sdandrea1 It's an individual thing. I have nothing but good memories about Brett Favre and Pete Rose. Rose broke the rules and I understand why people hold that against him, but I don't. The same for Tiger and his infidelity to his family. To me his legacy is as a player, not as a role model. My Mark McGuire memories aren't fond because I believe his biggest accomplishments were made through cheating the system. It's funny that he is the one I don't remember fondly since he's the only one of these that played for a team I love(d).

      sdandrea1

      Exactly. It would be disingenuous for top professional athletes to say legacy means nothing to them. Legacies positive or negative last forever. The money may not.

      History will judge legacies. In baseball those who took steroids and got caught their legacies will suffer. It'll be known as the steroid era because of that.

      And history will judge the legacies of the golfers who chose to play LIV Golf. LIV golfers won't be able to escape the scrutiny of their decision.

      Just as I can't see a day when steroid use will be considered acceptable, taking sportswashing money won't be acceptable as well. In both cases legacies are tarnished.

        johnnydoom

        I get it and agree. McGuire was a hero of sorts to me as I watched in awe. Tiger as well. His comebacks and dominance were epic. I just got so disappointed in those guys in their fall from grace that it just stuck in my brain.

          I'm sure once Phil lost his "legacy" (I guess it gets cancelled now) in about 5 minutes, it was pretty easy for everyone else to realize that they don't really even have a legacy to lose. Tiger and Jack needed to worry about theirs, but no one else really has one IMO.....at least not one worth what LIV golf pays.

            KCee I'm sure once Phil lost his "legacy" (I guess it gets cancelled now) in about 5 minutes, it was pretty easy for everyone else to realize that they don't really even have a legacy to lose. Tiger and Jack needed to worry about theirs, but no one else really has one IMO.....at least not one worth what LIV golf pays.

            I think the top PGA Tour guys who decided to stay on the PGA Tour and rejected the sportswashing money have kept their legacies intact. Some like McILroy, Thomas, Rahm, Spieth and Koepka etc. will be headed for the Hall of Fame.

            I'm sure their legacies had a huge influence on their decision.

                Sneakylong I'm curious. "You" think their legacy is important. But what if "they" don't care about their own legacy? Should they care because you do, or is it ok for them not to worry about their own legacy?

                    And for all the whataboutism arguments made that the U.S. has an alliance with this or that country that has committed human rights atrocities and that somehow makes it acceptable for individuals to do the same.

                    Countries including ours sometimes have to make strategic geopolitical alliances with countries with questionable human rights violations. We had an alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler for example.

                    Individuals don't have to do that.

                      Sneakylong whataboutism arguments

                      AKA I'm going to point the figure at you for something I don't like, but please ignore the wrongdoings that I accept. I'm a bit sick of whataboutism as it's own excuse.

                          johnnydoom I'm curious. "You" think their legacy is important. But what if "they" don't care about their own legacy? Should they care because you do, or is it ok for them not to worry about their own legacy?

                          The percentage of top professional athletes who don't care about their legacy has to be extremely small. I think anyone in the public eye cares about their legacy. Unless they're a sociopath and even some of them probably care how they're viewed.

                          Obviously with some of these players taking huge up front sportswashing money they're able to sleep at night with little regard to what people think.

                          I think it's called having no conscience. History is littered with people who show little regard for their own integrity. Who choose money over character. Choosing money over morality is nothing new. But it's never viewed in a good light.

                              Sneakylong Choosing money over morality is nothing new

                              I absolutely agree. The thing I'm having a hard time with is the inconsistency in the morality. What KCee points out above. We're talking about individual moralities, not universal moralities. Saudi commits human rights atrocities is not ok, but other countries human rights atrocities are conditional? Saudi can't sponsor a tour, but companies that build their products in China and other low labor rate countries (putting money before morality) can sponsor a tour.

                                  johnnydoom they should be living their life, not someone else's idea of how they should live unless they've chosen to model themselves after someone else.

                                  Exactly.
                                  Also, imo, it will be easier for some (let's say DJ) to do it by not paing attention to social media, legacy media, and by refusing to do any interviews for TV while he's at the course (no obligation as a non-member) and also by not joining Golfbuzz to read about the high moral bar set for them by one member here.
                                  😉

                                      Spuzz also by not joining Golfbuzz to read about the high moral bar set for them by one member here.

                                      His loss!

                                          johnnydoom Should they care because you do, or is it ok for them not to worry about their own legacy?

                                          All those mentioned are still young, and good enough, to win majors and make some decent money (if they haven''t already) and then jump to the LIV tour in the future when age catches up with them.
                                          A lot of their legacy hasn't been written yet. In ten years, most of the legacy will be written.
                                          Then what?
                                          Only Rahm talks about legacy, but he has a giant ego and wants to surpass all the Spaniards before him.
                                          He's the oddball at the moment.
                                          JT has recently, but he has an agenda.

                                            KCee AKA I'm going to point the figure at you for something I don't like, but please ignore the wrongdoings that I accept. I'm a bit sick of whataboutism as it's own excuse.

                                            I think if one is going to use whataboutisms in a debate it would be better to compare apples to apples. Citing strategic geopolitical alliances countries make and comparing it to an alliance individuals make with countries is weak.

                                            I mean if we didn't strike an alliance with Stalin in defeating Hitler we could all be speaking German right now. lol Pretty big consequences at stake there.

                                            Individual professional golfers trying to make the argument that by accepting sportswashing money is somehow growing the game when in actuality it probably is helping destroy the game is a weak excuse as well.

                                            Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud could give a shit about growing the game. These players are high priced tools being used for a strategic geopolitical reason. Any positive spin they try to justify it with is pure bullshit.

                                                johnnydoom Please believe me when I say this. I'm not trying to say that you are wrong in regarding the Saudi money as "blood" money. All I'm trying to say is that it should be very hard for most of us to throw stones from the glass house we live in without reflecting on whether or not it is worth breaking our own glass to get to someone else. I jokingly referred to the Amish earlier in this thread, but they are much closer to adhering to this morality over money than most of us, and particularly me as an individual.

                                                  Sneakylong

                                                  Sneakylong bad analogy. We don't have an alliance with Saudi Arabia because we're fighting a war. It's because of oil and money. They've proven again and again they're no ally in fighting terrorism.
                                                  Same for China,it's all about money. We know they're evil and they continually backstabbing us at every turn, but that money is too irresistible. And " whataboutism" is a stupid term to justify morals for one while completely ignoring them for someone else

                                                      johnnydoom I absolutely agree. The thing I'm having a hard time with is the inconsistency in the morality. What KCee points out above. We're talking about individual moralities, not universal moralities. Saudi commits human rights atrocities is not ok, but other countries human rights atrocities are conditional? Saudi can't sponsor a tour, but companies that build their products in China and other low labor rate countries (putting money before morality) can sponsor a tour.

                                                      Yeah, again geopolitics is messy and at times lacks consistency. Using a whataboutism argument in regards to how we deal with China opposed to Cuba is a legitimate debate.

                                                      A geopolitical alliance debate can be legit using whataboutism. But using it comparing countries to individuals is weak imo.