Welcome to another installment of SI Golf "Fact or Fiction," where we don't want to know what our golf swings would look like after 12 years off.
If you're new here, we post a series of topical statements for writers and editors to declare as “Fact” or “Fiction” along with a brief explanation. Responses may also be "Neutral" since there's a lot of gray area in golf.
Do you agree or disagree? Let us know on the SI Golf X account.
Talor Gooch suggested in Australian Golf Digest that a Rory McIlroy Masters win should have an asterisk. He's taking the LIV Golf/OWGR/missed-majors argument too far.
FACT. We’d have quite the list of tainted majors if we looked back and saw who was missing at various times. Nobody diminishes the accomplishment regardless of who is there. They are still the hardest tournaments to win.—Bob Harig
Getty Images
FACT. He’s taking the OWGR argument way too far. The idea of an asterisk beside Rory McIlroy or Jordan Spieth’s name is laughable. You play against the field that's present and if you win you win, even if it's 36 holes, 54 holes or 72 holes or a field of 54, 89 or 156, a win is a win. The world ranking debacle is unfortunate and as much as we’d like to see it addressed in an equitable manner, if Rory or Jordan wins his fourth different major, they deserve all the accolades that comes with it, except an asterisk.—Alex Miceli
FICTION. O.K., is the proposed Gooch-asterisk (Goochterisk?) a stretch? Yes. But his broader point holds up: there are now simply too many top-tier players at LIV for the majors to ignore it. But it’s not the players who suffer—everyone on both the LIV and the PGA Tour are doing just fine and richer than ever—it’s golf fans who lose, as they aren’t treated to big events that include all of the world’s most worthy participants.—Jeff Ritter
FACT. Yeah, Gooch majorly missed the mark on this one—are you surprised? The LIV golfers who have succeeded in majors in recent years are in the Masters field. There will be no asterisk necessary for the absence of Jason Kokrak, Marc Leishman or Gooch himself. This is crazy talk!—Gabby Herzig
FACT. Are we really talking asterisks again? It's not Gooch's or anyone else's call to quantify wins. I'm no fan of the OWGR (Gooch at No. 449 is absurd) and the game has to do better there, but that's a separate discussion.—John Schwarb
Joaquin Niemann isn't going to the Masters because of his LIV Golf performances, but the special invitation shined a light again on the Saudi-backed league. Starting next year the majors should invite LIV Golf's reigning individual champion.
FACT. That would help but it’s not going to solve the problem that even OWGR chairman Peter Dawson acknowledged: some of the best players in the world are not being accounted for properly. Giving a spot to LIV’s top player is not going to satisfy those who believe the OWGR is outdated. It’s time that the OWGR and LIV got together and figured out how the league can comply.—B.H.
FICTION. The majors should come up with a better system than the world rankings, but giving spots to winners of a LIV event is not the answer. Just like it may not make sense anymore to give spots to PGA Tour winners. Just looking at the leaderboards at lesser PGA Tour events (i.e., non-signature, the fields are woefully short compared to LIV events, so the majors should find another vehicle to determine who should play in their events.—A.M.
FACT. It's unclear how much closer (or farther?) we're getting to a PGA Tour/LIV Golf collaborative league, but regardless, there will always be at least a handful of LIV players in Augusta via various exemptions. Accepting their individual league champion makes sense.—J.R.
FICTION. I can’t get behind this. It is undeniable that LIV is now home to some of the best players in the world, but the league as a whole is still made up of a hand-picked/bought group of professional golfers. I don’t think it would be right to give an exemption category to a tour that wasn’t exactly built on merit.—G.H.
FACT. The majors could do this while also having a loophole if the criteria is "LIV individual champion if not otherwise exempt." For example, Rahm and DJ are set at the Masters already. But the fact that Gooch was the individual champ last year might, um, make this idea a little less palatable to the lords of the majors.—J.S.
Luke Donald will take the NBC golf analyst chair the next two weeks as "tryouts" for the job continue. NBC should instead just keep it as a revolving role, inviting different players or even others involved in the game.
FACT. For now, this seems like a perfectly fine way to go.—B.H.
FICTION. Find a permanent replacement for Paul Azinger and move on. This revolving analyst seat belittles the position. Also maybe NBC should call Azinger and see if he’d come back.—A.M.
FACT. Why not? It's fun to get fresh perspectives into the broadcasts. Look forward to hearing from Luke this week.—J.R.
FACT. I love the revolving role idea. For fans who are paying attention, it gives some added incentive to tune in to the broadcast every week and see what new information and perspective each analyst can offer. Luke will be perfect for the job and I’m excited to hear what he has to say.—G.H.
FACT. There's continuity in NBC's broadcasts with their outstanding on-course analysts, so that frees up the booth to take some chances. This could be NBC's twist in golf coverage.—J.S.
Another edition of "The Match" was held Monday evening, with LPGA stars finally competing. But after nine iterations of the prime-time event, there isn't any more new ground to cover to keep fans' interest.
FICTION. The series can have its moments, and going to 12 holes has been a good idea. Four players is probably too much because it takes too long and getting back to some head-to-head matches like the first one—Tiger vs. Phil—might make sense. Bringing women into the competition was another good idea that can be further enhanced.—B.H.
FACT. Why another version? I just painted a wall and need to make sure it dries properly, so I’m too busy to watch the Match.—A.M.
John Nowak/TNT Sports
FACT. From a fan-interest perspective, it has run its course. But from a fundraising and sponsorship perspective, it seems to be humming along. That means we haven't seen the last of The Match.—J.R.
