Has Tiger Woods been good for the game of golf?

[JC Jones]

If so, in what ways?

Junior golf is down from what it was 20 years ago.
Golf courses are more expensive to play than they were 20 years ago.
overall, fewer people are playing golf.

I understand that tour pros have made more money, sponsors have made more money and presumably there are more "fans."  But, if there is no future for the game, and it turns out we overdeveloped golf courses based upon a false demand, has the game really benefited from the popularity and exposure that it has gained entirely from the popularity of Tiger Woods?

Has the windfall benefit to the PGA Tour really been a net benefit to the game of golf, generally?  Or is this an issue of correlation and not causation?


Edit:  These questions came up when contemplating the certain "negative" effect Tiger take time off will have.  i.e. drop in TV ratings, reduced advertising dollars, lost tournaments, etc.  My overall question is, so what.  Seems to me that demand for the game was higher before it became what it is today, so has more money been better?

[JESII]

JC,

Are you certain junior golf is down?


Otherwise, to your main question...I think golf has bigger issues than Tiger was ever willing or able to tackle so I doubt he could be viewed as good for the game other than being really fun to watch play...but I was hooked before he came on the scene.

[JC Jones]

JC,

Are you certain junior golf is down?


Otherwise, to your main question...I think golf has bigger issues than Tiger was ever willing or able to tackle so I doubt he could be viewed as good for the game other than being really fun to watch play...but I was hooked before he came on the scene.

I'm not certain, but that seems to be my impression.  Am open to numbers supporting the contrary.

[Bill_McBride]

If junior golf is truly down, then there has been a lot of money poured into First Tee programs for no benefit.

[Eric Smith]

He's pretty much been filling us all full of "good feelings" for about 15 years or so.  He's been plenty good for the game of golf imo.  He's been the hero regularly winning battles on Sunday afternoons in almost deity like fashion.

[JESII]

I think the glaring negative is the idea of running golf courses with Return on Investment being the driving force...and I say that as one who thinks everyone ought to strive for a profit in every business, but the Wall Streeterization of golf didn't help increase the number of enjoyable, accessible golf courses that will survive this down cycle...and that is probably indirectly tied to Tiger because of his vast popularity...

[JMEvensky]

Has the windfall benefit to the PGA Tour really been a net benefit to the game of golf, generally?  Or is this an issue of correlation and not causation?

Interesting question.I'll say no,with a lot of qualifications.

To the extent that TW made golf cool and attracted young kids to the game,he's been great for the game.I don't think the First Tee-type programs are nearly as successful without his being on the scene.They might not have even been started.He is golf's Michael Jordan or Derek Jeter insofar as giving kids a reason to start playing and a player to emulate.

To the extent that he made golf more attractive to an older,non-golfing group of baby boomers,I say he's been net/net/net harmful.I think his presence "grew the game" but some of the manifestations of this are horrible.Businesses built to serve this market (mostly real estate-related) have cratered.The adults who came to golf in some part because of TW will move on to other hobbies.The scars left behind will be with us for a while.

[Philippe Binette]

I would say Tiger has been good for the game, outside of his on-course misbehavior once in a while...

He made the game really popular, some will say since then the game has lost its elegance and tradition... well Tiger could be part of the problem, but so is the governing bodies of the game...

failing to protect the cost of the game,
making great events dissapear just for money (Western Open)
not teaching the game values
etc... could not be blamed on Tiger

[Mac Plumart]

What would you say to someone who says that he has been awful for the game of golf?

The game has been known as a gentlemens game.  Sincere handshakes at the end of matches served as an honest tip of the cap to your competitor at the conclusion of a match.  Think of Tom Watson and Jack Nicklaus walking off the 18th green on Sunday at Turnberry arm in arm at the 77 Open.  Think Payne Stewart congratulating Phil as he was about to become a father immediately after Payne sunk a putt to win the US Open at Pinehurst.  

Now think of Tiger's fist pumps, wild yells of exhurberance after hitting putts to win tournaments, and behavior that flew in the face of the tradition of the game.  Then these fist pumps and yells became throwing of clubs and obscene language on the golf course.  And now, well...we all know what he has brought to the forefront of the game.

Perhaps all these tabloids scandals will take all of his fist pumps, yells, and club throwing down a notch when he does return.  And maybe his loss of face in the eyes of the people will keep him from designing courses and this will, in turn, leave the golf course design work to the actual experts and archictects.


So maybe this opens the door for a class act to step in and become the face of the game again and the damage he's done can be reversed.

Perhaps up until know he has been hurting the game, but these latest issues might return the game back to where it belongs...in the hands of true golfers.

Just a thought and a potential idea.

[JC Jones]

I think Tiger has been great for the game. The skill he exhibited is an inspiration. He made golf more exciting to watch. I can't wait for him to return to the game. I want to learn more about his preparation, his practice routines, his thoughts on strategy. He is the best golfer of all time in my view, in fact I think he is the greatest athlete of my generation. I love his desire to win, to beat the opponent, his ability to concentrate on the task at hand, to weather the bad stretches and still perservere.

I loved the fist pumps, the passion.

KBM,

There is no doubt that from an entertainment standpoint he is second to few.  However, my question focuses on the benefit to the game, generally.  If the net result is that fewer people are playing the game and the game is no better off than it was 20 years ago.  Has he been a benefit?

The game of golf benefited from Jack Nicklaus in that the game grew because of Jack Nicklaus.  Has the game grown because of Tiger Woods?

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

I think the glaring negative is the idea of running golf courses with Return on Investment being the driving force...and I say that as one who thinks everyone ought to strive for a profit in every business, but the Wall Streeterization of golf didn't help increase the number of enjoyable, accessible golf courses that will survive this down cycle...and that is probably indirectly tied to Tiger because of his vast popularity...

Jim: I am having difficulty in understanding your comments. On one hand you say the negative impact is the ROI, then you say you agree with a business plan that uses a ROI for establishing probable profit. That has nothing to do with Wall Street preventing affordable golf courses being built except that in many cases they are providing the financing.
IMHO, the base item of what is wrong is the fee(s) being charged by the architects and consultants that are working for the developers of these housing based golf courses. i.e. Fazio, Nicklaus and especially Woods. Then you have the "pro" architects who command a huge fee, and they don't even do the design, instead the client has to pay the added cost of IMG designers and prohibitive specifications. When you add these fees to the business model, it is difficult to come up with a decent ROI.

[JC Jones]

I think the glaring negative is the idea of running golf courses with Return on Investment being the driving force...and I say that as one who thinks everyone ought to strive for a profit in every business, but the Wall Streeterization of golf didn't help increase the number of enjoyable, accessible golf courses that will survive this down cycle...and that is probably indirectly tied to Tiger because of his vast popularity...

Jim: I am having difficulty in understanding your comments. On one hand you say the negative impact is the ROI, then you say you agree with a business plan that uses a ROI for establishing probable profit. That has nothing to do with Wall Street preventing affordable golf courses being built except that in many cases they are providing the financing.
IMHO, the base item of what is wrong is the fee(s) being charged by the architects and consultants that are working for the developers of these housing based golf courses. i.e. Fazio, Nicklaus and especially Woods. Then you have the "pro" architects who command a huge fee, and they don't even do the design, instead the client has to pay the added cost of IMG designers and prohibitive specifications. When you add these fees to the business model, it is difficult to come up with a decent ROI.

Dick,

Not sure I buy into this. I dont think the architect fees are over the top.  In fact, they are exactly in line with what the market demands.

I would say that the cost has to do with a few things (again, I am no expert):

1)  Clients choosing sites that shouldn't be used for golf courses thereby creating massive construction costs that need to be recouped in the form of greens fees.
2)  Clients demanding a course that has several water hazards, bunkers, flat fairways and greens, etc.  This is costly to build when you have to take the existing land and completely manipulate it to be something other than it isnt (see Florida golf courses).
3)  Clients, members and golfers demanding a course that looks and plays like Augusta National does on TV every April.  The cost to maintain can be 7 figures and the only way to recoup that on 25,000 rounds is to charge at least $40/round.  That doesn't include budget for anything else.

I could go on.

Way down on the list, and my list is not exhaustive, would be the money the designer charges. 

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

JC

I note that in your response that in every instance it is the fault of the client

The architect would be pleased to consult with the client to choose a property suited for golf and to not cause the costs to be exhorbinant.

How can you say that fees of several million dollars do not impact the ROI

Or for that matter, a fee of $25 million for a design.

[JC Jones]

JC

I note that in your response that in every instance it is the fault of the client

The architect would be pleased to consult with the client to choose a property suited for golf and to not cause the costs to be exhorbinant.

How can you say that fees of several million dollars do not impact the ROI

Or for that matter, a fee of $25 million for a design.

Well, for one thing, often times (in my understanding) the property is chosen before the architect. 

Secondly, the client doesn't have to pay the $25mm design fee, does he/she? 

[astavrides]

.

[Joe Hancock]

A real world example:

When we bought the golf course in 1997, Tiger was just hitting the scene. In 1999, we had about 120 junior members. In 2007, with the price of a junior membership only $10 more than in 1997, we had 18 junior members.

Draw your own conclusions.

Joe

[K. Krahenbuhl]

Was MJ good for basketball?

[Sean_A]

Most folks are concentrating on the business side of golf - that isn't the game and it has nothing to do with the game.  As for lack of juniors, this has been a trend for years - thats why memberships are getting older.  You can't blame this on Tiger.

I am not nor never have been a Tiger fan, but if the guy is breaking records in a clean and honest manner how in the heck can he not be good for the game?  

Ciao

[JR Potts]

On the whole, Tiger has been bad for the game. In no particular order:

1.  He brought the cheater line mainstream. Now, it's everywhere. That costs us all 20 minutes a round and as we all know, time is money.

2. He forced tens of thousands of parents to have to explain to their children what a porn star is. There is a special place in hell for people whose actions directly or indirectly take innocence away from children.  It's right next to cheater line users.

3. What he did by winning the Masters was a giant positive for society. Plus, he's a joy to watch from a pure golf standpoint.  I'll grant that...at least until he swears up a storm, throws clubs and scowls at his fans...

4.  He's sucked ONE BILLION out of the economy, money that I dare say could have been used for something more productive than private plane trips to Vegas to fornicate with porn skanks.

5. By virtue of his fraud, he made golf a profit center.  By definition, this made golf less of an honorable game. There are a finite number of motivations for any endeavour. By increasing one, all others are diminished. He drew countless profiteers to a game that had not previously been a profiteer's pursuit. In short, he created a bubble. And history shows that we all pay the price for that.

 

GMAFB

[Richard Choi]

Speaking about Tiger's impact on PGA Tour....

http://www.hulu.com/watch/114936/saturday-night-live-pga-tour

Pretty hillarious.

[Mike Sweeney]

Was MJ good for basketball?

The old apples and oranges here. I once had the pleasure of spending a bunch of time with a employee of Augusta National who was there for something like 25 years. He was a retired soldier, Black man and jeez he gave me goosebumps talking about Tiger winning at Augusta. Tiger being the son of a Black soldier gave him huge pride. Of course MJ was great for basketball (speaking as a slow white guy who took offensive charges VERY well in practice) but he did not have the same platform that Tiger HAD. Tiger was breaking all sorts of barriers around the world.

Sadly, Shivas is right for the first time in his history of posting on GCA.com. Tiger really screwed up and he is a bad person. It is so bad I even question some of the golfing stuff now. Was he on The Juice, should he have moved that Boulder, what else?

[David_Tepper]

IMHO, Tiger has done more to grow the game on a GLOBAL basis than anyone in the history of the game. I suppose there are some on this site who would argue that is a bad thing, but I sure don't.   

[Joe Hancock]

Sean,

For the record, my example wasn't a determination of whether Tiger is/ was good for the game. There was a season whereby he generated a lot of new interest, and as would have been easy to predict, that season passed. Tiger became fun to watch but he alone can't bring new people to the game year after year.

Joe

[Jason McNamara]

Too early to say; let's see what happens during his hiatus.

If golf telecasts this spring register a decrease in the number of ads targeting the area between a man's navel and his knees, then we'll know for sure his absence is a net gain.

[Eric Smith]

speak for yourself.  not everybody roots for him.

Duly noted Alex.