Illustration by Dan Baril · Click to enlargeIt’s ironic, isn't it? A tour named LIV— meant to represent the Roman numeral for 54 and a fresh way to "live" the game—ultimately failed to do just that.
I’ve been a PGA Tour loyalist since childhood, and lately, thanks to Nelly Korda, I’ve become a frequent viewer of the LPGA. But I can honestly say I haven’t watched a single minute of LIV Golf. My boycott wasn’t fueled by the holier-than-thou preachings of Brandle Chamblee, nor do I believe the so-called "defectors" should be treated like pariahs. On the contrary, they should be welcomed back—if only to see if they can still compete in a traditional, high-stakes format.
The truth is simpler: I had zero interest in the product. It was a confusing concoction of team play on unfamiliar courses in mismatched time zones. I couldn't even tell you where it was televised, and I couldn't be bothered to find out.
I also don’t share the modern "hate-on" for Greg Norman. He was once one of my favorite players to watch. I was there at Glen Abbey in 1992 when he famously saved par with a near full-swing chip from the 17th green—a shot that arguably won him the Canadian Open.
The players who jumped to LIV made a business decision. Who among us wouldn’t consider a career move for a hundred million dollars? Furthermore, Norman is right about one thing: PGA Tour players are making significantly more money today because of the competition LIV provided. They should be thanking the so-called defectors, not punishing them. In fact, I owe LIV a debt of gratitude for sparing me from watching Bryson "DeChamslow" spend 15 minutes reading every putt, or Patrick Reed pretending he can’t feel the sand under his wedge before lying about it.
From Day 1, I suspected LIV would eventually fold or be absorbed, much like the WHA was by the NHL. The game of golf is as healthy as it has ever been. It has changed, certainly, but the future is bright—not in spite of LIV, but because of it.
It makes you wonder: is this the first time a mediocre product was exactly what a great product needed to get better?