What if Tiger had never happened?

[Scott Warren]

In a parallel universe where Tiger Woods either ends up in the NBA or in some office job playing $5 nassaus at the weekend... anywhere but pro golf.

Never wins 3 US Juniors, 3 Amateurs and then redefines the professional game - none of that happens.

Where would golf find itself today? The pro game, but more importantly the game as a whole.

Architecturally, would we be in a different place? A better place?

Where would membership health be? Is the current funk partly due to un-met Tiger-fuelled expectation?

Would equipment have boomed the way it did around Tiger's competitive zenith?

I'm interested in peoples' thoughts, especially about the course and club aspects, but also in regards to the pro game and technology, seeing as it's all sort of inter-related anyway.

[David_Elvins]

There would be less "Tiger" threads...

[Nigel Islam]

There would be less "Tiger" threads...

LOL

Phil and Ernie probably would have 8&7 majors respectively

Nike would not be much of a player in the golf industry

The purses would be smaller

There would be no shot called a "stinger"

[Tom_Doak]

The equipment would have still improved in the same way, so we'd have all the same issues in architecture.  But we might not have had the boom in construction 10-15 years ago, for better or for worse [or both].  Bandon Dunes still would have happened.

[Matthew Rose]

My immediate thought is.... would Augusta National be what it is now, or would it more resemble what it was in 1997?

I think they probably would have still done some drastic things to it. IIRC it was a Mickelson drive on 11 that made them go crazy.

[Mark Pavy]

The equipment would have still improved in the same way, so we'd have all the same issues in architecture.  But we might not have had the boom in construction 10-15 years ago, for better or for worse [or both].  Bandon Dunes still would have happened.

Tom, what are these issues faced by architects?

According to the R&A, the average golfers driver distance has increased by a mere 3 yards between 1996 and 2012.

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2013/May/Drive-Distance.aspx

[Jud_T]

Mark,

According to the R&A the Old Course needed a renovation, so I'd take anything they say with a large grain of salt.

[Niall C]

Scott

"redefines the professional game" - not sure what that means. Each new champion raises the bar, and so it goes on. Tiger becoming the dominant player was merely a changing of the guard, and now that he's not, we have another change over. It seems to me that right now its the media that need him much more than the game of golf (the golf business is perhaps another matter).

Tiger took so much more out of the game than he put into it, and that's no criticism. Sponsors just threw money at him because he was the dominant player, not because of his personality, and the reason there was so much money floating about was because of the state of the economy. Tiger just happened to be blessed in being the top dog when the golf business went large.

Niall

[Nigel Islam]

I think sponsors threw money at him because of the way he was dominant. Norman was dominant player before Tiger, and he never moved the interest meter like Tiger. Love him or hate him, he was interesting.

[Phil Lipper]

The Tiger effect increased the number of people playing golf and had a impact on the new course boom.
The other thing he did  do is make the top players in the world think more about physical fitness and work out more. This along with technology has clearly made the players longer and changed the way courses play.

[Mike Hendren]

Two words:  Bob May.

Two more words:  Rocco Mediate

[Matt Kardash]

The equipment would have still improved in the same way, so we'd have all the same issues in architecture.  But we might not have had the boom in construction 10-15 years ago, for better or for worse [or both].  Bandon Dunes still would have happened.

Tom, what are these issues faced by architects?
According to the R&A, the average golfers driver distance has increased by a mere 3 yards between 1996 and 2012.
http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2013/May/Drive-Distance.aspx

Only 3 extra yards in the professional game? If so that is totally untrue. In 1996 there were no players driving it over 290 (Daly was #1 at 288 yards). Now literally half the tour have average drives 290+, with about 25 players at 300+. So driving distance has not only gone up by 3 yards.

[Jim Nugent]

The Tiger effect increased the number of people playing golf and had a impact on the new course boom.  

Do you have any hard numbers to back up those statements?

According to the R&A, the average golfers driver distance has increased by a mere 3 yards between 1996 and 2012.

On tour the drives have increased a lot more than that.  About 24 yards on the PGA tour, as measured by the median.  

I'm guessing that real good golfers as a group also enjoyed big increases in driving distance during that time.  So if the R&A is right, golfers near the other end of the spectrum must have gotten no gains, or even lost distance.  

ETA: I misread/misunderstood what Mark said.  Strike my last (non-)point there. 

[Tim Gavrich]

The equipment would have still improved in the same way, so we'd have all the same issues in architecture.  But we might not have had the boom in construction 10-15 years ago, for better or for worse [or both].  Bandon Dunes still would have happened.

Tom, what are these issues faced by architects?
According to the R&A, the average golfers driver distance has increased by a mere 3 yards between 1996 and 2012.
http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2013/May/Drive-Distance.aspx

Only 3 extra yards in the professional game? If so that is totally untrue. In 1996 there were no players driving it over 290 (Daly was #1 at 288 yards). Now literally half the tour have average drives 290+, with about 25 players at 300+. So driving distance has not only gone up by 3 yards.

Matt--

I believe Mark said "average," rather than professional golfers in his post re: the R&A's statement. If that's true, that's a salient point for 99% of golf courses with regard to 99% of golfers.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Private club membership would be about the same, as I think very few private club members took up the game due to Tiger - most I know dislike the guy now. Shrinking club membership is more about economy, changing parental demands (more on fathers) and killing off the tax deduction for club dues as compensation.

There would be fewer public courses, and no First Tee as Tiger's emergence highlighted how few African-American youth are involved in the game (although mainly the fault of the golf cart!)

Tiger made golf "cool", but coolness never lasts

There would be less "Tiger" threads...

LOL

Phil and Ernie probably would have 8&7 majors respectively

Nike would not be much of a player in the golf industry

The purses would be smaller

There would be no shot called a "stinger"

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott - I'm not sure, but reading the other posts it struck me that perhaps the nature and qualities and strengths/weaknesses of the game are so set in stone, and affected only by the broadest of socio-economic changes/factors, that no one golfer (not Tiger, not the King) actually moves the markers or changes the metrics all that much (despite the well-worn 'narratives' of Arnold taking the game to the masses or Tiger bringing in a whole new demographic to golf). If we wanted too, we could probably go back to ask what would have happened if other shining lights had never happened: Quimet or Jones or Hogan or Jack -- and if we asked that, I think we would have to conclude that the game (and equipment and the quality of architecture etc) would've grown/evolved and stagnated and grown/evolved and stagnated over and over again in any event, independent of any one golfer.

Peter

[Paul Gray]

All golf courses would play firm and fast.
Circa 1997, the R&A and USGA would have banned all shafts not made from hickory.
Darren Clarke would have one more majors
Dunlop would be the leading ball manufacturer.
Team USA would have been dominant in the Ryder Cup.
Slavery would have been reintroduced in southern states.

 

[Nigel Islam]

All golf courses would play firm and fast.
Circa 1997, the R&A and USGA would have banned all shafts not made from hickory.
Darren Clarke would have one more majors
Dunlop would be the leading ball manufacturer.
Team USA would have been dominant in the Ryder Cup.
Slavery would have been reintroduced in southern states.

 

You totally forgot Tom Doak being called in by Augusta National to renovate it back to the exact design of Dr. Mackenzie

[Paul Gray]

All golf courses would play firm and fast.
Circa 1997, the R&A and USGA would have banned all shafts not made from hickory.
Darren Clarke would have one more majors
Dunlop would be the leading ball manufacturer.
Team USA would have been dominant in the Ryder Cup.
Slavery would have been reintroduced in southern states.

 

You totally forgot Tom Doak being called in by Augusta National to renovate it back to the exact design of Dr. Mackenzie

Good point, Nigel. My bad. 

[Nigel Islam]

All golf courses would play firm and fast.
Circa 1997, the R&A and USGA would have banned all shafts not made from hickory.
Darren Clarke would have one more majors
Dunlop would be the leading ball manufacturer.
Team USA would have been dominant in the Ryder Cup.
Slavery would have been reintroduced in southern states.

 

You totally forgot Tom Doak being called in by Augusta National to renovate it back to the exact design of Dr. Mackenzie

Good point, Nigel. My bad. 

No worries it is easy to forget since they also went to single line irrigation!

[Niall C]

I think sponsors threw money at him because of the way he was dominant. Norman was dominant player before Tiger, and he never moved the interest meter like Tiger. Love him or hate him, he was interesting.

Nigel

Can I suggest that you're looking at it from a US perspective. Americans always prefer home grown champions, quite naturally. However if you were to take Scott's question quite literally and say Phil was the top player, then do you not think ratings would go through the roof as well ? Here's a guy who frankly with his hit and miss approach is more exciting to watch than Tiger. He might not have been as dominant as Tiger was, and therefore he wouldn't have got as big a piece of the pie but the total amount of money coming in would have been the same or perhaps even more.

As I said in my earlier post, the boom in golf had everything to do with the economy, and with that people having more leisure time.

Niall

[Mike_Young]

The person who gained the most from Tiger happening would be Ellen. 

[Niall C]

The equipment would have still improved in the same way, so we'd have all the same issues in architecture.  But we might not have had the boom in construction 10-15 years ago, for better or for worse [or both].  Bandon Dunes still would have happened.

Tom, what are these issues faced by architects?
According to the R&A, the average golfers driver distance has increased by a mere 3 yards between 1996 and 2012.
http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2013/May/Drive-Distance.aspx

Only 3 extra yards in the professional game? If so that is totally untrue. In 1996 there were no players driving it over 290 (Daly was #1 at 288 yards). Now literally half the tour have average drives 290+, with about 25 players at 300+. So driving distance has not only gone up by 3 yards.

Gents

Our drives may only be going 3 extra yards for us ordinary hackers but can I suggest that out of that total distance, a lot more of it is carry than it used to be, and that more than anything should have a bearing I would have thought.

Niall

[Phil Lipper]

Can I suggest that you're looking at it from a US perspective. Americans always prefer home grown champions, quite naturally. However if you were to take Scott's question quite literally and say Phil was the top player, then do you not think ratings would go through the roof as well ? Here's a guy who frankly with his hit and miss approach is more exciting to watch than Tiger. He might not have been as dominant as Tiger was, and therefore he wouldn't have got as big a piece of the pie but the total amount of money coming in would have been the same or perhaps even more.

I think what your missing is there are some athletes who transcend sport, Tiger is one of them Phil isnt. My wife doesnt care about sports at all but she cares/cared about what Tiger does, what Michael Jordan did, and what Beckham did.

[Mike_Young]

Who is Beckham?