Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 12 Mar 2007 12:00:07
From: gp
Subject: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

Anybody heard about this??

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rich Beem is "insulted," he's insulted by the new AT&T National
tournament to be hosted by Tiger Woods in DC on the week of July 4th.
The previous tournament in DC had an open field, and that's what Beem
and other are complaining about. "It's the most totally wrong thing
I've heard of in a long time that's sticking it to the players," Beem
said.

"I was shocked when I heard that," Brad Faxon said. "We've got players
looking for spots, and we're replacing a tournament that had a full
field. With the amount of tournaments we have that are invitationals,
it doesn't make sense to do more." There already are at least 7
"invite only" tourneys on the tour. So if you're not that good or
can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?

Date: 14 Mar 2007 04:55:25
From: me
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12, 10:58 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 12, 8:08 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > I'll try this again, and see if you can grasp it.
>
> > The International, a full-field tournament has been replaced by an
> > invitational tournament
>
> Well, yes and no. The International was a failure and was canceled.
> At the time of the cancellation the Tour was minus one tournament.
> Then Tiger and his Federation stepped in...
[snip]

I think in the end what has many folks feeling a bit strange is
that the conspiracy theory in all of us can imagine that Tiger has
been jonesing for a prime slot for a tournament of his own. The
perception being that by avoiding certain tournaments at certain
key dates, he could have had a hand in "creating" the failure.

15 seconds of critical thought make it hard to buy (much like
all conspiracy theories). But convinient timing is often the
basis of most such theories.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 19:59:40
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12, 8:08 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> I'll try this again, and see if you can grasp it.
>
> The International, a full-field tournament has been replaced by an
> invitational tournament

Well, yes and no. The International was a failure and was canceled.
At the time of the cancellation the Tour was minus one tournament.
Then Tiger and his Federation stepped in with the DC idea, an
invitational.

So it wasn't really a case where the invitational replaced the full-
field tourney because the full-field tourney was finished no matter
what.
It is a case of having an invitational or having nothing.

As for Faxon and Beem .... I'm sure the Nationwide Tour would love to
have them. Might be a good chance for them to work on their games.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:07:45
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12, 12:26 pm, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
> Umm, maybe because they earned it by playing better? Are you implying
> the Masters should invite the guy who finished 179th on the money list
> because he needs it more than Tiger and Phil?

I'm not sure about the definitions of open vs invitational, but I
thought that invitational meant they could invite anyone rather than
who qualified. Which would mean that an invitational could invite
Michelle Wie because she would generate more viewership, interest, and
money than the #100 ranked player. Or if Tiger somehow went into a
massive slump and dropped to #100, they would still invite Tiger over
#99. If that's correct, then I would say that invitationals are a bad
idea (except for a handful of events per year.)

Date: 14 Mar 2007 13:19:01
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com > wrote in message
news:1173766065.041986.169940@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On 12, 12:26 pm, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
> wrote:
>> Umm, maybe because they earned it by playing better? Are you implying
>> the Masters should invite the guy who finished 179th on the money list
>> because he needs it more than Tiger and Phil?
>
> I'm not sure about the definitions of open vs invitational, but I
> thought that invitational meant they could invite anyone rather than
> who qualified. Which would mean that an invitational could invite
> Michelle Wie because she would generate more viewership, interest, and
> money than the #100 ranked player. Or if Tiger somehow went into a
> massive slump and dropped to #100, they would still invite Tiger over
> #99. If that's correct, then I would say that invitationals are a bad
> idea (except for a handful of events per year.)
>

As far as I can tell, the biggest difference between a normal "full field"
event and an "invitational" event is that the invitational event doesn't
have to follow the same "rules" as a PGA Tour "full field" event in
selecting the participants - including the number of players and the
priority order of who can get into the event.

A normal PGA Tour event has a very structured hierarchy of how to get into
it using exemptions and ranking. But the sponsor also has a number of
"exemptions" to invite anyone they want - including Michelle Wie or some old
guy that they just like but no longer has any exemption or standing on the
Tour.

Most invitationals (say - the Masters) have their own set of "rules" - not
"simply" Arnold or Tiger writing up a list of who they want. But with more
flexibility to not have to honor all the normal PGA qualifying criteria.

So in a full field event - Brad Faxon gets in because he has a 2 year
exemption from winning the Buick Championship in 2005, and Rich Beem still
has a 10 year exemption for winning a major. But in an invitational - the
rules don't *have* to include them.

Date: 14 Mar 2007 08:59:01
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

PGA Tour invitational's are less than full field events that pretty much
follow the standard PGA Tour exemption rules. If the events were pure
invitational's, they open them selfs up to allegations of race
discrimination.

The Master isn't a PGA Tour event so any analog to the PGA Tour fails.

"FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com > wrote in message
news:9DSJh.1215$0E1.336@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
> news:1173766065.041986.169940@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> On 12, 12:26 pm, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Umm, maybe because they earned it by playing better? Are you implying
>>> the Masters should invite the guy who finished 179th on the money list
>>> because he needs it more than Tiger and Phil?
>>
>> I'm not sure about the definitions of open vs invitational, but I
>> thought that invitational meant they could invite anyone rather than
>> who qualified. Which would mean that an invitational could invite
>> Michelle Wie because she would generate more viewership, interest, and
>> money than the #100 ranked player. Or if Tiger somehow went into a
>> massive slump and dropped to #100, they would still invite Tiger over
>> #99. If that's correct, then I would say that invitationals are a bad
>> idea (except for a handful of events per year.)
>>
>
> As far as I can tell, the biggest difference between a normal "full field"
> event and an "invitational" event is that the invitational event doesn't
> have to follow the same "rules" as a PGA Tour "full field" event in
> selecting the participants - including the number of players and the
> priority order of who can get into the event.
>
> A normal PGA Tour event has a very structured hierarchy of how to get into
> it using exemptions and ranking. But the sponsor also has a number of
> "exemptions" to invite anyone they want - including Michelle Wie or some
> old guy that they just like but no longer has any exemption or standing on
> the Tour.
>
> Most invitationals (say - the Masters) have their own set of "rules" - not
> "simply" Arnold or Tiger writing up a list of who they want. But with
> more flexibility to not have to honor all the normal PGA qualifying
> criteria.
>
> So in a full field event - Brad Faxon gets in because he has a 2 year
> exemption from winning the Buick Championship in 2005, and Rich Beem still
> has a 10 year exemption for winning a major. But in an invitational - the
> rules don't *have* to include them.
>
>

Date: 12 Mar 2007 19:58:25
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

Date: 13 Mar 2007 11:16:33
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 13, 8:44 am, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
>
> I think you are turning me to the Dark (Annika) Side.
> --

You're just playin me trying to get my rangefinder.

Date: 14 Mar 2007 11:28:10
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 13 2007 11:16:33 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>On 13, 8:44 am, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>wrote:
>>
>> I think you are turning me to the Dark (Annika) Side.
>> --
>
>You're just playin me trying to get my rangefinder.
>

Did you send in your NR(f)A application?
--

jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 13 Mar 2007 05:53:09
From: me
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12, 8:08 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
[snip]
> The more tournaments they play, the better chance to make more money,
> and for some to even stay on tour. If a tournament that a player
> played last year is replaced by one that excludes them because it is
> invitational only,with no chance of their playing it, their
> livelilhood is diminished.
>
> That is really simple.

Well, as Bret has pointed out, this new event was created AFTER the
old one was canceled. So technically, no one has "lost" anything they
hadn't already lost. Beam's comment probably has to be taken in a
larger context. The PGA TOUR is shrinking a bit and it isn't the guys
at the top that are going to be feeling it. The whole FedEx cup thing
isn't for the guy struggling to keep his card, so they are probably
cut out of that action altogether. There are, and will be, fewer
tournaments for guys outside of the top 70 or so. But that's just
a ket reality and they are going to have to get used to it. It's
the
guys in the top 70 that bring in the revenues, don't be surprised if
the
TOUR caters to them. Here's one for Beam and others to contemplate.
The TOUR could easily shrink the number of full exempt cards to 100.
They don't need to yet, but if the number of tournaments shrinks,
they could easily consider this. They could fill out fields with
partially exempt players, not to mention by allowing various
international
players to participate.

I understand that for Beam it's a bit personal. IIRC he won
the International back there and it is was the first big leap of his
career. It put him in the PGA which gave him his shot. But in the
end the TOUR doesn't really need the guys between 100 and
125 and really could easily replace them with various Nationwide
and international players, as well as special exemptions and
never miss a beat.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 01:21:34
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12, 7:18 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 2007 23:44:32 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >gp wrote:
>
> >> Anybody heard about this??
>
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> Rich Beem is "insulted," he's insulted by the new AT&T National
> >> tournament to be hosted by Tiger Woods in DC on the week of July 4th.
> >> The previous tournament in DC had an open field, and that's what Beem
> >> and other are complaining about. "It's the most totally wrong thing
> >> I've heard of in a long time that's sticking it to the players," Beem
> >> said.
>
> >> "I was shocked when I heard that," Brad Faxon said. "We've got players
> >> looking for spots, and we're replacing a tournament that had a full
> >> field. With the amount of tournaments we have that are invitationals,
> >> it doesn't make sense to do more." There already are at least 7
> >> "invite only" tourneys on the tour. So if you're not that good or
> >> can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?
>
> >Of course! Faxon and Beem want in on the gravy! How dare anyone limit access to it?
>
> Wrong again Rob. Faxon is invited.

Perhaps not next year, though...

Date: 13 Mar 2007 00:45:09
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

Date: 13 Mar 2007 00:04:45
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:44:24
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12, 8:14 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> >Another point these wihiners are missing is that without Tiger and his
> >Foundation there wouldn't be any tourney that week. So it's not like
> >something has been taken from them.
>
> Wrong. 30-50 players have one less tournament in which to make a
> living each year now. Whether or not you liked the International, it
> was a full-field tournament.

And the International has nothing to do with this new tournament.
The International failed and was canceled. The Tour didn't say, "OK,
we're going to move this thing to DC and change the format."
No, they just canceled it. At that moment those 30-50 players you
mentioned had one less tournament to play in.

Later, Tiger and his foundation came in and suggested a new tournament
in DC. The status of those 30-50 players didn't change one iota. They
were in the exact same position that they would've been in had not the
DC tourney been approved. So it is kind of silly to suggest that the
DC tournament keeps these guys from playing. The guys on the outside
looking in should be bitchin about Jack Vickers and Castle Pines in
Denver, because it was the International's failure that put them where
they are now. I think that Tiger's involvement in the new tourney
automatically makes some folks jealous. Perhaps they'll call it the
"Ken Pitts GDFP DC Invitational?"

Me, I blame Brazee. If he'd post less and spend more time promoting
his local event, maybe it would still be alive today.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 12:18:52
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12 2007 23:44:24 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>On 12, 8:14 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> >Another point these wihiners are missing is that without Tiger and his
>> >Foundation there wouldn't be any tourney that week. So it's not like
>> >something has been taken from them.
>>
>> Wrong. 30-50 players have one less tournament in which to make a
>> living each year now. Whether or not you liked the International, it
>> was a full-field tournament.
>
>And the International has nothing to do with this new tournament.
>The International failed and was canceled. The Tour didn't say, "OK,
>we're going to move this thing to DC and change the format."
>No, they just canceled it. At that moment those 30-50 players you
>mentioned had one less tournament to play in.

Most of the pros were pissed when the International was dropped, and
from what Faxon, who is on the advisory board, says, they had expected
that if another tournament was added it would be full-field. He's
looking to get this turned around at the next Player's Advisory
Council meeting in April. It'll take a 66% yes vote, but I don't know
how many are on that board, or who they are. This tournament is July
5-8.

One of the quotes from Beem was, " in order for players to receive
equity in terms of the season-ending FedEx Cup standings, the new
tournament should also have full fields". Oh...Rich Beem is on the
Player's Advisory Council too. :-)
>

--
___,
\o

Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:43:47
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

Date: 12 Mar 2007 21:09:18
From: BAR
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

gp wrote:
> Anybody heard about this??
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Rich Beem is "insulted," he's insulted by the new AT&T National
> tournament to be hosted by Tiger Woods in DC on the week of July 4th.
> The previous tournament in DC had an open field, and that's what Beem
> and other are complaining about. "It's the most totally wrong thing
> I've heard of in a long time that's sticking it to the players," Beem
> said.
>
> "I was shocked when I heard that," Brad Faxon said. "We've got players
> looking for spots, and we're replacing a tournament that had a full
> field. With the amount of tournaments we have that are invitationals,
> it doesn't make sense to do more." There already are at least 7
> "invite only" tourneys on the tour. So if you're not that good or
> can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?
>

It's too bad it isn't a pro-am. Wouldn't you like to see the likes of
Charles Barkley tearing up the turf a Congressional?

Date: 12 Mar 2007 17:15:46
From: multi
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12 2007 12:00:07 -0700, "gp" <gopher70@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
>There already are at least 7
>"invite only" tourneys on the tour. So if you're not that good or
>can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?

He's right, with only five full-field events on the tour schedule,
they need more of them. Oops, wait a minute, there are over 30 of
them. How many pros play more than 30 times a year?

Never mind, let's look at the money issue. The median family income
in the US is about $50K. A touring pro has expenses that most workers
don't --- say $3K a week. So if he plays 30 events, and pays his
caddie $50K, he needs to win about $190K to have as much take-home pay
as the average family. Note that I am generously ignoring that all
his expenses and his caddie's salary are tax-deductible, and I'm also
ignoring that virtually every pro with a PGA tour card has equipment
and endorsement deals.

So how many pros (PGA earnings only) earned $190K last year? 193 of
them. Since the "bubble" is down around 125, it doesn't look like any
of the bubble babies is hurting that much. In fact, number 125 on the
money list last year made $661K.

Coincidentally, number 126 was Rich Beem.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:44:32
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

gp wrote:

> Anybody heard about this??
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Rich Beem is "insulted," he's insulted by the new AT&T National
> tournament to be hosted by Tiger Woods in DC on the week of July 4th.
> The previous tournament in DC had an open field, and that's what Beem
> and other are complaining about. "It's the most totally wrong thing
> I've heard of in a long time that's sticking it to the players," Beem
> said.
>
> "I was shocked when I heard that," Brad Faxon said. "We've got players
> looking for spots, and we're replacing a tournament that had a full
> field. With the amount of tournaments we have that are invitationals,
> it doesn't make sense to do more." There already are at least 7
> "invite only" tourneys on the tour. So if you're not that good or
> can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?

Of course! Faxon and Beem want in on the gravy! How dare anyone limit access to it?

Date: 13 Mar 2007 00:18:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 23:44:32 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>
>
>gp wrote:
>
>> Anybody heard about this??
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Rich Beem is "insulted," he's insulted by the new AT&T National
>> tournament to be hosted by Tiger Woods in DC on the week of July 4th.
>> The previous tournament in DC had an open field, and that's what Beem
>> and other are complaining about. "It's the most totally wrong thing
>> I've heard of in a long time that's sticking it to the players," Beem
>> said.
>>
>> "I was shocked when I heard that," Brad Faxon said. "We've got players
>> looking for spots, and we're replacing a tournament that had a full
>> field. With the amount of tournaments we have that are invitationals,
>> it doesn't make sense to do more." There already are at least 7
>> "invite only" tourneys on the tour. So if you're not that good or
>> can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?
>
>Of course! Faxon and Beem want in on the gravy! How dare anyone limit access to it?
>
Wrong again Rob. Faxon is invited.
--
___,
\o

Date: 12 Mar 2007 16:38:09
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12, 3:26 pm, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
>
> Play better.
> Get invited to more tournaments.
>
> Simple.
> --

Damn, you took the words right outta my mouth. Sorry about the spit.

Another point these wihiners are missing is that without Tiger and his
Foundation there wouldn't be any tourney that week. So it's not like
something has been taken from them.
I mean it would be like somebody on RSG holding a tourney and not
inviting a certain person and that person crying like a baby about
it.
Hypothetically, I mean.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 08:44:19
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12 2007 16:38:09 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>On 12, 3:26 pm, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>wrote:
>>
>> Play better.
>> Get invited to more tournaments.
>>
>> Simple.
>> --
>
>Damn, you took the words right outta my mouth. Sorry about the spit.
>
>Another point these wihiners are missing is that without Tiger and his
>Foundation there wouldn't be any tourney that week. So it's not like
>something has been taken from them.
>I mean it would be like somebody on RSG holding a tourney and not
>inviting a certain person and that person crying like a baby about
>it.
>Hypothetically, I mean.
>

I think you are turning me to the Dark (Annika) Side.
--

jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 13 Mar 2007 00:14:54
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12 2007 16:38:09 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>On 12, 3:26 pm, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>wrote:
>>
>> Play better.
>> Get invited to more tournaments.
>>
>> Simple.
>> --
>
>Damn, you took the words right outta my mouth. Sorry about the spit.
>
>Another point these wihiners are missing is that without Tiger and his
>Foundation there wouldn't be any tourney that week. So it's not like
>something has been taken from them.

Wrong. 30-50 players have one less tournament in which to make a
living each year now. Whether or not you liked the International, it
was a full-field tournament. Incidentally, the biggest "whiner" of
them all is invited. Does that give you a little more insight?

>I mean it would be like somebody on RSG holding a tourney and not
>inviting a certain person and that person crying like a baby about
>it.
>Hypothetically, I mean.
>
That would never happen.
--
___,
\o

Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:42:33
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12, 4:10 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 2007 15:39:02 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
>
>
>
>
>
> <no-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >"Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >news:3b9bv29st86d6lac8iisha65d13jnn2rfh@4ax.com...
>
> >> Beem and Faxon weren't speaking of their situation, but of the
> >> lesser players' on tour. The guys that are trying to keep their card
> >> and are on the bubble lose another tournament that could help them.
>
> >The guys on the bubble of keeping their cards are competing against other
> >players on the bubble of keeping their cards. I don't see how this
> >tournament hurts or benefits any of the players in danger of losing their
> >card.
>
> The more money you make, the better chance to keep their card. The
> more tournaments they play, the better chance to make more money.
> What if one player on the bubble is invited to this tournament, and
> another isn't. That didn't happen for the tournament it replaced.
>
> Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

Apparently you didn't understand his point and there isn't a reason to
be insulting about it.

His point is that the situation is equal for everyone, so it doesn't
affect any bubble player more than any other. If you want to make the
point "what if one player on the bubble is invited and not another",
then you might as well make the argument that it isn't fair for any
bubble player to play more tournaments than another and that argument
has no merit.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 00:08:52
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12 2007 15:42:33 -0700, "BigPurdueFan" <bigpufan@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>His point is that the situation is equal for everyone, so it doesn't
>affect any bubble player more than any other. If you want to make the
>point "what if one player on the bubble is invited and not another",
>then you might as well make the argument that it isn't fair for any
>bubble player to play more tournaments than another and that argument
>has no merit.

I'll try this again, and see if you can grasp it.

The International, a full-field tournament has been replaced by an
invitational tournament...that is not based on standings. If it was
based on performance then playing better would be an issue. It isn't.

Every player on the tour is there for one thing; to make a living.
The bubble issue is just one of the facets. It does make a difference
if some are invited and others aren't. Rich Beem is an example. He
wasn't invited, and it decreases the number of tournaments available
to him this year, because the International was replaced by this
tournament.

The more tournaments they play, the better chance to make more money,
and for some to even stay on tour. If a tournament that a player
played last year is replaced by one that excludes them because it is
invitational only,with no chance of their playing it, their
livelilhood is diminished.

That is really simple.
--
___,
\o

Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:08:19
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

> So if you're not that good or
> can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?
>

Earth to to mediocrity... if you're not that good - find another
profession.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 11:14:13
From: David
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 23:08:19 GMT, "FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com > wrote:

>
>> So if you're not that good or
>> can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?
>>
>
>Earth to to mediocrity... if you're not that good - find another
>profession.

There are no medicore players on the tour today. They all have a
chance to win. Haven't you been paying attention?

David

Date: 13 Mar 2007 14:31:18
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:faucv29vljnppjng0mkcdm0utop1vdu076@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 2007 23:08:19 GMT, "FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> So if you're not that good or
>>> can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?
>>>
>>
>>Earth to to mediocrity... if you're not that good - find another
>>profession.
>
> There are no medicore players on the tour today. They all have a
> chance to win. Haven't you been paying attention?
>

The quote "So if you're not that good or can't get an invite, how are you
supposed to make a living on tour?" was from Brad Faxon - to me it
implicitly says that there are mediocre players on tour. Brad has had a
"pretty good" career for a non-star journeyman - people know his name, he
has a charity, seems to have a lot of friends on tour, he gets invited to
the invitationals, he occasionally wins a tournament. But right now - he's
playing pretty mediocre this year - 1 cut out of 6. Last year was pretty
"not that good" - and he loses the 2 year exemption for his Buick win at the
end of the season.

Mediocre is a relative term. The worst player on the Nationwide Tour can
probably beat me while giving me 2 strokes a hole. Brad could probably beat
me if I teed from the red tees and he teed from the tips. Of course - I do
recognize your reference... we can tie this back to the "Jack vs Tiger"
debate and compare mediocrity through the ages... "Would Brad be as
undistinguished in the 50's as he is in the 2000's?". Are the bottom of the
pack golfers of today as bad as the bottom of the pack golfers of yesterday?

Date: 13 Mar 2007 17:45:47
From: David
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Tue, 13 2007 14:31:18 GMT, "FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com > wrote:

<snipped >

>Mediocre is a relative term. The worst player on the Nationwide Tour can
>probably beat me while giving me 2 strokes a hole. Brad could probably beat
>me if I teed from the red tees and he teed from the tips. Of course - I do
>recognize your reference... we can tie this back to the "Jack vs Tiger"
>debate and compare mediocrity through the ages... "Would Brad be as
>undistinguished in the 50's as he is in the 2000's?". Are the bottom of the
>pack golfers of today as bad as the bottom of the pack golfers of yesterday?

Yes, they are.

David

Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:15:17
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

Brad Faxon wrote:
>
> So if you're not that good or can't get an invite,
> how are you supposed to make a living on tour?

Get better. Or suck up to Tiger. Or both.

There. Your problem's solved.

Next stupid question.

Randy

Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:52:09
From: 3Putt from South Carolina
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:fZ6dncTru7osO2jYnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Brad Faxon wrote:
>>
>> So if you're not that good or can't get an invite,
>> how are you supposed to make a living on tour?
>
>
>
> Get better. Or suck up to Tiger. Or both.
>
> There. Your problem's solved.
>
> Next stupid question.
>
> Randy
OK. I want to be the first to ask: Who will win the U.S. Open this year?
Rich Beem maybe? I doubt it. Too much partying and not enough focus. Come
visit the Hooties after the Masters event and see what I mean.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:05:07
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On 12 2007 12:00:07 -0700, "gp" <gopher70@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

>Anybody heard about this??
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Rich Beem is "insulted," he's insulted by the new AT&T National
>tournament to be hosted by Tiger Woods in DC on the week of July 4th.
>The previous tournament in DC had an open field, and that's what Beem
>and other are complaining about. "It's the most totally wrong thing
>I've heard of in a long time that's sticking it to the players," Beem
>said.
>
>"I was shocked when I heard that," Brad Faxon said. "We've got players
>looking for spots, and we're replacing a tournament that had a full
>field. With the amount of tournaments we have that are invitationals,
>it doesn't make sense to do more." There already are at least 7
>"invite only" tourneys on the tour. So if you're not that good or
>can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?

LOL. A guy making $1,000,000 plus playing a game complaining that
he's having a hard time "making a living." Classic.
--

jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:17:28
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

That Beem and Faxon are playing a game for millions of dollars, doesn't mean
they aren't making a valid point.

The increase in invitational tournaments is back dooring some of the better
players into the lesser tournaments. The Tour has a requirement to play 15
events a year. Why should Tiger and Phil get their 15 in invitationals while
forcing the unwashed to play the likes of the John Deere?

If the Tour thinks the Deere and other tournaments need names to survive,
then everybody including Tiger should be carrying some of the load.

"John van der Pflum" <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote in message
news:v19bv2h10g537qd5c3af17b3dolv0qme6e@4ax.com...
> On 12 2007 12:00:07 -0700, "gp" <gopher70@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Anybody heard about this??
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Rich Beem is "insulted," he's insulted by the new AT&T National
>>tournament to be hosted by Tiger Woods in DC on the week of July 4th.
>>The previous tournament in DC had an open field, and that's what Beem
>>and other are complaining about. "It's the most totally wrong thing
>>I've heard of in a long time that's sticking it to the players," Beem
>>said.
>>
>>"I was shocked when I heard that," Brad Faxon said. "We've got players
>>looking for spots, and we're replacing a tournament that had a full
>>field. With the amount of tournaments we have that are invitationals,
>>it doesn't make sense to do more." There already are at least 7
>>"invite only" tourneys on the tour. So if you're not that good or
>>can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?
>
> LOL. A guy making $1,000,000 plus playing a game complaining that
> he's having a hard time "making a living." Classic.
> --
>
> jvdp
> RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:47:34
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

sfb wrote:

> That Beem and Faxon are playing a game for millions of dollars, doesn't mean
> they aren't making a valid point.
>
> The increase in invitational tournaments is back dooring some of the better
> players into the lesser tournaments. The Tour has a requirement to play 15
> events a year. Why should Tiger and Phil get their 15 in invitationals while
> forcing the unwashed to play the likes of the John Deere?
>
> If the Tour thinks the Deere and other tournaments need names to survive,
> then everybody including Tiger should be carrying some of the load.

People like Tiger and Phil generate most of the revenue for the tour. People trying to "keep their card" generate next to
nothing, and as such, have nothing to complain about. If an NFL player only played well 2 or three times a year he'd be
packing groceries somewhere the following year.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:26:53
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 15:17:28 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>That Beem and Faxon are playing a game for millions of dollars, doesn't mean
>they aren't making a valid point.
>
>The increase in invitational tournaments is back dooring some of the better
>players into the lesser tournaments. The Tour has a requirement to play 15
>events a year. Why should Tiger and Phil get their 15 in invitationals while
>forcing the unwashed to play the likes of the John Deere?
>

Umm, maybe because they earned it by playing better? Are you implying
the Masters should invite the guy who finished 179th on the money list
because he needs it more than Tiger and Phil?

Play better.
Get invited to more tournaments.

Simple.
--

jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Mar 2007 20:07:09
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 15:26:53 -0400, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:

>On Mon, 12 2007 15:17:28 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>That Beem and Faxon are playing a game for millions of dollars, doesn't mean
>>they aren't making a valid point.
>>
>>The increase in invitational tournaments is back dooring some of the better
>>players into the lesser tournaments. The Tour has a requirement to play 15
>>events a year. Why should Tiger and Phil get their 15 in invitationals while
>>forcing the unwashed to play the likes of the John Deere?
>>
>
>Umm, maybe because they earned it by playing better? Are you implying
>the Masters should invite the guy who finished 179th on the money list
>because he needs it more than Tiger and Phil?
>
>Play better.
>Get invited to more tournaments.
>
>Simple.

There are several invitational tournaments on tour, and to eliminate
an full-field tournament to have another limited field tournament is a
sorry thing to do. It eliminates a chance for the guys on the bubble
to keep their card, or get FedEx points.

The Masters is a different animal. Those spots are predetermined, and
playing better can get you in. Playing better hasn't a fucking thing
to do with several of the invitationals, including this one.
___,
\o

Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:24:18
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:o5cbv2p004o8ifs4sve9unmaeehvg66msl@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 2007 15:26:53 -0400, John van der Pflum
> <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 2007 15:17:28 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>That Beem and Faxon are playing a game for millions of dollars, doesn't
>>>mean
>>>they aren't making a valid point.
>>>
>>>The increase in invitational tournaments is back dooring some of the
>>>better
>>>players into the lesser tournaments. The Tour has a requirement to play
>>>15
>>>events a year. Why should Tiger and Phil get their 15 in invitationals
>>>while
>>>forcing the unwashed to play the likes of the John Deere?
>>>
>>
>>Umm, maybe because they earned it by playing better? Are you implying
>>the Masters should invite the guy who finished 179th on the money list
>>because he needs it more than Tiger and Phil?
>>
>>Play better.
>>Get invited to more tournaments.
>>
>>Simple.
>
> There are several invitational tournaments on tour, and to eliminate
> an full-field tournament to have another limited field tournament is a
> sorry thing to do. It eliminates a chance for the guys on the bubble
> to keep their card, or get FedEx points.
>

The Tour doesn't exit as a babysitting service for kids teething. On the
bubble? WIN A TOURNAMENT. Want some FedEx points? WIN A TOURNAMENT. PLAY
BETTER.

The International was a disaster as a tournament... why? Viewers weren't
turned on by the field or the format. Which means sponsors and advertisors
weren't interested. I've got news - everybody who watches golf (except
perhaps Ken Pitts) will tune in for this tournament. Thank God we aren't
getting yet-another mediocre tournament.

Three living legends of golf have their own events now - and both Arnie and
Jack had them when they were both still playing.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 14:15:09
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 20:07:09 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>The Masters is a different animal. Those spots are predetermined, and
>playing better can get you in. Playing better hasn't a fucking thing
>to do with several of the invitationals, including this one.

Several old open tournaments became invitational when it appeared that
blacks were likely to qualify. I would think Tiger is aware of that
history.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:32:13
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

Please don't use the Masters as the counter argument for anything the PGA
Tour does as the Masters is not a PGA Tour event.

All PGA Tour events should be full field using the normal PGA exempt list
for entering.

"John van der Pflum" <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote in message
news:29abv2h4rbrpsvh29e5huau1at3nirhh0s@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 2007 15:17:28 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>That Beem and Faxon are playing a game for millions of dollars, doesn't
>>mean
>>they aren't making a valid point.
>>
>>The increase in invitational tournaments is back dooring some of the
>>better
>>players into the lesser tournaments. The Tour has a requirement to play 15
>>events a year. Why should Tiger and Phil get their 15 in invitationals
>>while
>>forcing the unwashed to play the likes of the John Deere?
>>
>
> Umm, maybe because they earned it by playing better? Are you implying
> the Masters should invite the guy who finished 179th on the money list
> because he needs it more than Tiger and Phil?
>
> Play better.
> Get invited to more tournaments.
>
> Simple.
> --
>
> jvdp
> RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:53:06
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 15:32:13 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>Please don't use the Masters as the counter argument for anything the PGA
>Tour does as the Masters is not a PGA Tour event.
>
>All PGA Tour events should be full field using the normal PGA exempt list
>for entering.
>

Play better.

Get invited.
--

jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 13 Mar 2007 12:26:48
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

If playing better is the key to getting invitations then please explain why
Michele Wie keeps getting invited to PGA Tour events.

A tournament director that takes a Deere winner over a Couples or Daly is
crazy.

"John van der Pflum" <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote in message
news:gsbbv2tj7oqpvsr9slj14orvkjq3bptndr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 2007 15:32:13 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Please don't use the Masters as the counter argument for anything the
>>PGA
>>Tour does as the Masters is not a PGA Tour event.
>>
>>All PGA Tour events should be full field using the normal PGA exempt list
>>for entering.
>>
>
> Play better.
>
> Get invited.
> --
>
> jvdp
> RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 13 Mar 2007 19:22:35
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:F-WdnRs0l45UTWvYnZ2dnUVZ_tG3nZ2d@comcast.com...
> If playing better is the key to getting invitations then please explain
> why Michele Wie keeps getting invited to PGA Tour events.
>
> A tournament director that takes a Deere winner over a Couples or Daly is
> crazy.
>

You have answered your own question. Popularity, notariety, and record are
pretty much the priority list.

You want a bug TV audience, advertisors breaking down the doors for air
time, a sponsor that is getting 10 million worth of advertising for 7
million in investment. A big crowd. Mechandise sales. A happy charity.

Just including the winner of the John Deere won't really help any of those
things - unless the win just happened to be one of many, or it is a brand
new face, or a popular old timer, or there might be controversy. BUT being
the winner of the John Deere will move you up the money list, make you
exempt for 2 years and get you into a bunch of tournaments *and* probably
get you invited to one or two invitationals BECAUSE you have moved up the
money list and played in more tournaments and have recently won something on
the tour.

I'm gonna guess that John Senden is going to get invited because in ADDITION
to winning the JD - he's made 7 of 7 cuts this year, 2 top ten finishes
including a 2nd, he's 52nd in the world and is about $675,000 ahead of Brad
Faxon in winnings so far this year.

Michelle Wie is popular and attractive. She polarizes some fans who don't
feel she belongs. She doesn't have the record yet, and she is no longer a
new face - so you aren't going to see her invited to anything really big.
But if you were running a minor tournament - you'd invite her too - because
you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain if she were to actually make the
cut and finish in the money.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 11:09:51
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Tue, 13 2007 12:26:48 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>If playing better is the key to getting invitations then please explain why
>Michele Wie keeps getting invited to PGA Tour events.
>
>A tournament director that takes a Deere winner over a Couples or Daly is
>crazy.

An unknown player can win tournaments to become known - or be
extraordinary in some other aspect that will bring in the fans.

What do you propose the ginal player do to get invited?

Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:31:57
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > writes:

> On Mon, 12 2007 15:32:13 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Please don't use the Masters as the counter argument for anything the PGA
> >Tour does as the Masters is not a PGA Tour event.
> >
> >All PGA Tour events should be full field using the normal PGA exempt list
> >for entering.
> >
>
> Play better.
>
> Get invited.

Or, as a member of the organization conducting the event, use your
"say" as a member to make the event open to members according
to the organization's agreed-upon standards (the rankings of
exempt players etc.).

These aren't outsiders complaining about not being invited to
a members-only event. They are members expecting their events
to be run according to their (previously specified) wishes.

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Mar 2007 20:13:35
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 15:53:06 -0400, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:

>On Mon, 12 2007 15:32:13 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Please don't use the Masters as the counter argument for anything the PGA
>>Tour does as the Masters is not a PGA Tour event.
>>
>>All PGA Tour events should be full field using the normal PGA exempt list
>>for entering.
>>
>
>Play better.
>
>Get invited.

Reading challenged John? You're missing the point by a mile. Playing
better doesn't get you into all invitationals.
___,
\o

Date: 13 Mar 2007 09:12:11
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 20:13:35 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>Reading challenged John?

Also..........

Bobby, it's fairly clear that you disagree with my point but please
don't go about throwing insults. I read just fine, thanks, and while
my vocabulary is very very ..... not large .... compared to yours I
can understand what people are saying.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me "reading challenged"
and vice versa.
--

jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 13 Mar 2007 08:42:36
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > writes:

> On Mon, 12 2007 20:13:35 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Reading challenged John?
>
> Also..........
>
> Bobby, it's fairly clear that you disagree with my point but please
> don't go about throwing insults. I read just fine, thanks, and while
> my vocabulary is very very ..... not large .... compared to yours I
> can understand what people are saying.
>
> Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me "reading challenged"
> and vice versa.

John,

Was Mike Hulbert invited to play in the Bay Hill Invitational
because he met the 'play better, get invited' standard? He appears
to have earned about $160k in PGA Tour dollars since the 2000 season.

How about k Rummings or Kyle Stanley?
(Or, in the past, Arnie's grandson?)

http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/r009/field/index.html

I recognize that every PGA Tour event has a limited number of
sponsor's exemptions and, as we have seen in the past, those
spots are occasionally used for players who are arguably
not qualified to be in the field.

What prevents Arnold Palmer (Bay Hill) or Tiger (this new event)
from packing the field with buddies rather than players who
have earned PGA Tour membership (and earned a ranking on the
exempt players list)?

'Play better, get invited' is a nice idea but the better
player is not necessarily the one who is invited.

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 13 Mar 2007 14:52:31
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

"Aress Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:b7ohcspmf8z.fsf@server039.serverquality.com...

>
> What prevents Arnold Palmer (Bay Hill) or Tiger (this new event)
> from packing the field with buddies rather than players who
> have earned PGA Tour membership (and earned a ranking on the
> exempt players list)?
>

TV ratings are the holy grail. They could pick left handed farmers from
Wyoming as the only players - but if nobody watched - the tournament would
be done. MasterCard sponsors Bay Hill. They want both the top players
*and* players who have some special interest (young hot guns) and the
handful of local interest guys - like Arnies grandson.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 13:19:42
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Tue, 13 2007 09:12:11 -0400, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:

>On Mon, 12 2007 20:13:35 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Reading challenged John?
>
>Also..........
>
>Bobby, it's fairly clear that you disagree with my point but please
>don't go about throwing insults. I read just fine, thanks, and while
>my vocabulary is very very ..... not large .... compared to yours I
>can understand what people are saying.
>
>Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me "reading challenged"
>and vice versa.

...and you suggested that *I* switch to Decaf? Lighten up John. I
didn't ever think that a smiley-face would be necessary for you.
--
___,
\o

Date: 13 Mar 2007 10:07:58
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Tue, 13 2007 13:19:42 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Tue, 13 2007 09:12:11 -0400, John van der Pflum
><nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 2007 20:13:35 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Reading challenged John?
>>
>>Also..........
>>
>>Bobby, it's fairly clear that you disagree with my point but please
>>don't go about throwing insults. I read just fine, thanks, and while
>>my vocabulary is very very ..... not large .... compared to yours I
>>can understand what people are saying.
>>
>>Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me "reading challenged"
>>and vice versa.
>
>...and you suggested that *I* switch to Decaf? Lighten up John. I
>didn't ever think that a smiley-face would be necessary for you.

FWIW, and for whatever reason, sometimes I have a hard time telling if
you are joking or not.

--

jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 13 Mar 2007 14:17:31
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Tue, 13 2007 10:07:58 -0400, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:

>On Tue, 13 2007 13:19:42 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 2007 09:12:11 -0400, John van der Pflum
>><nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 2007 20:13:35 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Reading challenged John?
>>>
>>>Also..........
>>>
>>>Bobby, it's fairly clear that you disagree with my point but please
>>>don't go about throwing insults. I read just fine, thanks, and while
>>>my vocabulary is very very ..... not large .... compared to yours I
>>>can understand what people are saying.
>>>
>>>Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me "reading challenged"
>>>and vice versa.
>>
>>...and you suggested that *I* switch to Decaf? Lighten up John. I
>>didn't ever think that a smiley-face would be necessary for you.
>
>FWIW, and for whatever reason, sometimes I have a hard time telling if
>you are joking or not.

I've noticed that. I'm always kidding. :-)
--
___,
\o

Date: 13 Mar 2007 10:52:04
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Tue, 13 2007 14:17:31 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Tue, 13 2007 10:07:58 -0400, John van der Pflum
><nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 2007 13:19:42 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 2007 09:12:11 -0400, John van der Pflum
>>><nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 12 2007 20:13:35 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Reading challenged John?
>>>>
>>>>Also..........
>>>>
>>>>Bobby, it's fairly clear that you disagree with my point but please
>>>>don't go about throwing insults. I read just fine, thanks, and while
>>>>my vocabulary is very very ..... not large .... compared to yours I
>>>>can understand what people are saying.
>>>>
>>>>Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me "reading challenged"
>>>>and vice versa.
>>>
>>>...and you suggested that *I* switch to Decaf? Lighten up John. I
>>>didn't ever think that a smiley-face would be necessary for you.
>>
>>FWIW, and for whatever reason, sometimes I have a hard time telling if
>>you are joking or not.
>
>I've noticed that. I'm always kidding. :-)

All right. I'll keep that in mind for future reference. :-)
--

jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 13 Mar 2007 08:41:24
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 20:13:35 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Mon, 12 2007 15:53:06 -0400, John van der Pflum
><nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 2007 15:32:13 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Please don't use the Masters as the counter argument for anything the PGA
>>>Tour does as the Masters is not a PGA Tour event.
>>>
>>>All PGA Tour events should be full field using the normal PGA exempt list
>>>for entering.
>>>
>>
>>Play better.
>>
>>Get invited.
>
>Reading challenged John? You're missing the point by a mile. Playing
>better doesn't get you into all invitationals.
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 13 Mar 2007 13:16:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Tue, 13 2007 08:41:24 -0400, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:
>Bobby,

>Of course playing better gets you invited to more/all invitationals.
>If I'm 180th on the money list I'm not going to get an invite to
>squat. However, if I start playing better and suddenly I'm 50th on
>the money list you can bet that I am going to get a lot more
>invitations in the mail.
>
>Are you saying that being 50th or 180th on the money list has no
>bearing whatsoever on whether or not I get an invite?

The invitations are not given based on standings. Check out the other
invitationals...excluding the Masters of course.
--
___,
\o

Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:15:43
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:b0dbv2pvo3kfdpd1389vogqefnq8nkolej@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 2007 15:53:06 -0400, John van der Pflum
> <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 2007 15:32:13 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Please don't use the Masters as the counter argument for anything the
>>>PGA
>>>Tour does as the Masters is not a PGA Tour event.
>>>
>>>All PGA Tour events should be full field using the normal PGA exempt list
>>>for entering.
>>>
>>
>>Play better.
>>
>>Get invited.
>
> Reading challenged John? You're missing the point by a mile. Playing
> better doesn't get you into all invitationals.

Oh please. Win a stinking John Deere or two and you'll BE high enough on
the list of players that the sponsor WANTS to invite.

I agree 100% with the sentiment: Play Better and Get Invited. Come in 20th
place in every event you play and you'll make a living and keep your card -
but frankly WHO CARES? I don't watch golf on TV to see 100 guys who have
been on the tour for years and whos highlights are a once a year top 10
finish.

I'd rather see 10 more Invitationals with the best players, and hot
newcommers - than 10 John Deere's or whatever-that-silly-lumber-company-is.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 00:11:22
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 23:15:43 GMT, "FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com > wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message

>Oh please. Win a stinking John Deere or two and you'll BE high enough on
>the list of players that the sponsor WANTS to invite.
>
>I agree 100% with the sentiment: Play Better and Get Invited. Come in 20th
>place in every event you play and you'll make a living and keep your card -
>but frankly WHO CARES? I don't watch golf on TV to see 100 guys who have
>been on the tour for years and whos highlights are a once a year top 10
>finish.
>
>I'd rather see 10 more Invitationals with the best players, and hot
>newcommers - than 10 John Deere's or whatever-that-silly-lumber-company-is.

What an idiot. Who gives a shit if you agree 100%. Brad Faxon
doesn't, and he has a little more standing, understanding of the tour,
and obviously a lot more common sense than you.

--
___,
\o

Date: 13 Mar 2007 14:09:23
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:ntqbv2dppcif3j6k598qmj8avi7v1olopi@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 2007 23:15:43 GMT, "FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>
>>Oh please. Win a stinking John Deere or two and you'll BE high enough on
>>the list of players that the sponsor WANTS to invite.
>>
>>I agree 100% with the sentiment: Play Better and Get Invited. Come in
>>20th
>>place in every event you play and you'll make a living and keep your
>>card -
>>but frankly WHO CARES? I don't watch golf on TV to see 100 guys who have
>>been on the tour for years and whos highlights are a once a year top 10
>>finish.
>>
>>I'd rather see 10 more Invitationals with the best players, and hot
>>newcommers - than 10 John Deere's or
>>whatever-that-silly-lumber-company-is.
>
> What an idiot. Who gives a shit if you agree 100%. Brad Faxon
> doesn't, and he has a little more standing, understanding of the tour,
> and obviously a lot more common sense than you.
>

Wow, thoughtful and insightful. I guess the comeback is something like "who
gives a shit what *you* think". Last time I checked, no opinion in here
carries any weight with the Tour. Apparently the Tour doesn't agree with
Brad - they must be infiltrated with idiots.

Brad Faxon, 216th in the world who made exactly 1 cut out of 6 tries this
year (T48 at PODS and made $13,051) with 62 FedEx points. Who "eeked" out a
half million dollars on Tour last year while never finishing higher than
16th in an official event and missed half the cuts.

Don't get me wrong. I like Faxon. I like Beem. Their point of view is
that of a second tier player worrying about the third tier player. I think
viewers also get to express their point of view as well.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 13:24:48
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Tue, 13 2007 14:09:23 GMT, "FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com > wrote:

>Wow, thoughtful and insightful. I guess the comeback is something like "who
>gives a shit what *you* think". Last time I checked, no opinion in here
>carries any weight with the Tour.

You're absolutely right. Sometimes my written word is harsher than
intended. My apologies.

>Apparently the Tour doesn't agree with Brad - they must be infiltrated with idiots.
>
That seems to be a moot question...from what I read, this was a
Finchem decision only...and there just may be a change in this
tournament. The Player's Advisory Committee will probably have a vote
to see if this stands as advertised.

>Brad Faxon, 216th in the world who made exactly 1 cut out of 6 tries this
>year (T48 at PODS and made $13,051) with 62 FedEx points. Who "eeked" out a
>half million dollars on Tour last year while never finishing higher than
>16th in an official event and missed half the cuts.
>
But...from what I read, he got an invite. Go figure.

>Don't get me wrong. I like Faxon. I like Beem. Their point of view is
>that of a second tier player worrying about the third tier player. I think
>viewers also get to express their point of view as well.
>
--
___,
\o

Date: 13 Mar 2007 14:58:21
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:199dv29m4kbvmngdulmct45o3b2pk2qmtd@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 2007 14:09:23 GMT, "FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com> wrote:

>>Brad Faxon, 216th in the world who made exactly 1 cut out of 6 tries this
>>year (T48 at PODS and made $13,051) with 62 FedEx points. Who "eeked" out
>>a
>>half million dollars on Tour last year while never finishing higher than
>>16th in an official event and missed half the cuts.
>>
> But...from what I read, he got an invite. Go figure.
>

Like I said, he is well liked. He won the Buick (one of Tigers sponsors) in
2005. But if he doesn't pick up his game - he might not be on the short
list forever. Rich Beem is one of those guys who won a major and without it
would be on the money list cut line... *he* might have problems getting
into invitationals even though he glides into full field events on his
exemption.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 14:18:20
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Tue, 13 2007 14:58:21 GMT, "FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com > wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:199dv29m4kbvmngdulmct45o3b2pk2qmtd@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 2007 14:09:23 GMT, "FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com> wrote:
>
>>>Brad Faxon, 216th in the world who made exactly 1 cut out of 6 tries this
>>>year (T48 at PODS and made $13,051) with 62 FedEx points. Who "eeked" out
>>>a
>>>half million dollars on Tour last year while never finishing higher than
>>>16th in an official event and missed half the cuts.
>>>
>> But...from what I read, he got an invite. Go figure.
>>
>
>Like I said, he is well liked. He won the Buick (one of Tigers sponsors) in
>2005. But if he doesn't pick up his game - he might not be on the short
>list forever. Rich Beem is one of those guys who won a major and without it
>would be on the money list cut line... *he* might have problems getting
>into invitationals even though he glides into full field events on his
>exemption.
>
>
Especially now.
--
___,
\o

Date: 12 Mar 2007 19:17:12
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 15:05:07 -0400, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:

>On 12 2007 12:00:07 -0700, "gp" <gopher70@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Anybody heard about this??
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Rich Beem is "insulted," he's insulted by the new AT&T National
>>tournament to be hosted by Tiger Woods in DC on the week of July 4th.
>>The previous tournament in DC had an open field, and that's what Beem
>>and other are complaining about. "It's the most totally wrong thing
>>I've heard of in a long time that's sticking it to the players," Beem
>>said.
>>
>>"I was shocked when I heard that," Brad Faxon said. "We've got players
>>looking for spots, and we're replacing a tournament that had a full
>>field. With the amount of tournaments we have that are invitationals,
>>it doesn't make sense to do more." There already are at least 7
>>"invite only" tourneys on the tour. So if you're not that good or
>>can't get an invite, how are you supposed to make a living on tour?
>
>LOL. A guy making $1,000,000 plus playing a game complaining that
>he's having a hard time "making a living." Classic.

Beem and Faxon weren't speaking of their situation, but of the
lesser players' on tour. The guys that are trying to keep their card
and are on the bubble lose another tournament that could help them.
___,
\o

Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:39:02
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:3b9bv29st86d6lac8iisha65d13jnn2rfh@4ax.com...

>
> Beem and Faxon weren't speaking of their situation, but of the
> lesser players' on tour. The guys that are trying to keep their card
> and are on the bubble lose another tournament that could help them.
>

The guys on the bubble of keeping their cards are competing against other
players on the bubble of keeping their cards. I don't see how this
tournament hurts or benefits any of the players in danger of losing their
card.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 20:10:59
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 15:39:02 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
<no-one@nowhere.com > wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:3b9bv29st86d6lac8iisha65d13jnn2rfh@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> Beem and Faxon weren't speaking of their situation, but of the
>> lesser players' on tour. The guys that are trying to keep their card
>> and are on the bubble lose another tournament that could help them.
>>
>
>The guys on the bubble of keeping their cards are competing against other
>players on the bubble of keeping their cards. I don't see how this
>tournament hurts or benefits any of the players in danger of losing their
>card.
>

The more money you make, the better chance to keep their card. The
more tournaments they play, the better chance to make more money.
What if one player on the bubble is invited to this tournament, and
another isn't. That didn't happen for the tournament it replaced.

Is that too hard for you to comprehend?
___,
\o

Date: 12 Mar 2007 16:16:53
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:lpcbv2tgvgngliffcpifj10o0esv0dbm88@4ax.com...
>
> The more money you make, the better chance to keep their card. The
> more tournaments they play, the better chance to make more money.
> What if one player on the bubble is invited to this tournament, and
> another isn't. That didn't happen for the tournament it replaced.
>

Well I guess if the tournament invites some players on the bubble then I see
it. I didn't assume that invitational tournaments invite many players
struggling to stay on the tour.

>
> Is that too hard for you to comprehend?
>

Thanks for making your point without being an asshole.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 20:18:37
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Rich Beem "insulted" by Tiger's "invite-only" tourney in DC

On Mon, 12 2007 16:16:53 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
<no-one@nowhere.com > wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:lpcbv2tgvgngliffcpifj10o0esv0dbm88@4ax.com...
>>
>> The more money you make, the better chance to keep their card. The
>> more tournaments they play, the better chance to make more money.
>> What if one player on the bubble is invited to this tournament, and
>> another isn't. That didn't happen for the tournament it replaced.
>>
>
>Well I guess if the tournament invites some players on the bubble then I see
>it. I didn't assume that invitational tournaments invite many players
>struggling to stay on the tour.
>
>>
>> Is that too hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>
>Thanks for making your point without being an asshole.
>
You're welcome.
___,
\o