rsvman2

Again, it's all relative. Take any activity someone enjoys. Does it add value and significance to their life? If it does it has some level of importance to their life. Some people love running (not me lol). It's an obsession for some. For them it's a very important part of their life. And in many cases seemingly unimportant things can add value to one's life.

Bottom line is this. To assume what is unimportant to you must also be unimportant for everyone else is presumptuous. Important things in life don't have to be necessities. Aside from food and shelter everything else has literally some level of unimportance in life.

Another example. For some going to church every Sunday is an important part of their life. For me my religious experience is found on a golf course surrounded by nature. For me going to church would add no value to my life and to a non golfer spending 4 hours on a golf course would add no value to their life.

The only argument I have is you can't project your opinion of what is important or unimportant onto anyone else. What's deemed important is in the eye of the beholder.

      garyt1957

      Sure it’s the point. Telling someone that sports have any real importance in their life is laughable, is telling someone what should or shouldn’t have any value in their life.

      But like many issues we disagree on we can agree to disagree.

          Sneakylong Your last sentence is my whole point. Whatever you personally place value on is valuable to you. We place value on things that don't have intrinsic value. Sports only matter if one thinks they do, and to the extent one thinks they do.
          I'm not projecting my values on anyone. I love sports more than probably 80% of the population. I am simply pointing out that the value of sports is extrinsic, not intrinsic. You or anybody else could make the Buccaneers games the most important thing in your life, if you want to, and I don't care at all. But those games still don't have intrinsic value.

              Sneakylong nope, your missing the point, again. Sports are very important in my life, playing not pro sports though.
              But rsvman2 was talking about your beloved "legacy" in pro sports and I think you know that. Who.wins the World Series or a major while entertaining at the time is meaningless in most anyone's life. I doubt you put your beloved Patriots SB wins on the same pedestal as the birth of your child, or your marriage and if you do I feel sorry for you.

                Sneakylong The abstract in your link says 'the paper... concludes that sport does not have intrinsic value,' so thanks for proving my point, I guess.

                    rsvman2

                    Not so fast. There’s several articles within that link that give just the opposite view. Nice try though.

                      https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Sports/liv-golfers-send-letter-owgr-chairman-retroactive-inclusion/story?id=90208143

                      These guys feel so entitled. I guess they just reflect their benefactors who are used to buying their way into everything.lol

                      There’s criteria you need to get OWGR. The one most cited is the 72 holes. But also a 36 hole cut. Plus other criteria like size of field etc..

                      Tiger’s Hero World Challenge is the only PGA Tournament that doesn’t meet that criteria. And probably should lose World Ranking Points status.

                      Although players earned their way into that tournament (with OWGR lol). There is no earning your way onto LIV as of now. Although they say they will offer 4 spots to qualify for.

                      Also heard Greg Norman will be in Washington to lobby Congress.

                        Sneakylong I hate to say it, but they do have a point. You could compare the LIV Tour to other small field Tour events where only the top players are invited and get points. You have to "earn" your way into those events, but they block out many other players and the points help keep top players higher in the rankings for longer. Also the Tour awards full points if an event is cut from 72 to 54 holes and only reduces the points to 75% if it's 36 holes so the rules are saying 72 holes is not necessary for points.

                        As I have said, I am not a fan of LIV just because of the backers, but ignoring that I do feel there could be a case of anti-trust here. The Tour appears to be trying to quash the competition. There are now other events with (at least formerly ranked) players that run more than 36 holes so why can they not earn OWGR points? They appear to be meeting the criteria for those points. And honestly how many points can they earn with so few events? They can still legally be blocked out of the regular Tour events so how many can they earn?