Good article about golf after Tiger

[Aguirre]

Very reasonable and smart conclusions made here.  Or maybe I think so because my opinion is close to Matt Brennan's. Sorry about the formatting screw-up.  Think I fixed most of it.

http://deadspin.com/what-happens-to-golf-after-tiger-1621609188

Quote:

What Happens To Golf After Tiger?

By the time Northern Ireland's Rory McIlroy won the 96th PGA Championship on Sunday, his second major in as many months and fourth overall, the man whose mantle he seems poised to assume had long since left the property. In 36 holes at Valhalla Golf Club, near Louisville, an ailing Tiger Woods scarcely threatened par, much less the leaders, missing the cut by five strokes. But perhaps the most surprising aspect of his disastrous performance was that few would have expected anything more out of him.

[David in FL]

I agree. A well reasoned, well written article. A lot of people aren't going to like some of those conclusions though.....

[Aguirre]

I agree. A well reasoned, well written article. A lot of people aren't going to like some of those conclusions though.....

You've been posting on a golf forum far longer than myself, so you've got a better grasp.  Which conclusions?

EDIT--I should add, to any new reader, that you're better off clicking on the Deadspin link and reading the article there.  The formatting is much better, particularly for a long article.  Too late for me to edit this advice into the OP.

[iacas]

You've been posting on a golf forum far longer than myself, so you've got a better grasp.  Which conclusions?

EDIT--I should add, to any new reader, that you're better off clicking on the Deadspin link and reading the article there.  The formatting is much better, particularly for a long article.  Too late for me to edit this advice into the OP.

Let's also try to avoid pasting entire articles in. It's likely copyright theft.

[David in FL]

You've been posting on a golf forum far longer than myself, so you've got a better grasp.  Which conclusions?

EDIT--I should add, to any new reader, that you're better off clicking on the Deadspin link and reading the article there.  The formatting is much better, particularly for a long article.  Too late for me to edit this advice into the OP.

All that dare infer that Tiger has had less of an impact on anything related to the sport than that which a lot of people would credit him.  TV viewership, professional purses, and recreational golf, equipment sales, and more were all mentioned throughout the article.

Indeed, conversations with golfing insiders and a closer look at data related to television ratings, tournament purses, participation, and equipment sales reveal a more complicated picture of Tigermania's causes and consequences. Woods's singular brilliance was not the sole factor in professional golf's lucrative boom of the past two decades, nor has his iconic presence benefitted all sectors of the sport equally. The modest reality of Woods's influence hardly lives up to the mythos that surrounds him, and as golf stands on the cusp of a future after Tiger, the time has come to reckon with the difference.