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

[mvmac]

Valspar ratings were up 30%.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2015/3/16/valspar-ratings-up-30-peak-during-ncaa-selection-show.html

But great news for the PGA Tour as the exciting Valspar Championship won by Spieth in a playoff over Reed and O'Hair was up 30% and peaked at a healthy 3.6 as CBS unveiled the 2015 NCAA Tournament selections and the playoff ensued.

The playoff drew nearly as many viewers as the selection show (3.6 to 3.9).

[dkolo]

Valspar ratings were up 30%.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2015/3/16/valspar-ratings-up-30-peak-during-ncaa-selection-show.html

Does that compare favorably to tournaments Tiger was winning in 2013? I kind of don't have a baseline for good or bad with TV ratings to compare to.

[PatrickMurtha]

I voted Yes, golf is in a good place, BUT with the understanding that it is in the process of becoming what tennis became after the early Eighties, a niche spectator sport. Certainly golf as a participant sport is in precipitous decline:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/05/why-america-fell-out-of-love-with-golf/

If the average man couldn't afford the money, time, and learning curve it takes to become a competent golfer before the past few years, he certainly can't now. And the fortunes of professional golf as a spectator sport are more tied to participation than with any other sport. How many pro golf fans are NOT golfers themselves? Precious few. I'm in that group, so I know how few we are.

Tiger Woods was a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon. We won't see the like again. I don't care about this personally, although many obviously do. I would say that Tiger's appeal had little to do with sport of golf per se. It had to do with his DOMINANCE of a sport, with his backstory, with (yes) his racial makeup in a sport previously owned by white country clubbers. That particular set of circumstances can't recur. It is interesting to note that far from Tiger's emergence drawing more African-Americans into the sport, there are probably fewer of them active, recreationally and professionally, than there have been in a long time. Tiger's real impact on the sport was in drawing a certain type of mass attention (that was almost totally dependent upon him, and will not linger), and in expanding the size of the purses.

So with all this bad news, why did I vote Yes? Because I think that golf can be a HEALTHY niche sport, if people are realistic; and because I think the crop of new players is genuinely exciting. I don't WANT one player to dominate the sport like Tiger - not even Rory, and I'm a big Rory fan. I want there to be several stars of magnitude, such as Spieth and Reed are looking to be, and a strong supporting cast of characters. I love the way the competitive pro game is shaping up right now. I kind of hope that Tiger DOESN'T re-emerge, because that only postpones the inevitable, that everyone is going to have to learn without him. I could stand a few more autumnal flashes from Phil, because I've always admired the guy, but those wouldn't make any real difference to the forward momentum of the game either. Those who are not interested in Jordan Spieth and Patrick Reed and were not following them closely BEFORE Valspar are not really golf fans - that's the long and the short of it.

[turtleback]

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.

Me too, but they have you and me already.

Does that compare favorably to tournaments Tiger was winning in 2013? I kind of don't have a baseline for good or bad with TV ratings to compare to.

I do not know the answer to that question.

But if you look at the leader board from 2014, which is the base that 30% increase built on, there weren't many (any, really - Luke Donald being the closest) household names.  I think the Tour should be worried that an event where 2 of the brightest young lights along with a great comeback story play great golf down the stretch culminating in an electric playoff and the ratings only go up 30% compared to the 2014 event with a decidedly lackluster leaderboard.  30% is not a lot to move the needle when you have a fantastic finish put on by some of the highest profile players in the world.

[dkolo]

Me too, but they have you and me already.

I do not know the answer to that question.

But if you look at the leader board from 2014, which is the base that 30% increase built on, there weren't many (any, really - Luke Donald being the closest) household names.  I think the Tour should be worried that an event where 2 of the brightest young lights along with a great comeback story play great golf down the stretch culminating in an electric playoff and the ratings only go up 30% compared to the 2014 event with a decidedly lackluster leaderboard.  30% is not a lot to move the needle when you have a fantastic finish put on by some of the highest profile players in the world.

It's a cumulative process, though, right? So, in other words, because you have a good race to the finish one week with big names, people will tune in because maybe they see the scores online, or they get a text, or they see it on Twitter. That's your spike. Where you build off of this is getting them to be tuning in because they EXPECT to see good competition of their favorite players. So you need to sow the seeds, essentially, to get people to start thinking of tuning in on their own. So you need a period of these proto-stars vying for wins to drive attention to the broadcasts consistently. I'll be honest; I kinda spaced on the first few rounds because I remembered the Valspar being a second rate event. I'm way more likely to pay attention next year now.

[eaglevision]

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree but I believe that golf needs a great American golfer to surface!

[colin007]

heres the thing, and its something that a lot of people skirt around, but i think its true.  tigers explosion was in large part due to the fact that he is black (or at least, not white).  people wanted to know who was this non-white guy (cablanasian) who is dominating this fuddy-duddy game played by white dudes?  people tuned in to root against him.  people tuned it to see what the fuss was.  people tuned in who wouldnt have because they looked like him.  and i dont really see anyone taking the reigns of explosive popularity if they look like spieth or reed or ohair.

[eaglevision]

heres the thing, and its something that a lot of people skirt around, but i think its true.  tigers explosion was in large part due to the fact that he is black (or at least, not white).  people wanted to know who was this non-white guy (cablanasian) who is dominating this fuddy-duddy game played by white dudes?  people tuned in to root against him.  people tuned it to see what the fuss was.  people tuned in who wouldnt have because they looked like him.  and i dont really see anyone taking the reigns of explosive popularity if they look like spieth or reed or ohair.

I concur with the possibility of people rooting against him and maybe color helped bring more viewers. It has a lot to do with pure skill. He has the second most wins in golf EVER(which I believe he will pass Snead) I never cared for tiger until more recently so I'm not bias. In fact, I rooted against him & rooted for Phil because he was his only true competition!

[Gunther]

heres the thing, and its something that a lot of people skirt around, but i think its true.  tigers explosion was in large part due to the fact that he is black (or at least, not white).  people wanted to know who was this non-white guy (cablanasian) who is dominating this fuddy-duddy game played by white dudes?  people tuned in to root against him.  people tuned it to see what the fuss was.  people tuned in who wouldnt have because they looked like him.  and i dont really see anyone taking the reigns of explosive popularity if they look like spieth or reed or ohair.

Agree completely and is one of the reasons I mentioned that Reed playing the bad boy will help. People tune in to watch Tiger fail, he's much loved but much hated as well. There's no one in the current crop of players that can bring both but if Speith can excel and wear the white hat and Reed can excel and wear the black, that would achieve some degree of what Tiger brought.

[Golfingdad]

There's no one in the current crop of players that can bring both

I disagree ... I root for Reed. :)

[rkim291968]

I voted no but it's a "soft" no.  We will not see the heydays of when Tiger was in control but it is still entertaining.

If there is a 3rd option of voting for status quo/unchanged, I would have voted there.

[dkolo]

I disagree ... I root for Reed. :)

Me too. And he gets points in my book by association with Jordan Spieth. Liking one and not the other would seem weird as well as they seem to get along.

[Gunther]

I disagree ... I root for Reed. :)

I hear you, and I do as well, not as much as Spieth but I believe Reed can bring the haters out, not sure who else could today.

[rkim291968]

Valspar ratings were up 30%.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2015/3/16/valspar-ratings-up-30-peak-during-ncaa-selection-show.html

Quote:

But great news for the PGA Tour as the exciting Valspar Championship won by Spieth in a playoff over Reed and O'Hair was up 30% and peaked at a healthy 3.6 as CBS unveiled the 2015 NCAA Tournament selections and the playoff ensued.

The playoff drew nearly as many viewers as the selection show (3.6 to 3.9).

This bodes well for PGA tour.   The last few holes, and playoff were pretty exciting.   Maybe, that has helped the rating.

[inthehole]

I was never into golf in my younger years, so I missed the whole Tiger thing.    I've only been playing & a fan for the last 5 years or so, and from what I see, golf is in a great place - so much talent & personalities to make it entertaining viewing.

[turtleback]

heres the thing, and its something that a lot of people skirt around, but i think its true.  tigers explosion was in large part due to the fact that he is black (or at least, not white).  people wanted to know who was this non-white guy (cablanasian) who is dominating this fuddy-duddy game played by white dudes?  people tuned in to root against him.  people tuned it to see what the fuss was.  people tuned in who wouldnt have because they looked like him.  and i dont really see anyone taking the reigns of explosive popularity if they look like spieth or reed or ohair.

I do not think the explosion was due to his race but there is no doubt at all my mind that it is a great deal of the reason for the polarization he seems to have engendered.  And I was around on usenet golf boards at the very beginning (anyone remember the rec.sports.golf board and Annika1980 et al?) and I remember very well the initial racism he evoked among some folks.  It went sub-rosa pretty quickly but anyone who thinks it wasn't there back then and who think it has all gone away is deluding themselves IMO.

It wasn't his race that got him attention, though, it was the things he did, IMO.  The three juniors, the 3 amateurs (and the way he won them), the way he far exceeded every expectation (other than his own) when he went pro.  Winning twice in his first 7 events, overwhelming the field at his first major as a pro.  THESE are the things that gave him his profile - not that race played no part but it would have meant nothing without the accomplishments and it was a decidedly mixed factor - on balance I think a case can be made that his race hurt him more than helped him popularity wise.

But Spieth, Reed, and even Rory fail to get anywhere near his popularity level, or had the effect on the sport as a whole, because they have not come even close to his body of work at a similar age as they are.  They get all excited because Reed was going for his 5th win under the age of 25.  They got all excited at Spieth winning his second under the age of 22.  Tiger had 5 wins before his 22nd birthday.  Including a major.

If someone of any color comes out and starts doing those kinds of things I think they will get the same kind of popularity that Tiger has gotten, IMO.  Perhaps (hopefully) without the vilification he has been subjected to.

[PatrickMurtha]

But Spieth, Reed, and even Rory fail to get anywhere near his popularity level, or had the effect on the sport as a whole, because they have not come even close to his body of work at a similar age as they are.  They get all excited because Reed was going for his 5th win under the age of 25.  They got all excited at Spieth winning his second under the age of 22.  Tiger had 5 wins before his 22nd birthday.  Including a major.

If someone of any color comes out and starts doing those kinds of things I think they will get the same kind of popularity that Tiger has gotten, IMO.  Perhaps (hopefully) without the vilification he has been subjected to.

That is setting the bar impossibly high. No one is going to do that. Rory has four majors before the age of 26, that seems mighty impressive to me. Only four players in the last 75 years, including Woods and Spieth, have two wins before the age of 22. That is also mighty impressive.

It could well be argued that Tiger, like Michael Jordan in basketball, DESTROYED his sport, because he got people used to the near-impossible, and they got to expecting it.

I am not interested in the next Tiger. Rory is the first Rory. Jordan is the first Jordan. That's enough for me.

[Aguirre]

I don't watch regular tour events as much as I used to.  I don't know why, but I can't help but think Tiger probably drew me to many of those events more than I previously thought.

The majors are still great, though.  Still consume many hours of coverage for each of them.