Does the PGA Tour need Tiger to win a major?

[pittpanther]

The beauty of Tiger, especially circa '96---2000: he was so damn spectacular he just flat blew everybody away, hype or no hype. Yes there was a hell of a lot of marketing, but it followed tremendous, spectacular, unprecedented talent, not the other way around. Now and then recall: Pebble Beach US Open 2000. THAT was a phenomenom no amount of hype or "marketing" bs will ever create.

Exactly! This is what most people seem to forget - Tiger became so popular because he WON - a LOT! He was consistent week to week, and he was almost always in contention, even if he didn't win in the end.

What do we have now? The "winner of the week." We don't have anyone consistently winning tournaments. The guy who won the Opne, I don't expect to ever hear from him again. And where was Cink, to defend his title? As long as the PGA only has guys that win this week, then miss the cut next week, it will never be as popular as when Tiger was winning consistently.

[B-Con]

Maybe golf needs to be smaller. Why is it on two channels every Saturday and Sunday all year long? When is the off season? What other sport goes 12 months a year? There's no spring training, no opening day, you never know for sure who's teeing it up, and the playoffs are weird too. Make all the players play in all the events and have a shorter season, then "casual fans" might give a hoot.

That's a good point. Golf doesn't really have a downtime. It's full-steam ahead pretty much non-stop.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Exactly! This is what most people seem to forget - Tiger became so popular because he WON - a LOT! He was consistent week to week, and he was almost always in contention, even if he didn't win in the end.

That comment is pretty much it. In Jack's era, there were about a dozen other golfers who you could count on as well who could win in any week. Now it's like the top few after Tiger are afraid to win. It doesn't have to be only Tiger to make the PGA Tour better. If there were several other golfers, with marketable personalities, who were winning one or two times every year, and throw in a major every now and then, then we would have a much more interesting tour and one that is not so dependent on one player.

BTW, one reason the BO ratings were so low on Sunday might have been the 8-stroke lead. That doesn't offer up a lot of drama.

[JWL1957]

How does the viewer benefit from the networks rating when Tiger plays???????? What a BS reason to factor a need for a Tiger win. When CBS pays me a 10 share for a Tiger in contention......Im in!! Who really needs to give a crap about ratings other than the networks? Golf will be televised regardless of ratings long after Tiger is old and grey.

[MrKadash]

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but Sunday's Open coverage got historically low TV ratings. Low ratings when Tiger's not in contention has been well chronicled. If Tiger's not winning or contending anymore, at some point the long string of lower ratings will hurt the PGA next TV contract. So I believe the PGA would suffer in that regard (revenue) if Tiger's not winning majors ... or even contending.

Part of your comment may very well be true, but I contend that this years British Open got such low ratings not because Tiger wasn't in the hunt, rather a nightmare scenario for the R&A; in which a no-name player (albeit a very good player) smashed the field. Last years final round did pretty well because Watson defied father time. Just my $.02.

[newtogolf]

How does the viewer benefit from the networks rating when Tiger plays???????? What a BS reason to factor a need for a Tiger win. When CBS pays me a 10 share for a Tiger in contention......Im in!! Who really needs to give a crap about ratings other than the networks? Golf will be televised regardless of ratings long after Tiger is old and grey.

It's a matter of public interest, he increases the number of viewers. When Tiger is in contention non-golfers are more likely to watch than when he isn't and only the die hard fans watch. Same happened in the World Cup. Prior to the US elimination, everyone was talking soccer, once they lost, it was as though the World Cup ended, no one was talking about it on the news or sports radio.

[golfro]

How does the viewer benefit from the networks rating when Tiger plays???????? What a BS reason to factor a need for a Tiger win. When CBS pays me a 10 share for a Tiger in contention......Im in!! Who really needs to give a crap about ratings other than the networks? Golf will be televised regardless of ratings long after Tiger is old and grey.

sooner or later when viewer ratings drop low, networks have no reason to play golf tournaments on TV...thats why i give a crap.

[Hero8]

Maybe golf needs to be smaller. Why is it on two channels every Saturday and Sunday all year long? When is the off season? What other sport goes 12 months a year? There's no spring training, no opening day, you never know for sure who's teeing it up, and the playoffs are weird too. Make all the players play in all the events and have a shorter season, then "casual fans" might give a hoot.

This is so true. Golf needs a concise season where one individual is the winner and that resets from 'scratch' the next year like other sports. Sure you have the traditional majors that everyone knows about but other than that its tough even for me as a golf fan to keep up with whats going on out on tour. And if a Tiger or Phil isnt winning/losing those majors in a fashion thats exciting to watch pretty much nobody cares.

[Chas]

What utter nonsense I'm reading on this thread (some of it anyway). Tiger is not the only game in town. As long as young talent keeps bubbling up, and as long as most tournaments are in contention well into Sunday, the game of golf will do well.

I find it amusing that so many people's whole world of golf revolves around Tiger. As for the ratings, like someone else said ....... SO WHAT?! The game of golf won't disappear if ratings fall somewhat, it's silly to suppose so. Prize money might be affected for a while but there will always be a fortune to be made for real talent and hard work so talented sportsmen will be attracted. Golf is a wonderful and frustrating game that Woods did not invent and that does not need him in the least, not in any serious sense. I want to see the man make a full come-back but not for some of the reasons stated in this thread.

Makes you wonder if some people here realize that professional golf existed and prospered before The Great TW arrived on the scene in such spectacular fashion.

I don't blame Tiger for this silliness. I blame the media in part for all their tiresome hype, which of course serves their financial interests first and foremost. So nice not to have to put up with as much of that rubbish these days from the talking heads. If Tiger returns to his old form, all well and good. If not, the game will go on and prosper in his absence - and he will still be remembered as one of the all-time greats of the game. Personally I don't see him giving up the ghost (his ambitions), not unless he changes his basic goal-oriented character which I don't see happening any time soon. Not very likely.

[steelernation]

What utter nonsense I'm reading on this thread (some of it anyway). Tiger is not the only game in town. As long as young talent keeps bubbling up, and as long as most tournaments are in contention well into Sunday, the game of golf will do well.

Awesome post. brought a tear to my ping eye