Jump to content
IGNORED

Was Woods Good for Golf?


Note: This thread is 4181 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

0  

  1. 1. Before November, 2009, was Tiger Woods good for golf?

    • Heck, yes!
      108
    • Heck, no!
      8
    • I'll take a mulligan.
      1
    • Who cares?
      5


Recommended Posts

Depends who you ask. For me no. He has raised the price of tickets,

Wow, comments like that are so good for the game too, right?? As long as people come out and are respectful of the course, and other players around them, why do they not deserve the chance to play, even if they do suck?

So you're saying you dont want the game to grow? And the direct benefit to you is that you get to see better golf now. Every single player on tour now works harder, practices harder, and has stepped up their game overall to keep up with Tiger. I also wouldn't blame ticket prices solely on him either. Ticket prices for all major sports have gone up almost every year since '96.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is a dumb question.

Agreed... WAS, IS and WILL BE GOOD for golf, period. Come to think of it, I don't recall watching him do anything but play golf in the last 10+ years...were you guys tuned into a different channel?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good opinion piece, here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-d ... 96116.html

I don't think Tiger's fall from a seeming state of plain-vanilla, Republican-type, family-values version of grace is bad for golf. It's like the dot com bubble and the real estate investment bubble; too many greedy, flakey industries were built up on the sand of Tiger's smile and swing. That they collapse is not a bad thing but an expected one.

It's sort of like that 31 story building they imploded a few days ago on South Padre. Sinking, bad foundation, has to go.

And Tiger will be back, to concentrate on golf instead of image and money this time, if he doesn't sink too far into the slough of drugs and alienation, like Howard Hughes or Michael Jackson.

A lot of famous golfers were, shall we say, swingers? The main difference between them and Tiger is that (1) Tiger is more famous, partly thanks to the advertising and media build-up around Tiger, Inc., and (2) they were likeable guys, which Tiger is not and never has been, unless his agent told him to appear so.

Among the overpaid prima donas on a pro basketball or football team, Tiger's personality would be par for the course. Not in golf, even in today's executive-style golf-as-business atmosphere.

Which all reminds me of that story Sam Snead told, about being awakened on the final night or two during the Masters tournament by a knock at the door at 2 a.m. It was Jimmy Demaret, inviting Snead to come to a party.

Who was that most-famous golfer of his time in the early 20th century, who reputedly showed up on the first tee looking like he stepped out of a bandbox, when actually he had been up all night partying? And Lee Trevino admits that during many a tournament, he closed the bars before retiring to his room. Then there was Doug Sanders....
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous question. Absolutely ridiculous.

I don't care how many clubs he throws, women he nails, or cars he smashes; Tiger got more young athletic people to step on a golf course than any single athlete ever did for another sport. Period.

If someone said this earlier, I apologize, I didn't read the whole thread. But the notion that he was anything but good for the game (or that he will ever be anything but good FOR THE GAME) is ludicrous.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is really a question. He has made golf popular and helped the industry grow. Unless you want courses to close, people to make less in the industry the answer is yes.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiger was good for the game. He is the most athletic and powerful golfer since Greg Norman and the greatest pressure player since Watson and Nicklaus. He had it all - he was great for the game.

Tiger gave the game the sort of kick in the pants that players with great technique and a bit of flare (e.g. Jack, Seve, Nick Price, Greg Norman) have always done.

People took notice of all aspects of his game. His level of fitness, his style, his technique, his equipment. A lot of golf newbs took notice of what to buy and what to wear. Others what not to buy or wear (e.g. swoosh haters).

Does anyone remember the entertainment level of professional golf immediately pre-Tiger? If I have to sit through any more mid-90s style back slapping made-for-TV golf events (think Lee Trevino and Chi Chi's contrived guffaws and ridiculous Peter Jacobsen impersonations and "funny walks") I'll sceam. Nah - I'll just change the channel.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiger was good for Golf and I imagine that he will still be.

As for the original post, I did not follow the link given but I did notice the URL in the link was the LA Times. Upon seeing that I did not need to see much more.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a golfer. Sometimes I am a golf spectator. There is a difference. At first I would say that Woods has helped the golf industry and professional golf but he has done nothing for the game that I play. But then I have to say, he has increased the number of self centered and rude golfers on the course who think that they are almost Tiger Woods.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a dumb question. Look at how golf has grown the last ten years not to mention the money Tiger has brought to the tour and golfing industry as a whole. Like him or not those are the facts!

Is that really all that matters in the game? Is the value of golf, even to professional players, directly proportional to the average size of the purse? Is more always better? I'm not suggesting that this is what you believe, but shouldn't we be considering other aspects of the game in the accounting?

Remember those TV ads that the PGA put out about the personal values that the game of golf is supposed to foster in the lives of young people? You know what they are I'm sure, no need to be more specific here. All very fine and idealistic, are we so cynical as to think this is all a marketing scheme? I don't think so, not quite yet. Well then, it begs the question: do we think that the game has been doing a better or a worse job of fostering those values in the past ten years, and what has Tiger's contribution been? Tiger has sometimes allowed his intensity and competitiveness to get the better of him on the course but on the whole I think it's been a minor issue and IMO it's mostly excusable. OTOH he has represented classical "sportsmanship" on the course, and at post-game interviews, pretty darned well IMO. A good spokesman for the game and someone for young people to emulate out there. Sergio, for all his great talent and flair, hasn't done so well in that part of the game. It's been a very public sort of battle for him. He clearly knows it and seems to be really working on improving - more power to him and I wish him well. Sadly we now have a spectacular, almost fantastic, example of how those PGA TV ads have failed to be realized at the highest level, of how the golfing virtues have signally not in fact translated to other aspects of a particular golfer's life. Well, perhaps in this sense he will also end up doing the game some good, by setting another standard (of a kind) that others will hold themselves in opposition to as much as possible. There ought to be some sort of a public prize, named in honor of our SuperStar and of course awarded to him first, in recognition of this contribution to the great and honorable game of golf. Let's hope it's a prize that gets awarded about as often as the one for Dutch long distance cross-country skating, you know when the canals freeze over sufficiently. No, he wasn't the first - and he won't be the last - but man does Mr. Woods know how to set that standard as well ......
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that really all that matters in the game? Is the value of golf, even to professional players, directly proportional to the average size of the purse? Is more always better? I'm not suggesting that this is what you believe, but shouldn't we be considering other aspects of the game in the accounting?

No one said that money is all that matters, but whether you realize it or not, it matters a lot to the pros - every single last one of them. And yes, more is better, and I can give you one huge reason why: every single one of them contributes a portion of those winnings to charity, every week. Tiger has his own foundation, Phil gives money to scholarship funds for kids who lost their parents in war. The list goes on and on. More money in the purse equals more money given out to those in need.

And I still have yet to figure out why off the course activities have anything to do with the competition seen on TV or at the actual event. If a player competes with sportsmanship and respect for his fellow competitors, that should be all that really matters as far as the values the Tour should try to promote.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a dumb question. Look at how golf has grown the last ten years....

Of course there are always some "damn statistics" somewhere to support just about any argument but I'm not sure this is right. A quick search shows that the National Golf Foundation (public records, I don't have access to their materials requiring registration) has reported the annual number of rounds has decreased (example, from 600 million in 2000 to 495 million in 2003, and 2% decrease in 2008 versus 2007); numerous manufacturers have gone out of business the past couple of years; and fewer courses are opening. Here's a different source making basically the same point:

http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/i...%20Analysi.pdf Purely from local anecdotal evidence, facilities in my region are seeing fewer players/rounds; some are going out of businss and others are offering severely discounted membership rates. Based on this, my impression is that Woods probably stimulated some interest about 6-7 years ago, but now that interest is more in the form of passive spectators than active players, the number of which is decreasing. Anyone with actual stats feel free to correct.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Woods certainly impacted the popularity of the game. There seem to be a lot more golfers playing now. Maybe we should attribute the drastic increase in greens fees since 1998 to Tiger Woods' impact on the popularity of the game?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and yeah, Woods was good for the game. Strange question.

I doubt that it's possible to make any kind of argument that Woods was bad for golf. When you consider where golf is today (compared to, say, where it was in 1997), which is largely and undeniably due to Woods' influence, in order to make a case for the "no" side you'll need to point to much more than an occasional breach of etiquette, the fact that he made golf bigger and its purses richer, or his recent public relations disaster.

You'd need Woods to front some anti-golf army that travels the world with the objective of systematically torching our best courses to reverse what he's done for the game over the past 13 years.

I do think, however, that Woods' off-course image will be permanently tarnished by the events of the last few weeks. Those that think this scandal will just "blow over" are correct only up to a point. It won't be news much longer, but the damage is done: Woods was the biggest name in sports on the planet, the revelations paint a picture of the man completely at odds with his marketed image, and the sheer magnitude of his fall is breathtaking. Interestingly, I noticed that Tag Heuer is now "standing with Tiger Woods". Given the company's market and desired image, that's a terribly bad marketing call in my opinion. I would've thought that Nike would be the boy on the (temporarily) burning deck, so to speak, but that's because Nike Golf is Tiger Woods and the brand, possibly alone, will weather this storm. On the other hand, I'm not sure what Tag Heuer expects to achieve from the Woods partnership going forward. I think it's in the same position as Accenture and would've been better off making the same call.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 4181 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. awmgolfer
      awmgolfer
      (42 years old)
    2. jakeecsj
      jakeecsj
      (73 years old)
    3. joshuanseibert
      joshuanseibert
      (31 years old)
    4. nippo
      nippo
      (77 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...