Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Matt Kuchar redefines cheap

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Matt Kuchar redefines cheap

    My mom would be turning in her urn to learn that one of her favourites, Matt Kuchar, one of the 'good guys' has redefined what it means to be both cheap and tone-deaf. Instead of paying out his (temporary) caddie the usual 5% to 10% of his $1.3 million tournament purse, he paid him the agreed-upon $5,000.

    When challenged by, quite literally, everyone in the golf world, he doubled down on "Well, no, I believe a deal is a deal" and "$5,000 is good money for three days' work".

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ed-his-caddie/

    Let's hope this rings in his ears for years to come.

    #2
    Professional golfers, like many other residents of ultra-high-end gated communities, tend to be awful human beings.

    Comment


      #3
      His management company, seeing the train-wreck unfolding, offered the caddie another $15,000 (which he declined). Kuchar couldn't even field that question properly, saying that it wasn't his idea, and it wasn't coming out of their pocket, but his.

      Fuck. Me.

      Comment


        #4
        If it had been a case of Kuchar offering the guy a flat fee for his time rather than a percentage, well, that would have been OK to say "A deal's a deal". Because taking a flat fee that guarentees you will be paid even if he misses the cut, and then going back and demanding the higher payout after the fact would have been having it both ways. But no, it seems Kuchar simply took the guy on at ~0.5% (or rather for some fixed amounts based on finishes) rather than the typical 5-10%. There is still something on the caddy for either accepting or not checking these were the terms in the first place, why take the job on for so much less than the going rate, but that does seem pretty low. And stupid (meaning Kuchar, not Ortiz), as it turns out.
        It is probably no coincidence that the local caddy being low-balled is Mexican, isn't it?
        Last edited by Janik; 15-02-2019, 13:55.

        Comment


          #5
          Apparently it was a flat-fee deal. Nobody's saying Kuchar reneged on a deal. People are saying he should honour the traditional arrangement of the caddie receiving a percentage of the winner's pot. In this case, between $50,000 and $130,000, depending on the rank. And Kuchar placed first, so closer to the $130,000 end. And then saying things like "Making $5,000 is a great week." when he just made $1.3 million for the same week. It's all just incredibly cheap and clumsy from one of the supposed good guys.
          Last edited by WOM; 15-02-2019, 14:26.

          Comment


            #6
            Can anyone here point me in the direction of a professional golfer who has demonstrably shown himself to be a thoroughly decent human being?

            Comment


              #7
              Paul Casey refused to play Saudi Arabia and castigated those who did, Padraig Harrington gave his prize money from one of his big wins (can't remember which) to charity, Lee Trevino always changed in the car park of Augusta national because of their white male only membership ,you might say he still played the tournament but it's the Masters so at least it's a gesture.

              Comment


                #8
                Pro Sportsmen are usually pretty abominable people, but pro-golfers may be even worse than general sportspeople. That's because they're playing to "fans" who're generally old, conservative rich guys. Which means they have little incentive to even try and look or behave like relatable humans. I fear it's only getting worse as we see loads of identical looking players churned out by the US college system.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by WOM View Post
                  Apparently it was a flat-fee deal. Nobody's saying Kuchar reneged on a deal. People are saying he should honour the traditional arrangement of the caddie receiving a percentage of the winner's pot.
                  Would those same people would have been asking the caddy to return his fee if Kuchar had missed the cut and earned zip? Because 10% of diddly squat is diddly squat, and that is also the traditional arrangement.

                  If that is the case then I think Kuchar's stance is reasonable, and the caddy is trying to pull a fast one. I would also throw a charge of attempted bullying in the caddies direction as by publicising he is trying to use social media to strongarm Kuchar into paying things Kuchar has no moral obligation for.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I'm going to have to disagree with you.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      To me, it turns on the caddy's sophistication.

                      If he was aware of the general practice on tour and decided to take a flat fee in order to be sure of a payday if Kuchar flopped, then I don't have a problem with it. That said, it looks to me that Kuchar took advantage of his relative lack of sophistication in such matters.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Another PGA golfer tweeted "What would Jack or Arnie have done?" In my mind, they'd have given him every penny and been grateful for the opportunity. You're presented a few rare opportunities to be a douche or a legend, and character dictates which way you go.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Janik View Post
                          I would also throw a charge of attempted bullying in the caddies direction as by publicising he is trying to use social media to strongarm Kuchar into paying things Kuchar has no moral obligation for.
                          No legal obligation. He does clearly have a moral obligation since as I understand it this is what always happens. Also, the caddy doesn't simply carry the clubs does he. He makes suggestions, offers advice, warns about the lie of the land etc etc. If Kuchar won I presume the caddy had a hand in that

                          Comment


                            #14
                            So much so that he happily referred to him as 'My good luck charm'. And yes, the caddie has an active roll in the success of the round. No question.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              No, no moral obligation if the caddy has chosen to forgo the usual arrangement in favour of a guaranteed payment. Caddies usually work at risk, with both the potential upsides and down that that conveys. Help a player win, share in the prize, which can be a considerable amount of money. Your advice doesn't have the hoped for effect and he misses the cut, get little or nothing for your week's effort.

                              It depends if Kuchar offered Ortiz an either/or on terms - 5% or $4000 flat, which sounds like it's about what 5% of what the 20th place cheque would have been. If Kuchar did that, Ortiz has gambled on Kuchar have a poor week, got it wrong, and is now trying to recoup his mistake. In which case there is nothing on Kuchar here.
                              If Kuchar didn't give the choice and has just offered to pay Ortiz a flat fee, and Ortiz has talked to other caddies during the tournament and found out what the norm is, then he does have he moral obligation to pay out.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Or what ursus said.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  This report claims Kuchar has said it wasn't a flat fee, but levels of payments based on results. That makes it rather unlikely Ortiz was offered the standard deal and chose this instead in case Kuchar flopped. It would have been the only thing on offer, presumably.
                                  In which case all the brickbats are justified because these are massively cheapskate amounts. Here is the purse for the event. I don't know how $1000 compares as an effective minimum payment (I assume, despite saying up thread that missed cut = not paid, that players often do offer some kind guaranteed payment to temp caddies) but $2000 for making the cut is alright-ish as it works out as ~13.9% of last place, though only 2.3% of 21st which it would have also counted against. $3000 for top 20 and $4000 for top 10 are low-ball and massively low-ball respectively. $3000 is between ~1.7% - 3.2% of the top 20 prizes, and $4000 is ~0.5% - 2.1% of the top 10, excluding the top prize which he threw in a tip to take to the giddy heights of ~0.4%.

                                  I've got enough info now to agree with WOM's assessment of this guy. He's a piece of tight-fisted work.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    And now he's seen the light...

                                    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ie-david-ortiz

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Well his PR people saw it for him.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Yeah. Two things in his finely-crafted statement stuck a bit with me.

                                        First, "they made it seem like I was marginalising David Ortiz and his financial situation": what does 'his financial situation' mean? To me, this implies he had some desperate need for more money...which, you know (wink wink) may be what's behind this whole situation.

                                        Second, "and I have made sure he has received the full total that he has requested". Not the full amount he was owed....or that he was due...or that I should have paid him in the first place. But 'that he has requested'. He asked for the money, so I'm acquiescing and giving it to him.

                                        Both comments smell funny.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X