Is Tiger Bad For Golf?
By klangdon on 6/23/09
I basically copied the headline of the story I'm linking, because I couldn't think of anything more ridiculous than it already is. SportingNews' idea:
"But Tiger Woods drives ratings. A Tiger birdie creates more buzz than an eagle by anyone else. Heck, a Tiger bogey might create more buzz than an eagle by anyone else. When Tiger shot 74 in his stop-start-stop first round, the talk his entire second round was whether or not heGÇÖd make the cut, and whether or not the weather was to blame. At the time he was as many as 11 strokes behind the leaders, there was more focus on Tiger making or missing the cut than on who was leading the golf tournament.
Okay, Okay. Fair points, but that's all they are is points of constructive criticism which should be taken to heart by some of the media.

THAT SAID... let's be serious. Making a title like this and making claims like this are just stupid. Can you imagine the PGA Tour in this economy without Tiger Woods? Their outfits would look like a Nascar drivers and they'd be fighting Pete Weber. for television time on ESPN afternoons (Ya, I know a bowler).

Full Story


[ comments ]
Lerxst says:
I agree that the title is rediculus, but the the comment is true. It seems that all we here about is Tiger. Even when he just misses the cut the media talks about a playoff. :0 If you count the amount of coverage that man gets as compared to other players it is lopsided.
6/23/09
 
mbills1015 says:
The coverage is lopsided b/c his victories are lopsided --- if Tiger's winning record was the same as Ricky Barnes he would be getting the same coverage pretty Ricky got. He gets the coverage he does b/c he wins far more tournaments than anyone else. I don't want to turn on the TV and watch a whole round of Fred Funk and Rocco --- the Saturday round showed Tigers entire group --- you could argue that we didn't need to see every shot of Harringtons +8 or 9 but he won 2 of the last four majors so he got air time
6/23/09
 
TWUES17 says:
I prefer Walter Ray Williams, Jr. Or, as I like to refer to him, Dub R Dub Jr.
6/23/09
 
Kickntrue says:
Jason Belmonte is going to take over the sport!
6/23/09
 
frankkrar says:
Was Michael Jordan bad for basketball? Wayne Gretzky bad for hockey? Is Roger Federer bad for tennis? C'mon people! Sports NEED stars. Tiger is our biggest star and we should feel fortunately to live in an era where we get to witness his accomplishments, as well as those I mentioned above, among others. Between Tiger's own foundation and his work with The First Tee program, Tiger has done more to grow the game than anyone in history. Other than the PGA tour itself, NO ONE in the game has contributed more money to charities and associations dedicated to health, education, and bringing golf to a wider audience. If the coverage is lopsided, it's only because the media has come to realize the truth: Tiger Woods is the most important - and most interesting - thing to happen to golf since ... ever.
6/23/09
 
ForeKris says:
I'm ALL for lopsided coverage when he's actually playing. I agree with krarf. However, i don't agree or like that his name is mentioned more at tournaments/broadcasts he's not even playing than most players that are actually on the course trying to win.
6/23/09
 
tennesseeboy says:
Tiger is great for the game. My only complaint with him is he need to learn that this is a family sport and he need to watch his language on the course. The guy has changed his swing twice, why can't learn to say "gosh darn it" or something else fit for children when he hits a bad shot.
6/23/09
 
Hacker Al says:
Well put, Lerxst
6/23/09
 
mjaber says:
I think that Tiger is good for the growth of the sport. The casual sports watcher doesn't care about Kenny Perry or Zack Johnson. I think it's annoying for those of us that would prefer to see more action, or what's going on with the people just behind (or just ahead) of Tiger. The little of the US Open I managed to watch, I would get to see Tiger play his ball, but they would switch to other gorups, and so I didn't get to see Cabrera or Harrington. That wasn't a huge deal, because neither was even close to contention.

They can't follow all the groups in the early rounds, and I get that. But on day 3 and 4, I think they should be focusing more on the leaders than Tiger.
6/23/09
 
kidputter says:
Tiger is good for the game for more than the obvious reasons. Some watch to see him succeed and some watch to see him fail.
As far as his charitable contributions, he makes more money than the others. The percentage of contribution is basically on par with other big names (Phil, Vijay, Palmer, Nicklaus).
The media cashes in on their meal ticket. NBA did it with Jordan. MLB did it with McGuire. NFL did it with Favre. It's the nature of the beast.
6/23/09
 
Tim Horan says:
There is no doubt that he was the best. He may even become the very best again. But does he look happy about it? No! If he just walked around with a smile on his face and looked happy about his life more people would herald him as a truely great player and ambassador for the game. He is for the most part acting like an eighteen year old, petulent and sullen even when he is playing well.
6/24/09
 
mbills1015 says:
mjaber --- are we talking about the same telecast?? B/c if I had to watch Harrington hit out of the thick stuff once I watched it atleast 10 times on Saturday. In addition they showed about 85% of Cabrera's shots as well. Atleast Tigers round was under par --- but I really didn't need to see Harrington shoot +5
6/24/09
 
mjaber says:
mbills1015. Maybe I just missed it. It's possible, the wife isn't into golf and just let me flip back and forth during commercials. Could have just been the timing.
6/24/09
 
mbills1015 says:
I'm sure it must have been --- b/c watching harrington play was excruciating!! There had to be someone else doing something better somewhere on the course. Man has that guys game fallen off a cliff.
6/24/09
 
jp24 says:
Crazy headline! Tiger Woods is golf! He plays people watch, sponsors pay larger sums of money, golfers all over get paid. If Tiger were to say I'm done golf would go south in a hurry just as the NBA has since Michael's retirement. The only sport bigger than the players of it's game is the NFL. Last year after his injury the viewers whether you love him or love to hate him watched Golf less and the final two majors had poor ratings compared to when Tiger plays. The fans overall love the guy and the rating support it. So, Tiger not playing golf would be terrible for the PGA and all Pro Golfers in general as their annual salaries would probably go down some. I can't image that other than having more chances to win majors the other PGA Pro's would like to see Wood's go either because he's made their sport larger than it's ever been. Jack was very great for golf. Tiger has been spectacular for the overall purses and coverage of the sport.

Who's the fool that asked this question?
6/24/09
 
[ post comment ]
 
    New Products
    Stats
    Caption This
    World Am
    How Bizarre!
Most Popular:

Subscribe