‘Don’t Give Me That C***’: PGA Tour Pro Blasts Jay Monahan & Co. Over Slow Play Excuses

Remember the chaos that emerged last year when the PGA Tour dropped the bombshell that they’d be introducing sweeping changes to their structure and schedule? Well, it’s about to get even more interesting as the Tour kicks off its third season in the post-LIV era. The changes, which include reducing field sizes to 120 in some events, trimming down Monday qualifiers, and limiting full-time membership to the top 100 players, were supposedly aimed at increasing competitiveness and tackling slow play. However, not everyone was convinced that these changes are for the better, and now another PGA Tour pro has also spoken against the new rules.

In the latest YouTube episode on The Smylie Kaufman Show, Joel Dahmen, a PGA Tour pro, took a swipe at the limited field Signature Events, expressing frustration with the new system. “Typically that always gets you into the next week and the old PGA Tour model, but now that doesn’t get you into the next week,” Kaufman asked Dhamen, highlighting the uncertainty. “For instance, I finished top 10 last week, but that doesn’t guarantee me a spot in the next tournament. It’s a weird place to be,” he added, emphasizing the challenges of navigating the new system. Dahmen responded with comparisons from 2 years prior, “I think if you go back to Nick Taylor two years ago, he was in the final group with Scotty and John Rahm, and he takes them down to the last hole – like, that’s what you need.” Dahmen’s comments underscore the tension between the Tour’s efforts to create more exclusive events and the need to provide opportunities for a broader range of players. A lesser field number will not only limit opportunities for new players but will also not provide the challenge required for players who are on the top. This might circle back to the problem of low viewership again, which is already impending in the PGA Tour.

Dahmen took a dig at PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan and the Tour’s decision-makers, saying “Don’t give me that c***” regarding the reasoning behind limiting the field to 70 players. “I think it’s a player problem,” rather than a numbers issue, he argued, emphasizing the need for individual accountability. Dahmen thinks players are the ones who are slow as he believes it’s not the number of players in the field that’s causing the pace of play issues. “You can’t tell me having less players in the field is going to make it more competitive,” Dahmen said, questioning the logic behind the limited field events. The comments highlight the ongoing debate about the best way to structure the PGA Tour schedule and provide opportunities for players to compete at the highest level.

Not only that, Dahmen’s stance is also shared by other exempt players including a member of the PGA Tour Council who has also spoken out against the changes.

PGA Tour Council member echoes Joel Dahmen’s criticism of new changes

Maverick McNealy, a PGA Tour Player Advisory Council member, has joined the chorus of criticism against the Tour’s new changes, echoing sentiments similar to those expressed by Joel Dahmen. In a chat with Smylie Kaufman, McNealy admitted that the current system is hard to defend, particularly when it comes to the distribution of points. He pointed out the disparity in points awarded between signature events and larger tournaments, highlighting how a 28th-place finish in a signature event can earn the same points as a 6th-place finish in a larger tournament.

McNealy’s main concern, however, is the reduction in playing opportunities for rank-and-file players. With signature events now limited to 72 players, he estimates that this translates to 400 fewer playing opportunities throughout the year. “Where I can’t defend 120 if you are only letting 72 players into Signature Events. That’s 400 playing opportunities over the year. You can’t tell me that 72 is a better product than 120.” he said earlier this year, emphasizing the importance of providing more opportunities for players to compete. What are your thoughts on the matter? Let us know in the comment section below!