• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RonTheSavage

Taylormade CEO says the sport has declined since Tiger Woods came into golf

117 posts in this topic

Quote:

Has Tiger Woods been good for golf? "I don't think he's had any effect on the economics of golf."

That astounding sentiment comes from the always blunt Mark King, CEO of TaylorMade-Adidas Golf.

This coming from the same guy who thought it was a good idea to put golfers in war paint and use the silly term ballzier................

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100637876

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Originally Posted by RonTheSavage

This coming from the same guy who thought it was a good idea to put golfers in war paint and use the silly term ballzier................

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100637876

He contradicts everything I had heard and read regarding the impact Tiger has had on the sport, especially prior to the recession.  He could be right, I don't have any numbers to prove he's wrong but it would make sense for him to downplay Tiger's impact given Tiger's with Nike and not his company.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Agreed, he wouldn't be saying that if Tiger was with TM. Was golf not in so called "decline" before Tiger?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to tell if Tiger has had any impact. It's not like we can check an alternative universe without Tiger. If there's been a decline, which I feel it has, it doesn't mean Tiger hasn't contributed to the game. He may have caused a lesser decline for all we know. There are probably some numbers out there.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Tiger has only helped to decline personal ethics and morals. He's done wonders for the game though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by muggs

Tiger has only helped to decline personal ethics and morals. He's done wonders for the game though.

Right muggs because no one ever cheated on their wife before Tiger.  Are you related to Elin?  She found herself another sugar daddy so maybe it's time you let it go.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

My feeling is that when Tiger first hit the scene golf got a significant bump. So from 1998-2008 golf got a bump from Tiger. Now, the bump is gone and the excitement of what Tiger is doing is also gone so we feel the game is no longer growing. It is a bit like the stock market, we were likely in a bubble of growth from 98-06 and now we are in a bit of recession. I think Tiger definitely gave golf the bump but golf itself did not take as much advantage of that bump as it should have. So many young kids were playing because of Tiger, now they no longer play. Golf as a game should learn from this experience so when the next big thing comes along the game is better able to capitalize.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

So how much has Taylormade's revenue declined since 1996?

This guy is a joke.  He is the same one that wants to make up his own rules, including a large expansion of the size of the cup in order to "grow the game", by which he means, grow his revenue at the expense of the game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

He says that Tiger brought more TV viewers - but those viewers don't play golf, they just watch Tiger on TV.  I don't have any numbers to back it up but this seems absurd.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the mans a fool and full of shite, and CEO's like himself are responsible for destroying the game of golf.....oh btw you fool, the 68's that were scored years ago were scored when the clubs were persimmon, ball was balata and the irons had engineering in them...not like today where technology should have the players shooting 62's...BUT because your shite, light, upright clubs MR TM...golfers swings have become rank, therefore the caliber is not there and players can swing it any which way and still score.............thank God Tiger did come when he came.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by mchepp

My feeling is that when Tiger first hit the scene golf got a significant bump. So from 1998-2008 golf got a bump from Tiger. Now, the bump is gone and the excitement of what Tiger is doing is also gone so we feel the game is no longer growing. It is a bit like the stock market, we were likely in a bubble of growth from 98-06 and now we are in a bit of recession.

I think Tiger definitely gave golf the bump but golf itself did not take as much advantage of that bump as it should have. So many young kids were playing because of Tiger, now they no longer play. Golf as a game should learn from this experience so when the next big thing comes along the game is better able to capitalize.

I agree from a perspective of people playing the game, yes Tiger gave it a bump when he hit the scene. However guys that ran out and bought clubs just to start hacking it around on weekends because Tiger was dominating popular athlete has died down. However I don't think this guy has a point saying Tiger is bringing down the game since he did push more people out to play at one point which should have helped sales.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based upon his statements thus far, Im convinced that Mark King is an idiot.  Clearly the success of TM has gone to his head to the point where he thinks that Taylormade IS golf and that his opinion on every subject actually matters.

His attitude is one of the many reasons why I refuse to support anything TMAG.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiger brought more people into the game; he also brought fitness to golf.

He has had a major impact on the game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Looking at Mr. King's comment just reminds me of what an odious little man he is. Who has made a few comments which, in my opinion, have been worthless. The Tiger Woods has killed the game remark aside, let's not forget that he urges players to ignore the R&A; / USGA on the subject of anchoring & long putters. He even went as far as to say that within 10 years the USGA would be a non-factor.

So I decided to do my own research & a quick search on the tint-a-net sourced some very interesting data. Two pieces which piqued my fancy are:

1. The National Golf Foundation (NGF) produced an 8pp pdf 'Golf Participation in America 2010-2020 http://cgmaterials.com/pdf/GolfPartic.pdf which pretty much lays it out.

2. In his 211pp PhD dissertation "THE CHANGING FACE OF THE GAME AND GOLF’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT" David Huebner fails to mention Tiger Woods, at all. (should you feel up to it http://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/pennell/PDFs-2012/David-Hueber-Dissertation-7-17-12.pdf) However what he does posit is that:

'During the 20th century, there were three “boom” periods of accelerated golf course development that peaked in 1930, 1970 and 2000. The first boom in the 1920s built private golf courses for the upper class. The second boom in the 1960s built public golf courses for the burgeoning middle class. And, the third boom in the 1990s built golf courses in anticipation of the latent demand from the huge “Baby Boomer” generation who were expected to play more often as they aged, entered the prime of their working lives and later retired. While the first two golf course development booms were driven in response to actual socio-cultural and economic phenomena, the third boom was anticipatory in nature and driven more by the real estate speculation on the part of both the real estate developers and buyers.'

Got to love academics...

So as Nike sign Rory McIlroy to a monster, multi-year contract reportedly worth $50 million to $100 million. With Woods also still on board, and playing well, Team Swoosh now has the game's two biggest global icons. Whilst Mr. King just has his merry band of Tour pros playing TM; which costs him somewhere in the region of $180m per year in endorsements, & a diminishing share of the $218b golf product market, which declined c$300 in 2007 alone. But it's all Tiger's fault don't ya know!

I guess a big mouth keeps some skin in the game then?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absurd comments by King. Like someone said earlier, if Tiger was endorsed by TM he wouldn't be saying any of this. Even though I'm a big fan of TM's products I don't agree with what he's saying. Tiger was the face of golf and for the most part still is, it's just that there are more marketable golfers now than there were years ago and King is trying to take the spotlight off of Tiger.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by saturday

Absurd comments by King. Like someone said earlier, if Tiger was endorsed by TM he wouldn't be saying any of this. Even though I'm a big fan of TM's products I don't agree with what he's saying. Tiger was the face of golf and for the most part still is, it's just that there are more marketable golfers now than there were years ago and King is trying to take the spotlight off of Tiger.

Indeed & I seriously doubt anyone will be throwing their TM clubs in the lake because of his outbursts. But if you don't have anything really interesting or meaningful to say, why not just say nothing? I would prefer to see the largest golf manufacturer in the industry lead by example not aggression & being outspoken. It really doesn't endear you to anyone.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Fireblade

So as Nike sign Rory McIlroy to a monster, multi-year contract reportedly worth $50 million to $100 million. With Woods also still on board, and playing well, Team Swoosh now has the game's two biggest global icons. Whilst Mr. King just has his merry band of Tour pros playing TM; which costs him somewhere in the region of $180m per year in endorsements, & a diminishing share of the $218b golf product market, which declined c$300 in 2007 alone. But it's all Tiger's fault don't ya know!

I guess a big mouth keeps some skin in the game then?

Mr. King exercised poor judgment with his comments, but TM is doing quite well with golf equipment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

TM is doing very well given the economy.  Callaway has lost money the last three years while TM has shown increased profits.  TM has been successul because their marketing is heads and shoulders above the others.  I don't know if King is responsible for their marketing but whoever is deserves all the credit.

What King fails to acknowledge or understand is that Tiger brought / brings attention to the sport.  Television ratings clearly demonstrate more people watch golf when Tiger is near the top of the leaderboard.  More golf magazines are sold when Tiger is on the cover.  TM marketing wouldn't have been as effective if more people weren't watching golf, reading golf magazines and spending time on golf forums.  Tiger increased the overall market which enabled TM to increase their sales and market share using their very effective marketing campaigns.

Instead of minimizing Tiger's contribution to the sport, King and his board members should be thanking him or at least respectful enough to not say anything derogatory.  King has made enough ignorant comments the last few years to convince me they are not a company I want to support, no matter how good their equipment is.  Once I run out of the Penta TP 5's I've already purchased I'll be switching to Titleist or Callaway balls.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • How do I organize a charity tournament to be a raging success?
      26 and a stroke? Holy smokes. Very sorry to hear that.  I have no idea how to organize a tournament but I have played in my share. The best ones are scrambles where you can organize your own team. The outcome has rarely ever mattered to us as long as we were well fed. Find a local restaurant (usually a bbq place) that wants to help you out and give a discount for advertising and spend your money there. Everyone will love to come for a good meal. Some nice prizes and maybe a raffle with some local companies offering you something if you are able to convince them it is worth it to give something to the cause.  Another thing I have seen work well is a silent auction at the end with donated items. I donated airline miles of which I have tons and 100,000 miles went for $205. Free gift for me and the cause got $205. 
    • How to eliminate blowup holes
      Haha - I get a couple of reputation points for a post and then go and have a blow up hole. Good drive, left myself 145 in down hill (8i), aimed #deadcenter, pulled 2 shots 25 yards left out of bounds, made 9 (+5) in a 9 hole round of (+11). A better way to avoid blow up holes - play stableford!
    • Donald Trump for president?
      Come on now, that's a bit uncalled for in Bernies case.  His political ideals might be way left, but he is at least honest and virtuous.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I'll have to examine your other post closer. That's a good point to consider about the expansion to Continental Europe. Largely explains the poor showing of UK & Ireland in the 60's with many top tier European players not eligible. But considering the 200 million U.S. population base to 63 million in the U.K. & Ireland at the time, the latter did surprisingly well if population base was all that matters. IMO an established competitive golfing culture matters in producing elite players too. Those same European players excluded from Ryder Cup were always eligible for the Majors. The Ryder Cup is also a limited field event. It concentrates the 12 top players of the European Tour. From what I've read, depth of field is still stronger for the 'typical' PGA event, though some non-major Euro events are now stronger than some of the 'minor' PGA events. That is a significant change in Euro competitiveness from the 60's. To some extent that 30% drop sounds like it could be due to simply more international players occupying slots in the fields. If the period you mention covers when majors started to use OWGR for automatic qualification that has some not insignificant inherent issues in terms of strength of field. Having a guaranteed start rather than having to qualify would certainly make for an easier decision to travel to the event. But I'm not arguing against the policy decision facilitating international competition with a little points boost just trying to point out that field strength may not have been as weak in Jack's day as you seem to think. Compared to his peers, which is really the only thing I think you can do without speculative nuance I agree there's no question he's the best golfer. I'm really just arguing that standouts of their caliber (so many more wins so many more majors) than typical players among already elite fields are so rare, that I expect they both represent near the achievable human pinnacle in golf talent, which I don't think really differs within a few generations. The nuances of comparison across eras is interesting to me so I'll debate relative points, but I'm against arguments undervaluing Jack's achievements against 'weak fields'. They both faced very stiff competition.   I'm not dissing Jack. I think his achievements are amazing. I also think the same of Tiger's record. IMO winning percentage per start in the Majors is a very significant stat and Tiger has that in his favor (they are both top 10 and within ~ 2% of each other's number). That number is not the official one for Jack though, I truncated his Major starts to end at age 47, which I think is a reasonable cutoff for competitiveness. If Tiger competes as long as Jack did his major win % (up to age 47) might stay about the same, increase, or decrease (more likely), but he certainly won't match the 18 Majors if he doesn't get like 22+ more major starts between now and age 47.
    • Wedges, Bounce, and Ground Conditions
      Typically more bounce (or a "healthy" amount of bounce) helps in any condition.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. glinks
      glinks
      (43 years old)
  • Blog Entries