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

[Golfingdad]

I agree as well. There will be a new Phil. Maybe not a new Tiger, but possibly that makes it even more interesting. Different, fresh, new, young players are ready to take over. I like it!

Like Joost!!!

[phan52]

Every sport needs star power to draw viewers. The problem with the PGA Tour today compared to years past is that the stars don't play enough. When they do, they sometimes lack consistency because they don't compete every week, hence tournaments won by the grinders and scramblers who play every week (plus a lot of tournaments that are lost as opposed to won because of players taking the heat).The top player in the field last week (Scott) didn't even make the cut and it was only his second PGA event this season.

Golf has stars, they just have to play more. And win when they do play; or at least be in the mix. Spieth and Reed in a playoff on Sunday is a good sign.

[RFKFREAK]

OK, I get that, however, for all of the sports that you do have a rooting interest in, you had to develop it at some point, right?  It doesn't just magically happen for no reason unless we're talking about the hometown team you were raised to root for - which, in that case, is the reason.

Well, for the most part it's either because they're my hometown team or because there's something about the player. For example, when Jason Kidd was in his last year at college, right before March Madness, I heard someone on ESPN talk about how good he was and because of that, I had the California Golden Bears in the Sweet Sixteen. From what I recall, he played really well and they got into the Sweet Sixteen. From then on, I liked him and would follow him in the pros. I can't tell you why I'll develop a rooting interest in an athlete but I can tell you that Speith abd Reed have been around long enough now that I'll likely not develop a rooting interest in either one of them (much like I don't have a rooting interest in college sports unless I have a bracket or something as such). I have developed a rooting interest in Walker and Hahn because I like their stories. Speith and Reed, not so much.

[Crim]

+1.   Over the years, how many "next Tiger" have the media pushed?   Too many to mention.   How many were truly the next Tiger?   Zero, nil, nada, none, ...   We better get used to golf without Tiger and be happy that we were there to witness his dominance.    Golf will survive.  I think it is in good shape now, thanks to Tiger.

( The only controversial statement above may be "Jordan is the first Jordan" statement.   A case can be made for Maravich, Russell, Chamberlain, Magic, Bird, Kobe, ...    We forget Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game in single NBA season.  OT, I know. )

I could be wrong, but I think he was referring to Spieth.

[PatrickMurtha]

+1.   Over the years, how many "next Tiger" have the media pushed?   Too many to mention.   How many were truly the next Tiger?   Zero, nil, nada, none, ...   We better get used to golf without Tiger and be happy that we were there to witness his dominance.    Golf will survive.  I think it is in good shape now, thanks to Tiger.

( The only controversial statement above may be "Jordan is the first Jordan" statement.   A case can be made for Maravich, Russell, Chamberlain, Magic, Bird, Kobe, ...    We forget Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game in single NBA season.  OT, I know. )

Ah, I meant that "Jordan Spieth is the first Jordan Spieth," but that was confusing of me, because I had just referred to Michael Jordan in the paragraph before.

Re Spieth: I've got to be one of his biggest fans. I look at how he's doing in a tournament before I look at anyone else. He is immensely likeable, and he is going to do very well for himself in every way. All that said, however, I doubt that he is going to "move the needle," as they say, because he is maybe a shade too much in the fratboy white guy mold of what we anticipate golfers to be. Really, most of the young Americans are - Harris English, Gary Woodland, there are dozens of examples, and the Matt Kuchars and Hunter Mahans and Dustin Johnsons are merely slightly older specimens from the same mold. There is not a lot of difference out there, and given the socio-economics of getting into golf (especially as a youngster) in the first place, there is not likely to be. So we need to cherish the differences where we find them. Bubba Watson has a regional flavor, which even though I don't like Bubba personally, is worth having on the Tour. Patrick Reed has his edginess (and is a slightly different physical type). Rickie Fowler wears orange clothing. It's something.

One reason I like Euro Tour and world golf so much is that there is undeniably more personal variety among the players.

[PatrickMurtha]

I just haven't found any reason to root for anyone, and I have to have someone to actually follow to get interested.  I'm that way with virtually every sporting event that I watch.  I need the home team or equivalent, and right now there is nobody that gets my attention on Tour.  I'll watch the Masters whether Tiger is playing or not, and maybe pick someone out of the pack to pull for.

As I said earlier in this thread, golf needs a star, and right now all they have is a talent pool - lots of talent, but very few stand outs.  The field in most tournaments is too homogeneous.

I do get what you're saying, and I'll grant you the homogeneity. I guess the nature of my fandom is a little different. I have golfers that I root for, definitely, but my major interest is in the sport itself, and thus everything that happens in the sport is interesting to me by definition. I get absorbed by knowing about every player who has cracked the Top 200 in the past several years. That's undoubtedly not the commonest way of relating to the pro game, but I do find it satisfying. When I was a kid and baseball was more my thing, I could tell you about every player on every major league roster, and a fair number of minor leaguers as well.

[Golfingdad]

Well, for the most part it's either because they're my hometown team or because there's something about the player.

For example, when Jason Kidd was in his last year at college, right before March Madness, I heard someone on ESPN talk about how good he was and because of that, I had the California Golden Bears in the Sweet Sixteen. From what I recall, he played really well and they got into the Sweet Sixteen. From then on, I liked him and would follow him in the pros.

I can't tell you why I'll develop a rooting interest in an athlete but I can tell you that Speith abd Reed have been around long enough now that I'll likely not develop a rooting interest in either one of them (much like I don't have a rooting interest in college sports unless I have a bracket or something as such).

I have developed a rooting interest in Walker and Hahn because I like their stories. Speith and Reed, not so much.

Meh.  Walker and Hahn bore me.

However, if it came down to a 3 hole playoff between the two of them at some point (I missed Riviera), I might possibly feel a little differently afterwards.

[RFKFREAK]

Meh.  Walker and Hahn bore me. However, if it came down to a 3 hole playoff between the two of them at some point (I missed Riviera), I might possibly feel a little differently afterwards. ;-)

As I said, different strokes. What might interest you doesn't necessarily interest me. I don't typically watch a game/competition primarily because I enjoy the sport. I watch it because I have a rooting interest. For example, the only time I am really into a soccer game is when Costa Rica is playing. I like soccer and the nuances of the sport but put two teams in a game where I don't have a rooting interest and I'll likely flip the channel and see what else is on.

[Golfingdad]

As I said, different strokes.

What might interest you doesn't necessarily interest me.

I don't typically watch a game/competition primarily because I enjoy the sport. I watch it because I have a rooting interest. For example, the only time I am really into a soccer game is when Costa Rica is playing. I like soccer and the nuances of the sport but put two teams in a game where I don't have a rooting interest and I'll likely flip the channel and see what else is on.

Yup, we're pretty much the opposite.  More often than not, I watch sports because I like the sports themselves when played at the highest level.

I prefer watching the baseball playoffs (no matter who is involved) than a regular season game with my shitty Padres.

I love watching the tennis majors most years and I root for the sport.  Meaning that I'm almost always rooting for the person that's losing because I want the match to be as close as possible and last as long as possible.  More drama and excitement = more entertainment.

In golf, practically the only time I root against somebody is when they have a big lead - really no matter who it is.  I want situations like last weekend where there are 3, 4 or 5 guys all battling to the end.

I love sports.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Yes, really.  I haven't watched more than 5 minutes of a tournament since last year's US Open.  I even missed the British, but I had an excuse for that, as we were en route from the Bahamas to Colorado and most of our household goods were on rusty bucket of an island freighter on their way to Ft. Lauderdale.  Our internet and satellite had been terminated.  I just haven't found any reason to root for anyone, and I have to have someone to actually follow to get interested.  I'm that way with virtually every sporting event that I watch.  I need the home team or equivalent, and right now there is nobody that gets my attention on Tour.  I'll watch the Masters whether Tiger is playing or not, and maybe pick someone out of the pack to pull for.

As I said earlier in this thread, golf needs a star, and right now all they have is a talent pool - lots of talent, but very few stand outs.  The field in most tournaments is too homogeneous.

Rory may make it, he is certainly showing that he has talent above most of the rest of the field, and maybe more personality than many on Tour right now.

Reed might step up, although it would be very difficult for me to root for him.  His history is too checkered, and he has some real making up to do to ever get any support from those of us who still believe that golf is a game of integrity.

Dustin Johnson, if he has gotten the gorilla off his back and is going to stay straight and play as he is capable of.  I'd love to see that.  His recent troubles give him a human side that I don't see in so much of the Tour.

Don't yet know enough about Spieth to have much of an opinion.  I'll have to do some research.

Amazing that golf even survived when Arnie and Jack faded..... And most people who enjoy watching golf (and not every golfer does) will continue to watch. Eventually the new stars replace the former. That's the nature of everything, not just golf. Some have a harder time moving on than others, but those fans that genuinely enjoy watching the sport for the sake of the sport, will do so.

I agree.

Golf didn't die after Arnie or Jack.

There is golf in the High school and Colleges/Universities.

Although there is no one dominant player at this time, the amount of playoffs are evidence of that.

The young guns and subsequent playoffs will draw viewers.

It's an exciting time, things are changing.

IMHO

Norman had the personality to fill some of that gap pretty well.  He may have failed in some notable majors, but he was a dynamic personality and was an aggressive player, the kind that's fun to watch.  And it was still in the time before the "bomb and gouge" took a lot of the interest out of the game for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I just haven't found any reason to root for anyone, and I have to have someone to actually follow to get interested.  I'm that way with virtually every sporting event that I watch.  I need the home team or equivalent, and right now there is nobody that gets my attention on Tour.  I'll watch the Masters whether Tiger is playing or not, and maybe pick someone out of the pack to pull for.

As I said earlier in this thread, golf needs a star, and right now all they have is a talent pool - lots of talent, but very few stand outs.  The field in most tournaments is too homogeneous.

I do get what you're saying, and I'll grant you the homogeneity. I guess the nature of my fandom is a little different. I have golfers that I root for, definitely, but my major interest is in the sport itself, and thus everything that happens in the sport is interesting to me by definition. I get absorbed by knowing about every player who has cracked the Top 200 in the past several years. That's undoubtedly not the commonest way of relating to the pro game, but I do find it satisfying. When I was a kid and baseball was more my thing, I could tell you about every player on every major league roster, and a fair number of minor leaguers as well.

My interest is in the sport too, but as a player not so much as a viewer.  That's why I need more inspiration to watch than just watching golf.  Before I retired, I would usually play on Sunday rather than watch, unless there was someone in contention who I followed.  Now I don't even have to play on Sundays, but I'd still rather do that than watch the typical run of the mill tournament on TV.  I only really make a point of watching so of the broadcast when Tiger or Phil are playing and in the mix, or for the first 3 majors.

[RFKFREAK]

Yup, we're pretty much the opposite.  More often than not, I watch sports because I like the sports themselves when played at the highest level. I prefer watching the baseball playoffs (no matter who is involved) than a regular season game with my shitty Padres. I love watching the tennis majors most years and I root for the sport.  Meaning that I'm almost always rooting for the person that's losing because I want the match to be as close as possible and last as long as possible.  More drama and excitement = more entertainment. In golf, practically the only time I root against somebody is when they have a big lead - really no matter who it is.  I want situations like last weekend where there are 3, 4 or 5 guys all battling to the end. I love sports.

I love sports, too, but I'm passionate about my teams. Unless the organization gives me a reason to stop following the team (like the Knicks did when they stood behind Isiah Thomas after he lost the sexual harassment law suit*), I would much rather watch a game that my team is involved in rather than the championship game (the Super Bowl notwithstanding since I seem to always find a rooting interest and watch both with a similar level of interest). *[Spoiler]To be honest, though, if they started winning, I'd probably consider following them again.[/Spoiler]

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

+1.   Over the years, how many "next Tiger" have the media pushed?   Too many to mention.   How many were truly the next Tiger?   Zero, nil, nada, none, ...   We better get used to golf without Tiger and be happy that we were there to witness his dominance.    Golf will survive.  I think it is in good shape now, thanks to Tiger.

( The only controversial statement above may be "Jordan is the first Jordan" statement.   A case can be made for Maravich, Russell, Chamberlain, Magic, Bird, Kobe, ...    We forget Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game in single NBA season.  OT, I know. )

Ah, I meant that "Jordan Spieth is the first Jordan Spieth," but that was confusing of me, because I had just referred to Michael Jordan in the paragraph before.

Re Spieth: I've got to be one of his biggest fans. I look at how he's doing in a tournament before I look at anyone else. He is immensely likeable, and he is going to do very well for himself in every way. All that said, however, I doubt that he is going to "move the needle," as they say, because he is maybe a shade too much in the fratboy white guy mold of what we anticipate golfers to be. Really, most of the young Americans are - Harris English, Gary Woodland, there are dozens of examples, and the Matt Kuchars and Hunter Mahans and Dustin Johnsons are merely slightly older specimens from the same mold. There is not a lot of difference out there, and given the socio-economics of getting into golf (especially as a youngster) in the first place, there is not likely to be. So we need to cherish the differences where we find them. Bubba Watson has a regional flavor, which even though I don't like Bubba personally, is worth having on the Tour. Patrick Reed has his edginess (and is a slightly different physical type). Rickie Fowler wears orange clothing. It's something.

One reason I like Euro Tour and world golf so much is that there is undeniably more personal variety among the players.

Chuckle.  My bad, too.   Never mind (as in  the old SNL skit).

I like most golfers as they all seem to have one compelling story or another.  I even enjoy watching Reed (and root hard against him vs anyone ).    He is my "the other team" to root against so to speak.

[PatrickMurtha]

Chuckle.  My bad, too.   Never mind (as in  the old SNL skit).

I like most golfers as they all seem to have one compelling story or another.  I even enjoy watching Reed (and root hard against him vs anyone ).    He is my "the other team" to root against so to speak.

I'm increasingly fond of Patrick Reed. He won me over big time at the Ryder Cup. And how great is it that, having been roundly lambasted for putting himself forward as a Top 5 in the world golfer, he might actually turn out to be one?

I think that Spieth has a bit of a edge on him at the moment, but nothing major. Since the start of 2014, they have both played in 36 tournaments:

Spieth - 3 wins, 10 Top 5s (28%), 14 Top 10s (39%), 23 Top 20s (64%), 4 MCs (11%)

Reed - 3 wins, 7 Top 5s (19%), 9 Top 10s (25%), 14 Top 20s (42%), 6 MCs (17%)

Of course, Spieth has three years on Reed, and that counts; true greatness in golf typically reveals itself early (Tiger, Seve), although obviously there are exceptions to that too (Tom Watson).

How about McIlroy, using these same categories? Right now, he is way ahead of everyone:

McIlroy - 28 tournaments, 5 wins (2 majors), 12 Top 5s (43%), 19 Top 10s (68%), 23 Top 20s (82%), 2 MCs (7%)

82% Top 20 finishes, that is a run of greatness.

How about Rickie Fowler?

Fowler - 32 tournaments, 0 wins, 7 Top 5s (4 in majors!) (22%), 13 Top 10s (41%), 15 Top 20s (47%), 7 MCs (22%)

I wish he'd start winning, because he's obviously got game; those four consecutive Top 5 finishes in major are something special. But Fowler is more inconsistent than Spieth, missing the cut twice as often.

Jimmy Walker?

Walker - 34 tournaments, 3 wins, 5 Top 10s (15%), 12 Top 10s (35%), 18 Top 20s (53%), 4 MCs (12%)

Jimmy is very strong in the Top 20s column. He is consistently in the hunt.

I intend to play with this method for other golfers, but that is what I've got now.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Chuckle.  My bad, too.   Never mind (as in  the old SNL skit).

I like most golfers as they all seem to have one compelling story or another.  I even enjoy watching Reed (and root hard against him vs anyone ).    He is my "the other team" to root against so to speak.

I'm increasingly fond of Patrick Reed. He won me over big time at the Ryder Cup. And how great is it that, having been roundly lambasted for putting himself forward as a Top 5 in the world golfer, he might actually turn out to be one?

I think that Spieth has a bit of a edge on him at the moment, but nothing major. Since the start of 2014, they have both played in 36 tournaments:

Spieth - 3 wins, 10 Top 5s (28%), 14 Top 10s (39%), 23 Top 20s (64%), 4 MCs (11%)

Reed - 3 wins, 7 Top 5s (19%), 9 Top 10s (25%), 14 Top 20s (42%), 6 MCs (17%)

Of course, Spieth has three years on Reed, and that counts; true greatness in golf typically reveals itself early (Tiger, Seve), although obviously there are exceptions to that too (Tom Watson).

How about McIlroy, using these same categories? Right now, he is way ahead of everyone:

McIlroy - 28 tournaments, 5 wins (2 majors), 12 Top 5s (43%), 19 Top 10s (68%), 23 Top 20s (82%), 2 MCs (7%)

82% Top 20 finishes, that is a run of greatness.

How about Rickie Fowler?

Fowler - 32 tournaments, 0 wins, 7 Top 5s (4 in majors!) (22%), 13 Top 10s (41%), 15 Top 20s (47%), 7 MCs (22%)

I wish he'd start winning, because he's obviously got game; those four consecutive Top 5 finishes in major are something special. But Fowler is more inconsistent than Spieth, missing the cut twice as often.

Jimmy Walker?

Walker - 34 tournaments, 3 wins, 5 Top 10s (15%), 12 Top 10s (35%), 18 Top 20s (53%), 4 MCs (12%)

Jimmy is very strong in the Top 20s column. He is consistently in the hunt.

I intend to play with this method for other golfers, but that is what I've got now.

Good post.  I like the way you go about it, by putting out the data and letting it speak for itself.  More of us could learn from your example.

[newtogolf]

I disagreed.  I think golf will be in a good place with hardcore golfers and golf fans but will lose the casual fans who turn on golf tournaments when Phil and / or Tiger are playing well.  While the casual fans aren't generating a lot of revenue for golf, they make up a decent portion of viewing audience that tune in just to watch Tiger and Phil.  I doubt the casual golf fan knows who Jordan Spieth, Patrick Reed or Keegan Bradley are.  They may have heard of Rory, Bubba or Rickie, but they don't know enough about them to  watch them.

[NJpatbee]

I believe professional golf is in a good place, similar to when Norman, Freddie, Azinger were making noise while Jack faded.  However, without a true star, the Tour will receive less attention from casual and non-golfers.  The competition is great but we await the next dominant golfer to show.

[PatrickMurtha]

Good post.  I like the way you go about it, by putting out the data and letting it speak for itself.  More of us could learn from your example.

Thank you kindly! I got started on this when a commenter at Golf.com asserted that Reed kept himself in contention more than Spieth did. I wasn't sure that was true, and decided to check.

Another thought on Spieth: Whenever I think of him, I'm reminded of something Kirk Douglas said about his son Michael Douglas: "I am proud of Michael for many, many reasons. But I am more proud of how he HANDLES his success than I am of his success." This is one of the things that makes Jordan special, I think. At 21 - at 21! - he handles his success with poise, grace, and style. This bodes very well for his future.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Chuckle.  My bad, too.   Never mind (as in  the old SNL skit).

I like most golfers as they all seem to have one compelling story or another.  I even enjoy watching Reed (and root hard against him vs anyone ).    He is my "the other team" to root against so to speak.

I'm increasingly fond of Patrick Reed. He won me over big time at the Ryder Cup. And how great is it that, having been roundly lambasted for putting himself forward as a Top 5 in the world golfer, he might actually turn out to be one?

I think that Spieth has a bit of a edge on him at the moment, but nothing major. Since the start of 2014, they have both played in 36 tournaments:

Spieth - 3 wins, 10 Top 5s (28%), 14 Top 10s (39%), 23 Top 20s (64%), 4 MCs (11%)

Reed - 3 wins, 7 Top 5s (19%), 9 Top 10s (25%), 14 Top 20s (42%), 6 MCs (17%)

Of course, Spieth has three years on Reed, and that counts; true greatness in golf typically reveals itself early (Tiger, Seve), although obviously there are exceptions to that too (Tom Watson).

How about McIlroy, using these same categories? Right now, he is way ahead of everyone:

McIlroy - 28 tournaments, 5 wins (2 majors), 12 Top 5s (43%), 19 Top 10s (68%), 23 Top 20s (82%), 2 MCs (7%)

82% Top 20 finishes, that is a run of greatness.

How about Rickie Fowler?

Fowler - 32 tournaments, 0 wins, 7 Top 5s (4 in majors!) (22%), 13 Top 10s (41%), 15 Top 20s (47%), 7 MCs (22%)

I wish he'd start winning, because he's obviously got game; those four consecutive Top 5 finishes in major are something special. But Fowler is more inconsistent than Spieth, missing the cut twice as often.

Jimmy Walker?

Walker - 34 tournaments, 3 wins, 5 Top 10s (15%), 12 Top 10s (35%), 18 Top 20s (53%), 4 MCs (12%)

Jimmy is very strong in the Top 20s column. He is consistently in the hunt.

I intend to play with this method for other golfers, but that is what I've got now.

I think Fowler won once.  Am I mistaken?  My wife is a big Folwer fan and I think she told me he won once.

Good informative post BTW.    The way I see it, most people who love golf will support the Tour, and follow their favorite players.  As for me, the golf channel is "on" a simple majority of the time at my home.  It's the last reason I still have Dishnetwork.   If I find another game/sport that I will enjoy more than golf, then, that'd be a different story.   For now, golf is here to stay for me and for the rest of us, IMO.   Good bye, Tiger.   Hello, new golf world.