Stacy Revere/Getty Images
Max Homa is feeling good this week. Fresh off opening the new PGA Tour season with his fifth victory, Homa is now in the US team room at Quail Hollow, prepping to play his first-career team event at the Presidents Cup. But, as the saying goes, you can’t please everyone all the time.
On Tuesday, one Twitter user decided it was the perfect day to take Homa to task with a tweet attacking his playing record and arguing his Fortinet Championship victory over the weekend was less impressive than Cam Smith’s win at the LIV Chicago event.
“No offense to Max Homa… but in the last 11 majors he has: 7 missed cuts, No top 10s, Only 1 finish better than 40th,” the user wrote. “That win is no where near as significant as Cam Smith winning on LIV.”
Rather than letting it slide, Homa decided to put the user on blast, crafting his own takedown response and sending it out to his 474,000 Twitter followers:
“The funny thing is if I played on that tour all these Twitter dorks (no offense) would be using my name to explain how strong their fields are,” Homa wrote.
Homa, of course, was trying to be funny, but he’s also onto something.
First off, the critic claimed that at the Fortinet Championship Homa “was the highest ranked player heading into the weak PGA event and won.” While fall tournaments on the PGA Tour often do have weaker fields than the majors and other elevated events, Homa was not the highest-ranked player in the field. That honor belonged to Hideki Matsuyama, who started the week at No. 16 in the Official World Golf Ranking, while Homa was at No. 22.
Following his second-straight Fortinet win, Homa improved to No. 16, with Matsuyama falling to No. 17. And while the LIV Chicago field featured some true stars, such as Smith, Dustin Johnson, Bryson DeChambeau and Brooks Koepka, Smith was the only player in the small 48-man field ranked higher than Homa.
There’s no way to do an exact comparison due to the fact that LIV events do not currently award OWGR points. But with all that in mind, it’s hard to argue against Homa’s point.