Tiger Skips Pebble Beach

[Texian]

Just because the media thinks no one cares about any other golfer than Tiger doesn't make it so.

Real golfers and real golf fans like good competition and interesting golfing stories like Gainey and Watson. I always liked Tiger because I thought he was a credit to the game, said the right things, and had great character. That may or may not have been accurate, and he may or may not get back to his form of old. When he played, I enjoyed watching him and how he played, but always pulled for someone to beat him, because I like underdogs.

The media likes front-runners, and a lot of them are too lazy to dig for better or different stories.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Texian

Just because the media thinks no one cares about any other golfer than Tiger doesn't make it so.

Real golfers and real golf fans like good competition and interesting golfing stories like Gainey and Watson.

The problem is, these "real golfers" are the core audience. They'll tolerate the Tiger stories that bring the more casual golf fan into the mix.

You may not like it - I like Tiger (on the golf course) and I find it tiresome - but I think that's the logistics of it. The media is in the business of selling too, and there's no better seller than Tiger.

[Chas]

Then, to the extent this is true, the media should not expect much in the way of respect from people who actually know and care about the game of golf, as opposed to those who couldn't put a player's game in context if their next beer depended on it but are members of the Fan Club alright.  Let's just say that some in the media had better not mind being seen by many as shills for the promoters/moneyed interests.

For that matter it makes you wonder how much respect they have for themselves, since you have to assume they know better ..... but that's between them and their consciences.  As long as they can take it to the bank on a Sunday evening I suppose .....

[..... and well said Texian]

[FHopper]

The desert is sponsored by Omega, don't you suppose there might be a reason there?

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by FHopper

The desert is sponsored by Omega, don't you suppose there might be a reason there?

I know that Tag Heuer dropped Tiger, but is Omega now in the picture? Doesn't show Tiger on their website; only Greg Norman and Sergio.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Chas

Then, to the extent this is true, the media should not expect much in the way of respect from people who actually know and care about the game of golf, as opposed to those who couldn't put a player's game in context if their next beer depended on it but are members of the Fan Club alright.  Let's just say that some in the media had better not mind being seen by many as shills for the promoters/moneyed interests.

For that matter it makes you wonder how much respect they have for themselves, since you have to assume they know better ..... but that's between them and their consciences.  As long as they can take it to the bank on a Sunday evening I suppose .....

[..... and well said Texian]

Don't forget that selling to the casual fans funds a lot of the coverage that we get.  The kind of tournament coverage we are used to (and keep asking for in the "how to improve coverage" thread) is expensive.  I don't think the hardcore "true" fans are a big enough crowd to sustain that kind of budget without a lot of subsidizing by the "Fan Club" that you seem to hold in such disdain.

Not sure I get the conscience thing, either.  It's not really an ethical issue, golf is entertainment.  Golf enthusiasts and more general sports fans have different tastes, and different interests.  One crowd is a bigger market, so the entertainers (i.e., media) are just playing smart by targeting them.

The fact is that golf is a fairly difficult sport to watch if you're not familiar with a lot of names and you're accustomed to watching A vs B sports.  There's a lot going on all at once, so by focusing on a few memorable names and building a simpler story about the leaderboard, the telecast becomes more accessible to people who aren't golf wonks.  If you are a wonk, as many people here are, then it's frustrating because you only see a slice of the tournament, but it's a tradeoff.  Appealing to the wider audience means we get more tournament coverage, at the cost of not getting our ideal.

[max power]

This is a great point.  Tons of people watch football who have never played football of any kind, not even a pick-up game after class.  Same goes for hockey, and baseball, and basketball.  Even if the people watching have played, it was usually a long time ago, or maybe they play softball, or an occasional game of basketball or hockey.  People who don't play golf hardly watch golf, people who play golf (that I know) tend to at least check out the golf broadcast.  As a viewer it sucks to be an avid golfer, but they probably know that I'm watching either way.

Originally Posted by zeg

The fact is that golf is a fairly difficult sport to watch if you're not familiar with a lot of names and you're accustomed to watching A vs B sports.  There's a lot going on all at once, so by focusing on a few memorable names and building a simpler story about the leaderboard, the telecast becomes more accessible to people who aren't golf wonks.  If you are a wonk, as many people here are, then it's frustrating because you only see a slice of the tournament, but it's a tradeoff.  Appealing to the wider audience means we get more tournament coverage, at the cost of not getting our ideal.

[Chas]

"Appealing to the wider audience means we get more tournament coverage, at the cost of not getting our ideal." That is the proper rejoinder, up to a point.

Golf differs from many other sports in that the action is very spread out.  So much is going on simultaneously over miles of track, unlike in tennis or football or cricket or soccer  ...... more like pro cycling perhaps, which must also be difficult to broadcast live in a way that does justice to the athletes. It must be a major challenge on the PGA tour deciding who to show when and for how long, and they do switch between players a fair bit of course.  Too much of that would get downright confusing and tiring for viewers, even the golf fanatics, so it's a balance.  Now that Tiger isn't so obsessively followed things are better IMO.  I suspect that the commentators enjoy it more in the 'post-TW' era as well, introducing people to less familiar players and talking about the many possible scenarios over the weekend.  My previous post referred more to the bad old days, good riddance to that.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by max power

This is a great point.  Tons of people watch football who have never played football of any kind, not even a pick-up game after class.

Yeah, because they have money on the game.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Texian

Quote:

Originally Posted by shum500

uhhh actually less people are going to watch because tiger is out of the mix.

I think the real golfers and golf fans will watch guys like Gainey, Watson, Mickelson, and whoever else might be playing well. Those who don't know anything about the game and/or don't play it might not, but they won't be a big loss.

Golf on TV needs all the viewers they can get. if they want to appeal to "real golf fans" the tour will die a quick death. Like it or not, the PGA tour without Tiger Woods is about as popular as soccer.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texian

Quote:

Originally Posted by shum500

uhhh actually less people are going to watch because tiger is out of the mix.

I think the real golfers and golf fans will watch guys like Gainey, Watson, Mickelson, and whoever else might be playing well. Those who don't know anything about the game and/or don't play it might not, but they won't be a big loss.

Golf on TV needs all the viewers they can get. if they want to appeal to "real golf fans" the tour will die a quick death. Like it or not, the PGA tour without Tiger Woods is about as popular as soccer.

Is that still a gazillion more times popular than golf, or am I thinking of the other soccer?

[mtsalmela80]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texian

Quote:

Originally Posted by shum500

uhhh actually less people are going to watch because tiger is out of the mix.

I think the real golfers and golf fans will watch guys like Gainey, Watson, Mickelson, and whoever else might be playing well. Those who don't know anything about the game and/or don't play it might not, but they won't be a big loss.

Golf on TV needs all the viewers they can get. if they want to appeal to "real golf fans" the tour will die a quick death. Like it or not, the PGA tour without Tiger Woods is about as popular as soccer.

Please explain how the PGA managed to stay in business and pay their winners millions pre 1996....

I guess it was those hard core golf fans!

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSchott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texian

Quote:

Originally Posted by shum500

uhhh actually less people are going to watch because tiger is out of the mix.

I think the real golfers and golf fans will watch guys like Gainey, Watson, Mickelson, and whoever else might be playing well. Those who don't know anything about the game and/or don't play it might not, but they won't be a big loss.

Golf on TV needs all the viewers they can get. if they want to appeal to "real golf fans" the tour will die a quick death. Like it or not, the PGA tour without Tiger Woods is about as popular as soccer.

Please explain how the PGA managed to stay in business and pay their winners millions pre 1996....

I guess it was those hard core golf fans!

A few thoughts. Adjusted for inflation, PGA purses have increased 194% since 1997. That's because of Tiger Woods. To compare, for the major sports including NASCAR the average increase in prize money or pay is 119% and the NFL was 45%. This is a hard time for golf. Many courses are hurting and TV ratings are down. It's harder to find sponsors. Where would the PGA tour be right now without Tiger and the fans he's brought to the game? If you want a partial answer, look at the LPGA.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texian

Golf on TV needs all the viewers they can get. if they want to appeal to "real golf fans" the tour will die a quick death. Like it or not, the PGA tour without Tiger Woods is about as popular as soccer.

Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet. The World Cup is bigger than the Olympics. The Premier League and European Leagues put any other sport in the shade as far as TV spectators go.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Please explain how the PGA managed to stay in business and pay their winners millions pre 1996....

I guess it was those hard core golf fans!

Let's assume you meant the PGA Tour...

And guess what? They didn't make anywhere near as much money back then. They paid the winners less, the TV people paid less, advertisers paid less... They "stayed in business" because the business cost - and made - 10x (or whatever) less money before Tiger Woods (despite Greg Norman, Nicklaus, etc.).

[mtsalmela80]

I give all credit for the millions people make on the PGA Tour to John Daly myself, but to each his own

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSchott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texian

Golf on TV needs all the viewers they can get. if they want to appeal to "real golf fans" the tour will die a quick death. Like it or not, the PGA tour without Tiger Woods is about as popular as soccer.

Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet. The World Cup is bigger than the Olympics. The Premier League and European Leagues put any other sport in the shade as far as TV spectators go.

In the context of TV ratings in the US, soccer is a poor stepchild.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by MSchott

In the context of TV ratings in the US, soccer is a poor stepchild.

Golf is the homeless guy on the corner compared to American Idol. Who cares?