On/Off Topic: Good for what ails ya'

[V. Kmetz]

Bifurcation, equipment debates, rules changes, slow play, unsustainable course and management models... all named culprits for a what is called a game in danger of falling to the back row of the orchestra.


I really do like the championship-level , elite age-prime crop of players as a group...JT, DJ, Jordan, Jason, McIlroy, Reed, Garcia, etc...and I have a group of undercard players I root for..Hahn, Schneiderjans are two of that handful. I admit I'm not given to enjoy watching the Jimmy Walkers and Swartzels of the world and I've only occasionally enjoyed the Zack Johnson wins.


...But Phil's Open win, and that batlle between he and Stenson were as good as any I've seen...


Still look what this guy does:


http://golfweek.com/2018/03/12/tiger-woods-gives-nbc-massive-ratings-boost-for-valspar/


Want the game to get some Viagra? Let him vie for wins again, let him make putts like 17 again en route to that contention and many, many distempers about the state of the game will go away.


cheers  vk

[David_Tepper]

"Valspar Final Round Highest Rated Golf Telecast Since 2015 PGA"

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2018/3/12/51-valspar-final-round-highest-rated-golf-telecast-since-2015-pga

(almost) Everybody loves a comeback story.

[Daryl David]

I believe the “game of golf” and “professional golf” are two very different things. There is no doubt that a competitive Tiger Woods is good for “professional golf”. (Just watch the TV guys drool)  I am not so sure Tiger’s current resurgence is going to do anything positive for the “game of golf”. While I’m happy for anyone playing well after injury, my distempers about the state of the game are not going away because of him.

[V. Kmetz]

I believe the “game of golf” and “professional golf” are two very different things. There is no doubt that a competitive Tiger Woods is good for “professional golf”. (Just watch the TV guys drool)  I am not so sure Tiger’s current resurgence is going to do anything positive for the “game of golf”. While I’m happy for anyone playing well after injury, my distempers about the state of the game are not going away because of him.

I do know what you mean DD...I hate certain things that the Woods era brought on (mindless you da man shouts/Phoenix crowds are one negative, disposable commercial exploitations are another)...however, in terms of union between professional golf/the game...golf was hardly healthier than when he rose to prominence...people watching/people playing/commercial ventures/excitement. He's no magic elixir for all ills, but he does let a broad range of troubles smoke away for the hours he performs at his best...he's been a marvel, a Jordanian, Ruthian, type.


And if I may range into a sociological point of notice...there's something very valuable when millions are watching together, something that has diffused in the multimedia, e-commerce, digital era, where we are all a law unto ourselves, and need not pay attention to what the neighbor is paying attention to.

[Tim Martin]

VK-I rarely watch professional golf on television any more unless it's a major, Players Championship or Ryder Cup. That said the last few weeks with Mickelson and Woods in the mix has absolutely been must see at least for me. There is an intangible that goes beyond rooting for the underdog or nostalgia that I can't quite put my finger on but it is there.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I do know what you mean DD...I hate certain things that the Woods era brought on (mindless you da man shouts/Phoenix crowds are one negative, disposable commercial exploitations are another)...

I think that it's important to draw a distinction between what Tiger did or didn't bring to the game and what just happened while he was rising to fame. John Daly in 1991 could mark the "you da man" type shouts. The Phoenix crowds continue to develop in spite of Woods' absence from that event most years. The commercial exploitations are likely everywhere?

however, in terms of union between professional golf/the game...golf was hardly healthier than when he rose to prominence...people watching/people playing/commercial ventures/excitement. He's no magic elixir for all ills, but he does let a broad range of troubles smoke away for the hours he performs at his best...he's been a marvel, a Jordanian, Ruthian, type.

Just as he can't be given the credit for all of that, either.

I don't think Tiger Woods pulls as many people into the game as he's given credit for, or is a direct or even indirect cause for as many good or bad things as he's given credit for. I think a lot of things just happen concurrently.

I also draw a pretty crisp line between the amateur game and the professional game. Core golfers will always likely be around, and are influenced not so much by the pro tour, but their greens fees, their own game, the courses nearby, the time it takes to play, etc. I think the pro Tour stuff - Tiger, etc. - affect the fringe golfers and the non-golfers (a lot of people who have no interest in playing golf will watch Tiger play golf, just as a lot of us will watch the Olympics despite not following, to pick something, downhill skiing or figure skating the other 3.9 years out of the cycle). TopGolf might even have a bigger effect on the fringe/non-golf market than the PGA Tour.

But that's all just my opinion, and I could be completely off base.

[V. Kmetz]

EB, I don't lay it all at Tigers fe(a)t(s)...it's the era...which he leads...which he inaugurated...you mention Daly...one of my greatest disappointments is that he didn't really follow his young Roy Hobbsian magic an do what Tiger did...he was already something of a fallen star by that amazing 1995 Open win and a spotty career at best... what Tiger is/led could have been Daly's


Tiger did...it's not just Mike Douglas at 2...not just every title he could put his arms on as a junior...not LA Open as a 16 year old...not 3 straight amateurs...all with exciting finals matches...not just 42 million dollars from Nike at his onset...not just his 1997 Masters....not just his 2000- 02 Slam pursuits...not just the most (consecutive and total)weeks at #1...not just the 2nd most Tour victories, 2nd most majors, not the first billion dollar golfer...


...About 5,000 people knew who Scotty Cameron was before Tiger...he "launched/inspired" an entire line of equipment and apparel.


And the excitement over his TV accomplishments just about re-launched Junior Golf..children/juniors absolutely flooded the game (and many 20 somethings on the Tour who were 4 - 12 will tell you so) besides asking 20-40 year golfers at large...


And as to GCA?  If I had more time (maybe I will someday) I'd make the argument that Tiger-proofing (and that's what it was called in 1998) of major courses started the GCA conversation this board was founded on...


No, he didn't create or specifically play to the crowds at Phoenix or build courses or design equipment, but he did more than play well; he acheived, he astounded, and he did it in your profession...


Everything he did, the game (its play, its commerce, its reputation) had a big reaction to.

[Kalen Braley]

Vk,


Given these perilous times we've reverted to... I sometime wonder if half of the folks are tuning in to cheer him on, and the other half thinking, "how dare him".

[George Pazin]

I understand that not everyone loves Tiger. Many don't even like him. Maybe even most.


I still love him, don't care about the problems or the drama. He brought something to the game, through his play, that no one else since Jack has approached, at least on a consistent basis. Rory and DJ show flashes, but Ti was always there, always coming through in the clutch. Hate him if you want, but there's no one else really like him.


I do think it would be really cool to watch the kids go toe to toe with him down the stretch, especially in majors. Might not be good for everyone, but it's good for me.


Thanks, VK, for posting this thread.

[MCirba]

Agree with my friend, George Pazin, and by extension, with VK. 

Jack Nicklaus by virtue of his total Majors is the best golfer ever by definition in my book, but no one ever played golf as well as Tiger Woods in his prime.   Even Jack would tell you that.

[corey miller]

So True Kalen.....The racist Trumpsters watch PGA golf to root against Tiger and then refuse to watch LPGA golf because they are sexist. Indeed strange times.

[Rick Lane]

I hope he wins another major, and the hype machine goes into overdrive......good for golf, good for everybody.   The other players probably want that....he made them all a lot of $$$$.

[JESII]

Corey, might be sensible to modify that post some, as it makes you look foolish.

[corey miller]

No Jim I think I will stick to my opinion. 

[Rees Milikin]

So True Kalen.....The racist Trumpsters watch PGA golf to root against Tiger and then refuse to watch LPGA golf because they are sexist. Indeed strange times.

If only we could be as virtuous as you.

[Edward Glidewell]

My only real issue with Tiger is that the coverage of tournaments (at least in the US) gets noticeably worse when he's around. Even at the best of times, US coverage is not good -- far too much time spent on tap-ins, fluff pieces, discussions between player and caddie, etc. and too little time actually showing golf. When Tiger is around, though, we get to spend 2-3 minutes watching him on the driving range (if he hasn't teed off yet) and talking about him rather than showing golf shots. Then we do it again 10-15 minutes later, or show him on the putting green. And if he's actually on the course playing, there's a ridiculous amount of time wasted showing him walk from one shot to the next, or walk around the green looking at his putt, and so on.


The networks were beginning to do something similar with Jordan Spieth coverage, but it was nowhere near Tiger's level.

[Laz Versalles]

Everyone in the building was talking Tiger yesterday. Golfers and non-golfers alike...The crossfit guys across the hall were stunned he hit 2 iron on 18...The finance guy mentioned Tiger wasn't putting like he used to...The car guy said it was good to have Tiger back. None of these people play golf, and yet, they all watched and had opinions.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So True Kalen.....The racist Trumpsters watch PGA golf to root against Tiger and then refuse to watch LPGA golf because they are sexist. Indeed strange times.

I'm not intending to get political, and I intend this comment to be strictly about golf, but Trump has always seemed to me - and to the players on the LPGA Tour too - to be a big supporter of women's golf.

And MCirba, Tiger is the GOAT IMO, but that's an entirely different conversation for an entirely different time. 

[Terry Lavin]

Bottom line: the PGA Tour needs a predominant player or two. Tiger and Phil are recidivists, so to speak, but they’re popular, despite their baggage. I’ve been hoping Spieth or Dustin Johnson would keep the electricity up, but that hasn’t really happened.


The resurgence of both of these great players can only add to the allure of the Tour on TV. Now, if they bifurcate the ball, maybe it will prolong this resurgence. We shall see. I, for one, have watched more golf on TV the last month than I have in quite a while.

[Tim Martin]

Bottom line: the PGA Tour needs a predominant player or two. Tiger and Phil are recidivists, so to speak, but they’re popular, despite their baggage. I’ve been hoping Spieth or Dustin Johnson would keep the electricity up, but that hasn’t really happened.


The resurgence of both of these great players can only add to the allure of the Tour on TV. Now, if they bifurcate the ball, maybe it will prolong this resurgence. We shall see. I, for one, have watched more golf on TV the last month than I have in quite a while.

Johnson is a phenomenal talent but doesn’t seem to have an ounce of personality at least what I have seen in interviews. I think that Spieth is likeable and exciting but the slow play is abysmal. There aren’t many players that are compelling from both a personality and excitement perspective that also play at a reasonable pace. It would be great to have a predominant player that possessed all those qualities.

[Steve Lang]

   Not much of a tv golf consumer, as we can play year-round and don't usually have wintertime cabin fever issues, but do take in the back 9 sunday at the masters and most evening highlights throughout the year.  The story of the day, or analysis of the evening, always seems about filling air-time............... 


Wining is the ultimate story. 


So look at tour purses, "reflected" by the yearly money title winners... from  PGA_Tour


Over Jack's reigning span of 64-76 his money title earnings more than doubled
Over Watson's reigning span of 77 - 84 his money title earnings didn't double
Curtis' 85-88 reigning period it doubled as he broke thru the million dollar mark
Tiger broke the $2 million mark in 97 and later broke through the $10 mil mark after VJ did it in 04
Jordan's $12 mil tops all


quite a ways from Arnie's $42,608 in 1958...


no coronations in golf, that's why ya play, and winning to me is the story, warts and all...

[Kalen Braley]

The coverage is pretty absurd again today, you'd think its Henrick and Tiger and everyone else 10 shots back. 




Rickie Fowler and Ryan Moore are right there, but don't think I've seen one shot of thiers all day!!

[Edward Glidewell]

The coverage is pretty absurd again today, you'd think its Henrick and Tiger and everyone else 10 shots back. 




Rickie Fowler and Ryan Moore are right there, but don't think I've seen one shot of thiers all day!!

I don't think they even showed Rory's shots until he started making birdies.


Regardless, who cares about Tiger? Rory's back!!