Golf, Without Tiger or Phil, Is in a Good Place - Agree or Disagree?

[oregongolfguy]

From my perspective as a avid viewer the product is on good shape at the PGA Tour level.  Lots of good young players to watch.  Love not being forced into tiger coverage even if he is not contending.  Lots of close tournaments, great finishes, young players starting to make there mark.

I am sure though from a financial standpoint the drop of tiger and phil has to have a effect on the game.  For golf in the USA a young gun needs to step into the spotlight...I don't know if bubba has the personality to be the face of American golf.  I don't know if rory can be the face of golf in the usa without being from the usa.  Spieth...Reed....Hard to say.  But I am enjoying the golf being played.

[jbishop15]

I think that its gonna be hurting unless Rory can keep it up. Golf has done much better when there's a dominant force at the top.

[mvmac]

I think golf is still in a good place without Tiger or Phil. It would certainly be in a better place if Tiger was playing regularly and winning a few events but definitely not in a "bad" place. Lots of young talent out there and guys are playing good golf. Would be great to have a rivalry build between Rory and Rickie or Rory and Spieth.

[RFKFREAK]

Just going from what I've heard, the ratings aren't like they were when Tiger was playing. Couple that with what I've read about golf courses closing, and the overall golf business not doing well, I voted, "disagree." To be honest, I didn't even put in the tournament this week and when I received the alert on my phone that the tournament was headed to a playoffi don't think I was home and I just closed out the notification and didn't think about getting home to watch it or the coverage on TGC after.

[ghalfaire]

Depends.  But I believe golf needs a few "elite" pros that are better than the rest.  You need a Tiger and a Phil that can stir the competition.  if you have too many different winners it become less interesting to watch.  So I think we need Tiger and Phil just like we needed Jack, Arnie, & Gary.  Like any sport (game) the spectators need heroes so they will tune in.  Most of us on TST will tune in anyway but golf needs those weekend golfer with no handicap and little respect for the rules of golf to spend their money and watch golf on TV and they won't do it without heroes.

[ChrisP]

It's not as good as with Tiger or Phil and probably never will be the same BUT it's going in the right direction.

Golf needs Jordan Spieth and Rory McIlroy, and if both continue to thrust themselves on the top of the world's stage, the game should be back on the incline. Spieth's win yesterday was good for the game. SportsCenter has actually given golf some good coverage the last two weeks because of the names at the top and who's winning them. Hopefully Rory shines at Bay Hill this week.

The #1 thing it needs is a rivalry. Rory-Spieth is what the game needs. I've given up on Rory-Rickie as Rickie just isn't producing the wins.

[Gunther]

I voted yes because to me and most of the die-hards, it certainly is. However, I'm with many others here who mention that the business side of things is in decline. Rory and Jordan need to dominate, Reed needs to continue his bad boy ways while mixing in a couple wins a year and the US needs to win a couple Ryder Cups. Those things will help pull golf out of its doldrums and may get the younger generation engaged.

[jamo]

I voted no. The business side is what it is - it probably over-expanded during the 90s and 2000s (as a lot of industries did), and is reaping the consequences. But I do worry about the outlook for pro golf.

[David in FL]

I voted no. The business side is what it is - it probably over-expanded during the 90s and 2000s (as a lot of industries did), and is reaping the consequences. But I do worry about the outlook for pro golf.

With the strongest, most exciting crop of young players, perhaps in the history of the game? I'm genuinely curious, why are you worried?

[CarlSpackler]

Golf isn't about Tiger, Phil, Arnie, Jack, Tom Morris, etc. It's the best game ever thought of.

Added: Golf is not even about the guys on tour. It's about me, a field of grass, a stupid little white ball, and a hole in the ground that is about .00001% of the available playing field.

[colin007]

With the strongest, most exciting crop of young players, perhaps in the history of the game? I'm genuinely curious, why are you worried?

because they simply dont capture the attention of the sports world, outside of golf.  they dont have that dominating, attention-grabbing personality that makes casual fans say "i gotta tune in".

[dkolo]

because they simply dont capture the attention of the sports world, outside of golf.  they dont have that dominating, attention-grabbing personality that makes casual fans say "i gotta tune in".

Give em a chance. If the Valspar were the Open, that'd have been a huge win for the Tour. The PGA last year got a bit hosed by lousy weather because that was another compelling finish with interesting players. I think Spieth and Reed have real breakout potential.

[David in FL]

because they simply dont capture the attention of the sports world, outside of golf.  they dont have that dominating, attention-grabbing personality that makes casual fans say "i gotta tune in".

I don't know that that many "casual fans" tune in to move the needle one way or another. Certainly not enough to define golf as "in trouble" if they decide to watch tennis this week. There's no disputing that Tiger attracted a lot of young, new players to the sport. He did that because he was young, aggressive, talented, and fearless. Just like this new breed of kids coming up 15 years behind him. Too many (most?) Tiger fans only get excited if he's winning. I'd much rather watch a bunch of guys playing a bunch of great shots in a closely contested match that ends in a 3-way, multi-hole playoff. That's entertainment to me.

[bjfox10]

because they simply dont capture the attention of the sports world, outside of golf.  they dont have that dominating, attention-grabbing personality that makes casual fans say "i gotta tune in".

I believe this statement is spot on. Spieth, McIlroy, Reed and others are great players who are playing great golf but they have not transcended to sport. To be honest I do not think Phil did either. The ability for a golfer to do that is extremely rare.   I do believe that golf is in fair to good shape but not great. In the end purse sizes and TV rating will settle the argument of if this is must see TV.

[Huddo]

I don't know that that many "casual fans" tune in to move the needle one way or another. Certainly not enough to define golf as "in trouble" if they decide to watch tennis this week. There's no disputing that Tiger attracted a lot of young, new players to the sport. He did that because he was young, aggressive, talented, and fearless. Just like this new breed of kids coming up 15 years behind him.

Too many (most?) Tiger fans only get excited if he's winning. I'd much rather watch a bunch of guys playing a bunch of great shots in a closely contested match that ends in a 3-way, multi-hole playoff. That's entertainment to me.

I totally agree with close finishes being great to watch and a big attraction to the "average" fan.  It's funny you mentioned Tennis, as the game has seen a real upsurge in popularity recently and strangely enough, there are probably 3-4 guys who could win a major at anytime...........well maybe not the French but nevertheless it could just be what Golf needs to move forward.  Instead of looking for the next Tiger, the emergence of maybe 4-5 young talented players, contesting the Majors each year could well be the answer!

[RussUK]

I voted yes, the current crop of up and coming talent, along with the likes of Mcllroy, Speith, Fowler along with some of the "old guard" like Rose, Scott et al will keep the sport ticking as a whole over nicely.. HOWEVER..... with the BBC deciding to sell its rights to te open, and Ryder cup in the near future its going to be less visable to many golfers here in the uk.

Not many people would be happy to pay quite a bit extra to get Sky sports just to watch Golf. We used to be spoilt with golf on TV back in the day, now we have to make do with 30mins highlights.

I'll get off my soap box now!

[phan52]

Tiger probably drew in some people who are on the periphery of golf and won't pay much attention week to week, outside of the Majors. There is never permanency with those type of fans, so it isn't a big loss. When and if guys like McIlroy and Spieth start winning a lot of Majors, they'll get some of those fans back. Every sport need star power and somebody will step up.

If people didn't enjoy that golf on Sunday they are just never going to be permanent golf fans.

[Fourputt]

Sports popularity is driven by start power.  It's only the dedicated afficionado who is going to be glued to the set when there are no name players to root for or against.  The average Joe is going to switch the channel to find something that does give him that.  I honestly don't know if Rory can carry that load.  Golf fans have been spoiled for too long now, with just a brief period between Jack's last Masters win and Tiger's entry on the scene.  Only time will tell if someone can take the baton.

As I see it right now, Golf is not in a particularly good place.  Unlike the NFL, it's not a sport where parity works very well.