Talk:2020 PGA Championship

Invitees and missing players

The initial field list has been released. In the following groups – 1) players who fall under an exemption category, 2) players in the current OWGR top 100 but outside the top 70 in points, 3) players in the OWGR top 100 when it was frozen but outside the top 70 in points, 4) current Ryder Cup captains – only three players are missing: Yang Yong-eun, Shugo Imahira, and Kim Joo-hyung. Three players who will or may fall under category 9 are listed already: Matthew Fitzpatrick, Louis Oosthuizen, and Scottie Scheffler. Oosthuizen and Scheffler fall within the PGA's usual practice of listing players who are within the OWGR top 100 but near the cutoff for the top 70 in points ahead of the deadline (they're 60th and 62nd, respectively). Fitzpatrick would have fallen within that last week, but his third place at Memorial boosted him from 67th to 44th in points; another potential reason for him being listed in the field already is that the PGA occasionally does so with foreign players within the top 70 in points. It's also worth noting that the PGA, for the first time in a while, has not invited Ryder Cup players outside the OWGR top 100 (Alex Norén and Thorbjørn Olesen). pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems they are expecting some players to play who have explicitly stated that they won't travel to the US while current quarantine requirements are in place, e.g. Eddie Pepperell. All in all, I'm not seeing exactly why the list has been released other than to get Tiger's name out there!
Anyway, I've moved Yang per the list. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

They always release the initial field list the week before the top 70 in points is finalized. I suspect that this is because some international players need proof of eligibility for travel documents. During the week after the top 70 in points is finalized, they add some mix of players from the current OWGR and those just beyond the top 70 in PGA points not yet exempt. My expectation is that tomorrow's list will include additions of Norén from the current OWGR and Redman, Hubbard, Tringale, and Varner from beyond top 70. They will hold back at least two slots for the winners this week. Söderberg is the only player in the WGC FedEx St. Jude Invitational field that is not yet exempt into the PGA championship.

In my opinion, these invitees in the initial list published by the PGA of America should be listed on this page in category 12, which ultimately will be consistent with "The PGA of America reserves the right to invite additional players not included in the categories listed above" after category 9 is finalized. I believe that the fact that the PGA of America publishes this field is sufficient evidence that they are "exempt" or have been invited to play in the tournament. Determining whether those on the list have already earned another exemption into the field ahead of this "none-of-the-above" category is simply compilation of facts and information as described on WP:NOTOR. The current page structure is unnecessarily awkward.

So, it seems I was wrong about Norén, and assumed that since Kim Joo-hyung was not in last week's list and that they deleted and then reintroduced Benjamin Hebert, that neither were going to be in the field. It seems they did drop Westwood from this list.BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please add a source for categories 12 (invitees) & 13 (pga points). Seems like we may be just assuming the OWGR Top-100 get invites? For example, do we have a source that categorically states that Homa and Glover are invitees and not in fact cat 13 (both ranked above Tringale in PGA Points)? Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. It is at the top of the field list because it covers all categories. BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is likely that there will not be a published source explicitly enumerating all of the categories in the manner that you desire until sometime after Friday evening when the final field is published. There is usually an AP news article with the full field breakdown. It used to be the case that the PGA of America website maintained a running update of the field by category, but they stopped doing that a few years ago. In the past couple of years, they have only provided an alphabetized list of players currently exempt into the field. It also used to be the case that pgatour.com would publish the field breakdown in their "Inside the Field" feature. Unfortunately, for the 2019 and 2018 PGA Championships they have simply listed the qualification criteria and the alphabetized field list as published by the PGA of America.

Relative to the status of Glover and Homa, it is a fact that they were both in the original field list published by the PGA of America on July 21. Since the PGA of America is the organization that runs the PGA Championship, I take them at their word when they publish a field list. It would be absurd to believe (or claim with out evidence) that such a published list would include any players that have not yet satisfied some exemption criteria for the tournament. Furthermore, both Glover and Homa were added to Rob Bolton's regularly updated list of exempt players on July 23. They are both currently listed as already exempt on Bolton's page (dated Sunday July 26; https://www.pgatour.com/fantasy/major-qualifiers.html). None of Hubbard, Redman, or Tringale are currently listed as exempt on Bolton's page. Since Glover and Homa were both in the published field prior to the final determination of the PGA points list after the conclusion of the 3M Open (July 26), it would be factually inaccurate to list them in category 13. Furthermore, at the time that Homa was first listed in the published field, his position in the PGA Points list was #86, with at least seven players not yet exempt in the list ranked over 70. It would be beyond absurd to claim that Homa only made it into the field because he was position 72 on the final PGA points list for the 2020 tournament.

I would also like to point out the following quotes from WP:NOTOR: "Wikipedians are not mere copyists, bound to repeat simple statements absent context or without thought." and "We have a responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article." BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The list published on July 21 was a "list of players expected to play", nothing more, and included players who had already explicitly stated that they would not be playing (e.g. Westwood, Pepperell). It also did/does not specify under which category they are/were expected to qualify/be invited. The same is true of Bolton's tracker; he explicitly states that certain qualification categories are TBC and players in those categories have not been confirmed/announced. If no reliable sources (and Bolton) are making that leap, why are we?
From WP:OR: "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Assuming that the invitees are those from the top-100 in the OWGR (because that is usual/likely), and others are not, is precisely this. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion that field published on July 21st was simply a "list of players expected to play" is a distinction without a difference. From the main web page for the 2020 tournament (https://www.pgachampionship.com), you can navigate to this list of players by clicking on a button that says "The Field". The fact that a player is on this list is an explicit claim by the tournament that that player is exempt into the tournament.

Your assertion that Westwood and Pepperell had publicly asserted that they would not be playing is a red herring. The deadline for submitting an entry form was July 3rd. It is not unreasonable for a player to keep their options open, even if they do not intend to play. It is also not unreasonable for the PGA of America to publish a list of eligible players that submitted an entry form as "expected to play" irrespective of any public pronouncements by the players in question.

Regarding an explicit reference for category 13, today's update (dated July 27) to https://www.pgatour.com/fantasy/major-qualifiers.html includes the following:

The other three exemptions were filled by the first three outside the top 70 in PGA Championship points. Doc Redman (73rd) will be making his debut in the tournament. Mark Hubbard (75th) never has qualified for any major until now. Cameron Tringale (79th) has made two of five cuts in the PGA Championship and hasn’t qualified since 2016.

This is an explicit statement that category 13 only includes these three players. That being said, I would prefer to have a reference other than Bolton. His information is trustworthy, but it updates on a weekly basis and I have not found an archive containing earlier editions. The wayback machine only sporadically captures this page.

So we have the following explicit facts from the three main sources: The 13 categories for eligibility enumerated in the GNN article, the field list from the PGA of America, and Bolton's weekly updates. Of the 13 eligibility categories, the first 11 all have multiple easily verified reliable sources. For 13 and the alternate list, we have the quote from Bolton indicating explicitly three players filling the field in this category. We are left with the situation of a published field with 12 fully populated categories that are either explicitly verified or easily verified. Category 12 is "The PGA of America reserves the right to invite additional players not included in the categories listed above". We also have 35 or so players that were not verified in any of the first 11 categories. They were also explicitly not included in the reliable source for category 13. It seems obvious to me that these 35 or so players should be listed in category 12. The logic required for this is analogous to a simple arithmetic calculation. My opinion is still that this does not rise to the level of OR.

That being said, even if this were OR, this would be a fine place to invoke the following from WP:PG: "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules."

BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

As the field is now announced, it seems pointless to continue highlighting how many assumptions/deductions are being made using uncertain and/or unverifiable "facts" – definitely not analogous to simple arithmetic where all variables are known and verified. It should also be noted that Bolton is very clear about what he's doing, which makes his tracker somewhat questionable as a reliable source. Regardless, one or more reliable sources that explicitly verify these details are still needed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

External Link

Shouldn't the official website be listed as https://www.pgachampionship.com/ ? Kokonino (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. Done. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 07:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Field section

@Bzweebl: I think your changes earlier were a definite improvement, thanks for that, and I don't think they should have been reverted. I have had another go at formatting the field section (see here) in a more succinct way, this time in more prose form, including the names of some of the players from the first few criteria. Please let me know if you think this is better or worse than your version. I don't think it makes sense to include the names of everyone in the whole field in this part of the article though - there are just too many. I have also spawned a child page at 2020 PGA Championship field, which contains all the detail previously present in the main page section, so the detailed info is not completely lost and those who wish to delve deeper into the field topic can see them there. Pinging Wjemather here too, also interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, both solutions are a clear misuse of footnotes. Please contribute to centralised discussion here. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I like the idea of having a separate page for the field. If we move forward this way, the prose would need to be very different. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wjemather: Great, well that's a step forward then. But what sort of prose would you envisage? I feel like what I've done is a summary of what's in the full page - it mentions all the criteria, as well as some of the names from the top few criteria such as the former winners, as well as the detail of which of those made the cut, which was previously in a table. If the use of footnotes is a problem, then we could also just scrap them and leave the full field listing to the child page.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a summary, it is unnecessary to detail all the criteria. Probably limit the prose to more general statements (top-100 in the world rankings, pga (club) pros, strongest field per owgr strength of field, etc.), leading contenders (per reliable sources), past champions, significant no-shows, etc. The footnotes listing all the players also needs to go (as per my earlier comment, this is not what footnotes are for) – so yes, scrap the footnotes. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I've rewritten the section per my suggestion above – unfortunately I don't have time just now to dig up sources to make it better, so have mostly just used the existing ones. Thoughts? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wjemather: yes that looks terrific, many thanks for doing that. Exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. And I think only the "none of the club players made the cut" statement is unsourced there, not sure if that can easily be cited. Doesn't seem too controversial and can be verified elsewhere anyway. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Cool. Yeah, I'll see if I can find a specific citation for the club pros later, but for now it's verifiable via existing sources for the field and results. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry that I wasn’t around to contribute to this, but much respect to both of you for finding and implementing an agreeable solution. Thank you for your efforts! Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)