tournament within a tournament. Jack-Arnie-Lee-Gary-etc had 3 man teams playing a scramble. I'm sure that was done for no other reason but to let us still see these greats out on the course in some sort of competitive atmosphere.

 

Age is the most equitable choice. 

[Kenny B]

I will be waiting to see if Tommy Tolles (ever heard of him) will be playing on the senior tour. I think he turns 50 in a year or two. He won a couple of the web.com tour events and made the cut in all four majors in 1996-1997; T-3 at the PGA, T-5 at the U.S. Open, and 3rd at the Masters. I don't know if he is still playing.

[Kenny B]

From a different perspective. Guys who probably never really gave a pro career a good shot now have that opportunity.

 

IMHO It would be extremely difficult to put a criteria based on that POV. What would you need to qualify? To have an actual PGA Tour win? To have played on the PGA Tour at least 2 years, 3 years, or even event based 5 events-15 events. What about Europeans/guys who played the European Tour? Even then a few guys who will qualify based on that criteria will still be not familiar names. Camilo Villegas will be a more popular name than Scott Piercy even though I think their careers are similar. Villegas gets in because we recognize his "spiderman" green reads.

 

The sponsors of Champions Tour events 9xs out of 10 give their sponsors exemptions to players people recognize just so spectators come out to watch. It just really is difficult to win. If you want to guarantee a known name to win you would have to limit the field to 25 players, noone will sponsor that.

 

I've even noticed in one tournament there was a tournament within a tournament. Jack-Arnie-Lee-Gary-etc had 3 man teams playing a scramble. I'm sure that was done for no other reason but to let us still see these greats out on the course in some sort of competitive atmosphere.

 

Age is the most equitable choice.

 

You go to Q School. Top 5 are on the Champions Tour the next year. If you want to try it, it's Dec. 1-4 at TPC Scottsdale, but you have to get through regional qualifying first.

[xxio]

Yes I understand there is a process.

 

I was discussing the OP's point of view that there are players on the Champions Tour that are winning that don't have a name recognition, a track record or even a pedigree and that there is something wrong with that. Personally I don't think there is.

 

I enjoyed watching Alan Doyle with that "quirky" swing play 2 great years on the Champions Tour (around 2000-2001?). 

 

I enjoy seeing these "non-flat bellies" still be able to score. It gives me hope for my 27 holes a week hack swing when I do finally hit 50-55 and have a hard time walking 18 holes in 97degree temps..

 

 

As for the "younger" seniors dominating. It happens all the time. Hale Irwin was even rumored to have dyed his hair to make him look OLDER and not generate bad feelings for a younger guy decimating the Seniors tour.

 

Noone can beat father time.

[Kenny B]

Agreed! It is really cutthroat out there. When you only play 3 day events except for majors, if you don't score well each day, you are out of it. Sure the courses are short. That's how good players coming off the PGA turning 50 can compete, because they can't compete anymore with the young guys. But I still think it's fun to watch. They set it up for them to make a lot of birdies. Seems like I enjoy watching the PGA Tour play hard courses where a few under par is a good score, but I like it when the old guys make a bunch of birdies! Maybe that's because I am one of them!! Actually, way past them!!

[mizuno_lover]

I tell you who I do enjoy watching on the champions tour that I hadn't heard of till last year is Kirk Triplett he has such a good swing and I love his rhythm and tempo.  There are heaps of others too just can't remember their names.

 

Ummmmn Kenny Tommy who?

[Jmikecpa]

The other factor that has not been mentioned is that a lot of guys that turn 50 are still playing on the regular tour into their mid 50's.  The crop of pros that turned 50 in the last few years included Vijay, DLIII, Miguel Angel Jimenez and they play a few events on the Champions Tour, but most of their schedule is still on the PGA Tour.  Years ago the line is the sand was about 46 or 47 when you were just hoping that you could keep your card until 50 and you got to play full time again.  Seems that technology and fitness have moved that line by five or so years.  Heck if Freddie could get the putter hot for four rounds on the PGA Tour I think he could still win since he is as long as ever and still hits the irons well.

[xxio]

Which begs the question, should they go back to the original age requirements.

[mizuno_lover]

It would be interesting to see interviews with the guys that are close how they felt about the age requirement being pushed out to 55.  I'm sure those that were struggling on the regular tour would be up in arms about that idea   Can't say I'd blame them either with the prospect of easier money on the Champions tour.  Or what they percieve as easier money...

[Jmikecpa]

Not sure if it is easier money.  Last week Kenny Perry ran away with the event and made $262,500 while Tom Kite finished DFL and made $718 for the week.  It is easier money if you can have a good season and finish top 15 most weeks.  #50 on the Champions Tour is Jesper Parnevick at a little over $200k while #50 on the PGA Tour is Ryan Palmer at $1.5M.  As a comparison Ryan Palmer would be close to leading the Champions Tour money list this year and Colin Montgomery has had a pretty darn good year.  

[mizuno_lover]

Fair comment Jmike.  I have the impression that most of the guys are set up financially by the time they hit the champions tour.  I know there would be a few that have to win to keep their heads above water because they spent or lost whatever money they've made in the past.  But guys like Monty would just be doing it to stay competitive and for pocket money.  Not that I'd call the money up for grabs pocket money for me - hell I'd call it life changing money if I won it..