We've launched the new forums! Read more here

tiger bigger then the sport?

ohio_striker

ohio_striker

striped it
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
2,577
Reaction score
4
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Handicap
7.3
listening to some talk radio and the masters came up and talking about the intrest in the masters and most people that called in didnt really have any because TW isnt playing.

i mean most of us will watch the masters because were die hard. their is no denying that people tune in when TW is in contention and because of him not because of golf. the scale that this happens makes me think that Tiger is bigger then the game.

what does everyone think?
 
Nobody is ever going to be bigger than the sport. And that goes for every sport out there.
 
He's bigger than his own thread. This I know! As for the sport, probably not.
 
No, I don't believe so. He's great for the game, but not bigger than the sport. Unless he breaks Jack's record anyways, but still probably not.
 
not than the sport but he is one of the most important figures
 
I don't know if he's bigger than the sport. I guess the best way to determine that would be for him to stop playing and see if purses go down or up.
 
He's big enough that he doesn't even need to attend the Champions Dinner! That's good enough for me!



10171671_10152249257096676_3809930122634403547_n.jpg
 
Tiger Woods is bigger than PGA Tour golf. Heck, he is bigger than the majors in most cases as well. The scandal (#UglyHookerGate) showed us that when that was news, but unless he was the winner, there was no news.

The Masters is usually a bit different in that regards, but I think that a lot of factors have attributed to less buzz overall. Weather ran late this year in much of the country. No big name players are playing all that well leading up to it. But we would be naive to think that Tiger Woods not being it the event has an impact.

The bigger issue here is the typical media's mundane approach to discuss a missing figure more than any other story about the 1st major of the year.

So to answer the question, yes he is bigger than the sport. No, the sport will not fold without him there.
 
Mulligan9111 said:
Nobody is ever going to be bigger than the sport. And that goes for every sport out there.
Click to expand...

idk it has to be in individual sport lance armstrong in his prime TW in his prime have a case.
 
ohio_striker said:
idk it has to be in individual sport lance armstrong in his prime TW in his prime have a case.
Click to expand...

I guess my whole point is that golf is going to be there whether or not he's playing.

Don't get me wrong, he's done more for golf than probably anybody, but he will retire at some point and golf will go on without him without skipping a beat.
 
Tiger is not bigger than the game but has had the biggest impact on it since first Arnie, then Jack. Tiger still has a big influence on how the fringe fan and non-golf fans view majors and other tournaments. Tiger played a role in bringing new golfers to the game in the late 90's and early 00's. If not for the scandal and the five year majors drought he'd likely still be adding new golfers to the game.
 
Yes he is bigger than the sport. My reasoning- Purses went through the roof once he came. Will they go down once he retires? Hmm ask the market how the Master's prices have faired since it was announced he was not playing. Also, Augusta is the most racist and sexist club I've ever know. They are a private club that marches to it's own drum. That being said, the rules officials (when at Augusta) made one of the most obsure concessions for Tiger last year. Think about the difference...he admitted to a rules infraction which subsequently led to the score card thing but when Dustin grounded his club in a hazard that wasn't a hazard earlier in the week, he loses the US.

I'll admit it, I thoroughly enjoy golf but am extremely busy with an infant at home. I'll try and watch some of the Master's. If TW was playing there would be no "try" in my previous sentence.

I would predict that once Tiger is gone with no chance of returning to his former self, the public will greatly lose interest.
 
Mulligan9111 said:
I guess my whole point is that golf is going to be there whether or not he's playing.

Don't get me wrong, he's done more for golf than probably anybody, but he will retire at some point and golf will go on without him without skipping a beat.
Click to expand...

golf will go on but i would say it will take a hit in popularity. how much golf will be on espn wo tiger. what will happen to all the casual viewers and $ tiger brings when hes gone?
 
ohio_striker said:
golf will go on but i would say it will take a hit in popularity. how much golf will be on espn wo tiger. what will happen to all the casual viewers and $ tiger brings when hes gone?
Click to expand...

Im not sure I agree with that. Perhaps for a short time, but they said the same thing about Palmer, the same thing about Jack, and now the same thing about Tiger. There are always stars to be born.
 
It's hard to imagine why he would be bigger than the sport. He's not exactly 'legendary' like he used to be. But, he did a lot for the game, and his presence certainly makes a difference in TV ratings. Is he bigger than the game of golf, no, but golf owes a lot to him, and ratings suffer without him.

~Rock
 
JB said:
Im not sure I agree with that. Perhaps for a short time, but they said the same thing about Palmer, the same thing about Jack, and now the same thing about Tiger. There are always stars to be born.
Click to expand...

yea i get it im with you. IF another star is born and takes over ala tiger. but if we get 10 years of a lot of OK players that maybe collect 1,2,3 majors a piece that wont move the needle.
 
ohio_striker said:
yea i get it im with you. IF another star is born and takes over ala tiger. but if we get 10 years of a lot of OK players that maybe collect 1,2,3 majors a piece that wont move the needle.
Click to expand...

Im not sure I agree for what its worth. Stars will be born, but frankly having more stars can be as good as dominance. The future is bright with some of these younger players and frankly, while Tiger is still a huge draw (biggest in the sport right now), he has done little to keep that in the majors the last few years and Sunday ratings have not fallen as drastically as being painted.
 
Only Paulina Gretzky is bigger than the sport of golf, apparently.

I think golf will take a hit without Tiger, but it will still function fine and the big dollars will still be there. There are a lot of up and comers to bridge the gap to the next superstar. There will never be another Tiger, but golf will be just fine. Media outlets just cover Tiger more because that is where the interest is at. That is all they care about.
 
I think golf is headed toward a nascar like decline. Maybe worse. Some numbers I saw had the game growing at a 7% clip last year, that could've just been indiana, yet, somehow, courses are closing all the time or are constantly changing hands. We had the Tamp Bay Open in the Tiger Woods Era!! A PGA tourney went without a sponsor. Crazy!! I just don't see the game growing with the time, difficulty, and especially cost of the game. The next Tiger better step up and step up fairly soon.
 
I'm not sure but when he misses an event the viewership is down considerably. Huge impact? heck yes? Bigger than the sport? not sure but he certainly controls a lot.
 
Yes he is bigger than golf. No golf will not fold. There will always be story. Always be somebody. Maybe not as dominant. But there will be somebody worth watching. I think the desire for a dominant figure makes us worried
 
tgtt said:
I think golf is headed toward a nascar like decline. Maybe worse. Some numbers I saw had the game growing at a 7% clip last year, that could've just been indiana, yet, somehow, courses are closing all the time or are constantly changing hands. We had the Tamp Bay Open in the Tiger Woods Era!! A PGA tourney went without a sponsor. Crazy!! I just don't see the game growing with the time, difficulty, and especially cost of the game. The next Tiger better step up and step up fairly soon.
Click to expand...

A tournament he didn't participate in, and regularly skipped in preparation for Bay Hill.
 
Erky said:
A tournament he didn't participate in, and regularly skipped in preparation for Bay Hill.
Click to expand...

Well aware. It's still Tiger Era when purses and viewership are at their peak. Imagine how tough sponsorship will be when Tiger Era is over if there isn't an heir apparent.
 
Erky said:
A tournament he didn't participate in, and regularly skipped in preparation for Bay Hill.
Click to expand...

And add it was only brought in to be the "alternate" event because the course was loved by the pros. It played against the WGC and Pres Cup going off memory.
 
JB said:
Im not sure I agree for what its worth. Stars will be born, but frankly having more stars can be as good as dominance. The future is bright with some of these younger players and frankly, while Tiger is still a huge draw (biggest in the sport right now), he has done little to keep that in the majors the last few years and Sunday ratings have not fallen as drastically as being painted.
Click to expand...

Almost by definition, aren't those stars not quite as bright? Two or three real stars. Real dominance only has space for four, maybe five truly great players. Otherwise, it is just a bunch of dudes, no one truly escaping the world of their sport. For example look at tennis the past couple years, Fed-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray, it was pretty great. But greater than Fed-Nadal? Or Djokovic on his singular season? Or Murray's Wimbledon Loss, Olympic Win, US Open Win then eventually the Wimbledon win? Is the tennis better with all four pushing, sure, but dominance is truly something to behold.

Of all the current young players, I would only consider Rory capable of being transcendent, being a world figure. Heck, I might even suggest that Tiger could have been more important to the world stage than he has been. (Emphasis on the has been? :dont-know:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top