@NoLayingUp pretty damning evidence of Jose Maria Olazabal knocking leaves off during practice swing of 2nd shot on 2nd hole... all we ask for is consistency... should we call it in?? 😁
Sad news indeed about the passing of Stuart Baggs
A memorable interviewee on 'The Apprentice'. He stunned me with his unforgettable response, claiming he was 'a brand'.... brilliant👏. RIP🙏 .
Sad news indeed about the passing of Stuart Baggs
A memorable interviewee on 'The Apprentice'. He stunned me with his unforgettable response, claiming he was 'a brand'.... brilliant👏. RIP🙏 .
A lot has been made about Brooks Koepka’s possible return to the PGA Tour, some even suggesting it should be made as convenient as possible for him given his popularity and success.
I certainly disagree with this.
Allowing Brooks Koepka to return to the PGA Tour with no consequence, would undermine the very meritocratic foundations that make the PGA Tour legitimate - not because of who he is, but because of what his return with signal.
This is not about retribution, it is about precedent.
If Koepka can leave, helping to destabilize the ecosystem by joining LIV golf, and then return instantly because of talent or popularity— the message is clear: rules are for the replaceable, not the exceptional.
This is corrosive.
LIV did not merely offer an alternative league, it fractured fields, diluted competitive meaning, triggered legal warfare, undermined sponsorship stability, and forced structural change across all of professional golf.
Koepka was not a passive bystander, he was a marquee legitimizer.
You don’t punish him for being influential, but you cannot pretend his influence didn’t matter. His credibility made LIV viable, his stature normalized defection and his success ( especially after joining LIV ) validated the disruption.
If success becomes a retroactive absolution, then the lesson is perverse: if you’re good enough consequences don’t apply.
This is the opposite of meritocracy.
A penalty would not so much be a punishment as it would be an acknowledgment of choice and the consequence does not need to be punitive to be meaningful.
He could be made to re-qualify for the PGA Tour ( his 5 year exemption for winning the PGA Championship for majors may stand but not for the PGA Tour)
He could have limited season eligibility and/or a suspension tied to prior contracted breach.
The players who stayed on the PGA Tour paid a price. They had to absorb the uncertainty, play in weaker fields, shoulder reputational risk and take on a greater responsibility of protecting the tour’s continuity.
Allowing a frictionless return privileges those who left over those who stayed, which reverses the moral order.
Forgiveness without cost is not reconciliation, it’s erasure.
Reintegration is appropriate.
Amnesia is not.
This isn’t about punishing Brooks Kopeka. It is about whether the PGA Tour believe commitments mean something. If elite players can destabilize the system, take guaranteed money and then return instantly because they are popular or successful, the message is that rules apply only to the expendable.
If excellence alone erases consequences then the PGA Tour ceases to be a meritocracy and becomes a marketplace of convenience.
Great players most certainly deserve respect, but institutions deserve protection.
Was that the most dramatic first day of all time ? I think it was .. What’s Day 2 going to bring .. My prediction is for England to Bat the day and have full control by the end .. #Ashes
Does anyone know if Marco Penge needed to birdie 18 last year in Korea to make the cut and secure his playing rights? There doesn't seem to be any evidence or media around this currently...