It's funny how you see so much discussion of "growing the game" but then when major after major demonstrates the parity among, say, the top 200 players in the world we're all up in arms about lacking one True Champion who can "bestride the narrow world like a Colossus", which we interpret as mediocrity. Or we blame it on Titanium and Urethane.
I think we've grown the game to the point where 20 different countries on every continent are producing players as physically capable as the best player in the world would have been a couple generations ago.
BH:
Good points all. Let's just look at who has won the majors for the past three years. One could argue that there's a lot of parity because most, if not all, of the past 12 winners were first-time major winners. Here's the list:
2011
August - Keegan Bradley (United States), PGA Championship
July - Darren Clarke (Northern Ireland), British Open
June - Rory McIlroy (Northern Ireland), U.S. Open
April - Charl Schwartzel (South Africa), U.S. Masters
2010
August - Martin Kaymer (Germany), PGA Championship
July - Louis Oosthuizen (South Africa), British Open
June - Graeme McDowell (Northern Ireland), U.S. Open
April - Phil Mickelson (United States), U.S. Masters
2009
August - Yang Yong-eun (South Korea), PGA Championship
July - Stewart Cink (United States), British Open
June - Lucas Glover (United States), U.S. Open
April - Angel Cabrera (Argentina), U.S. Masters
The hole in the argument is that very few of the young winners have gone on to really distinguish themselves. Immelman disappeared, some of it medical, I'm sure, but he never developed any further. Oosthuizen and Kaymer are still looking somewhat random as winners. Glover only recently came out and started playing better, but I don't think anybody thinks he will win more majors. Mickelson is an established multi-major winner, Cabrera has great credentials, GMac won after winning the US Open and Clarke is a Hall of Famer who got his first major late. Cink is arguably a fluke winner, YE Yang isn't going to be an immortal. And while their families would argue that Schwartzel and Bradley are going to be around and winning a long time into the future, the odds aren't great.
Tiger's absence from the winner's circle has had a profound effect on golf, but he wasn't gonna win the last 12 majors even if he never got chased out of the house by the club-wielding wife. You can call it parity, others would suggest that the game is in a bit of a mess because the Dominant One is out of pocket and those who used to chase him can't beat the rash of one-time winners and the episodic old timers who get it done. I would just argue that the game is more boring without a dominant golfer and without guys who are regularly in contention on the back nine on Sunday. This group of professional golfers give one the impression that they're more interested in their bank account than their trophy case.
Hopefully one of them, maybe the anointed one, Rory McIlroy, will rise to the top. And stay there for a while. Which would be a good thing, IMHO, for the professional game.