Brooks Koepka claimed a two-shot victory over Scottie Scheffler and Viktor Hovland at Oak Hill; Koepka's win is his third PGA Championship title and fifth major win; latest success makes him the first player to win a major since joining LIV
Monday 22 May 2023 15:58, UK
Within seconds of Brooks Koepka's winning putt dropping at the PGA Championship, LIV Golf commissioner Greg Norman was - all too predictably - taking a victory lap on social media.
"Congrats Brooks Koepka. I am so proud of you" he wrote. "LIV players belong and the majors and golf knows".
Ian Poulter also weighed in, simply posting "Any good??????'", followed by an additional - and yes, I counted them - 225 question marks.
It was inevitable that the likes of Norman and Poulter would ride the coattails of Koepka's historic victory and claim it as some kind of vindication or endorsement of LIV. They, and the army of Twitter keyboard warriors they've mobilised, have a compulsion to insert LIV into any conversation.
The reality is that this was absolutely nothing to do with LIV, nor with its ongoing battle against the PGA Tour. Zero, zilch. This was about a golfer, now in the bracket of the all-time greats, securing a fifth major title because of his supreme talent and incredible mental fortitude, not because of which tour he plays on for 14 weeks of the year.
LIV will try to spin the performance of some of its players at the year's first two majors as proof that their league is a competitive breeding ground and the shot in the arm golf needs. As well as Koepka lifting the Wanamaker Trophy, Bryson DeChambeau and Cameron Smith finished inside the top 10 at the PGA Championship, while Phil Mickelson was a surprise runner-up at The Masters - alongside Koepka - in a week where Patrick Reed also finished tied-fourth
LIV's cheerleaders were swift to shout from the rooftops that this proved they were still quality golfers who belonged in major championships, but no one had ever claimed they weren't.
It is undeniably true that several of the players who made the choice to join LIV are no longer competitive at the highest level, but no one ever suggested that was the case for every player. Indeed, that's the very aspect that many golf fans have found sad and tough to accept; that we only get to see these clearly world-class talents a few times a year in the sport's most meaningful tournaments.
Mickelson, Smith and Reed have largely been non-factors in LIV events so far, yet have contended at Augusta and Oak Hill. What does that tell us? That LIV is a competitive tour? Or that those players struggle to find the motivation to get themselves up for LIV events and simply go through the motions having been paid in advance, whereas suddenly they find a way of turning it on during those four weeks a year which mean the most, where the crowds are at their largest and where the prize on offer carries with it a genuine legacy within the game?
If I were holding the purse-strings of the Saudi Public Investment Fund, I'd be a bit miffed at how they can produce stellar golf when the stakes are at their highest, but fail to reproduce that during their events.
As Koepka was making the walk from the 18th green to the recorder's hut, Norman also posted quotes he'd given in an interview, claiming that LIV's players - far from arriving at the major championships rusty and underprepared due to a lack of competitive reps - were instead arriving refreshed and well rested due to their lighter schedule.
That claim may well carry some weight in the case of Koepka, who's overcome career-threatening injuries and now looks back to his imperious best. Perhaps he has benefited from having lengthier periods of downtime to rest and recuperate and to hone his game.
But equally one can point to the likes of Joaquin Niemann, Abraham Ancer or Talor Gooch, all players who were riding the crest of a wave and seemingly had the golfing world at their feet when they made the leap to LIV, but all players who missed the cut at Oak Hill. Are they really benefitting from LIV's reduced schedule? Or have their games suffered from a lack of truly-competitive, meaningful golf?
Plus, all the indicators are that Koepka greatly misses playing on the PGA Tour, and regrets making the decision he did. A player who shall remain nameless texted me a couple of months ago: 'Brooks is miserable. Wants to come back'.
At The Masters, he admitted he probably wouldn't have made the switch knowing what he now knows about how his body has recovered from those injuries. It's notable he's one of the few to wear no LIV-branded apparel, and in his winner's press conference appeared keen to distance himself from his employers, commenting: "I definitely think it helps LIV, but I'm more interested in my own self right now, to be honest with you".
Koepka didn't follow his runner-up finish at Augusta with victory at Oak Hill because he plays on LIV, he's done that in spite of playing on LIV.
And finally, will Brooks' stunning triumph really have any material effect for LIV? They can now boast two of the four reigning major champions, but does that make their product any more compelling? Will it lead to any increased interest in their tournaments or higher viewing figures? I'm not really sure it will.
I struggle to believe that millions who had no interest in it before will suddenly be desperate to tune into their event at Trump National in Washington DC this coming Friday just to get a glimpse of the new PGA champion.
It seems LIV themselves are unsure as to their target audience; whether they're trying to chase a new younger demographic or attempting to win over existing golf fans. Their TV viewing figures suggest they're failing to do either. Purists simply aren't interested in shotgun start, 54-hole golf with music blaring on every tee box, played in teams with names like The Fireballs, Crushers and Range Goats.
A younger, newer audience might be, but will surely accept it for what it is; a bit of fun, an entertainment product; not a sporting league to be taken too seriously, despite their best attempts. Referring to it as 'exhibition golf' is always seen as some derogatory sleight, but why not lean in to this?
Exhibitions, where the end result is mostly unimportant, mean players can take shots on they normally wouldn't. That can be entertaining, and can surely act as a shop window to the game. But having brought new fans in, they'll soon realise that - like any sport - it means more when it matters.
So to the question 'what does this mean for LIV?', the answer is: nothing. Brooks Koepka's fifth major triumph, which puts him alongside legends of the game like Seve Ballesteros, Byron Nelson and Peter Thomson, is not the victory for LIV that Greg Norman and others would have you believe it is.
It's a victory for Koepka, for his resilience, perseverance and iron will. But not for the tour who paid him to play there, and frankly, it's a slap in the face to Koepka to try and pretend it is.
