We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Does Golf need a Superstar to bring in the Casual Fan?

bobgeorge

bobgeorge

Kentucky Wildcat Fan!
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
2,046
Reaction score
51
Location
Georgetown, KY
Handicap
15
Faithful golf fans will always watch golf, but does golf need a superstar to bring in the casual fan & raise TV ratings?

Non-golf fans really only know Tiger Woods...most don't even know Phil Mickelson & definitely don't other top American players like Jim Furyk, Steve Stricker, etc.

Below are the top rated most watched Masters...either Jack or Tiger pulled in the crowd.

What do you guys think?
-------------------------------------

According to CBS. Here's a breakdown of the top-rated final rounds from the network's 54-year history of televising the tournament:

1: 1997 (14.1 rating) Woods obliterates Augusta National in his first major as a pro, winning by 12 shots.

2: 2001 (13.3 rating) Woods completes his "Tiger Slam" of winning four consecutive major titles.

3: 1975 (11.9 rating) Jack Nicklaus' outduels rivals Johnny Miller and Tom Weiskopf for fifth green jacket.

4: 1972 (11.8 rating) Nicklaus wins fourth green jacket, tying Arnold Palmer's previous record.

5: 2002 (11.5 rating*) Woods rolls to second consecutive Masters, third green jacket and seventh major.

* Rating is for comparable final round time periods from 1957-2001.
 
I am shocked that the 86 Masters is not in the top 5. To answer your question I think yes golf needs a superstar
 
To bring in new fans I think it does. Any sport not just golf needs it. As for lovers of the game I don't think it matters near as much but it does help to keep things interesting.
 
Every sport needs a superstar. Golf needs a polarizing figure like Tiger Woods. Baseball needs A-Roid (or the Yankees as a whole). Basketball needs LeBron James. Hockey does not have a superstar, that is why it is a niche sport right now.
 
Yes it needs superstars to get the casual fan to watch and I would love to see the PGA tour do more to market their athletes. They run their business to me almost like the players are sub-contractors instead of partners. The NBA does a really good job of marketing the players more than the teams, to make superstars of their athletes to try and keep your interest even if your team is out of the playoffs.
 
BG obviously you are not a hockey fan. Does not get better than Alex the Great and Sid the Kid.
 
Golf needs to market the players instead of the game. Yes Tiger is a big star, but I think the wave of new players coming up are going to be bigger. It is way more fun to watch golf on Sunday when anyone in the top 10 can win vs one player being ahead by 18 shots.
 
I hate to say it but yes. All sports needs a superstar. All my non golfing buddies ask me the same two questions:
1. Hows your golf going?
2. How's Tiger doing?
 
"Superstars" are important for any sport. The numbers do not lie, events where Tiger is in contention get far more viewers than events where he is just playing, and even those get more than when he is not in the field at all. The majority of poeple want the easy person to cheer for, that way they feel involved in the sport without having to know too much about it. I'm as guilty of this as many others are.
 
Chunkylover77 said:
I am shocked that the 86 Masters is not in the top 5. To answer your question I think yes golf needs a superstar
Click to expand...

+1, that is my favorite all time Masters

Snap Hook said:
I hate to say it but yes. All sports needs a superstar. All my non golfing buddies ask me the same two questions:
1. Hows your golf going?
2. How's Tiger doing?
Click to expand...

Same here, all of my non golfing friends ask the same 2 questions.
 
Chunkylover77 said:
BG obviously you are not a hockey fan. Does not get better than Alex the Great and Sid the Kid.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I love hockey. But the are relatively unknown to outsiders. The Great One was a star - a celebrity. Hockey has no celebrities. Great players, lots of fun to watch (except for that Pens-Islanders joke). Just no celebrities.
 
Snap Hook said:
I hate to say it but yes. All sports needs a superstar. All my non golfing buddies ask me the same two questions:
1. Hows your golf going?
2. How's Tiger doing?
Click to expand...

DawgDaddy said:
Same here, all of my non golfing friends ask the same 2 questions.
Click to expand...

Your friends ask you how Snap Hook is doing?
 
blugold said:
Wrong. I love hockey. But the are relatively unknown to outsiders. The Great One was a star - a celebrity. Hockey has no celebrities. Great players, lots of fun to watch (except for that Pens-Islanders joke). Just no celebrities.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess you are right.
 
sugizx3 said:
Golf needs to market the players instead of the game. Yes Tiger is a big star, but I think the wave of new players coming up are going to be bigger. It is way more fun to watch golf on Sunday when anyone in the top 10 can win vs one player being ahead by 18 shots.
Click to expand...

Will they be bigger if they do not dominate like Tiger did? I would say golf would be more popular if you have one dominate star instead of a wave of stars that win 2-3 tournaments a season.

For golf to bring in American fans it has to be an American to dominate. When Harrington won two majors within 12 months it didn't register a beep among sports American sports.

I agree with some other posts that the PGA doesn't to do a good job of marketing its players...besides Tiger...almost any PGA pro including Phil could walk through a mall & no one but diehard golf fans would recognize them.
 
Of course, look at the figures. The two modern day icons playing major championships. After Tiger who knows how long it will be before someones game is that much better than all the others. I don't think the next icon is even on the tour yet.
 
I dont thing we need A Superstar per say , I feel we need 4-8 dominate players with a rivalry . Like Jack when he came on the scene , he had Arnie , Travino , Chi Chi & a few others . I remember watching golf with my granddad watch these guys battle all the time switching the lead quite abit .
We need Gmac, Fowler ,Bubba , DJ , and a few others constantly battling for the win , to me these guys have FLAIR and make for good Golf TV , and if they all were in contention like back in the day with Arnie , Jack , Travino .
So far this year we have had guys win that are not really known , and makes for boring golf for some , due to not knowing the guys playing .
Its great that the competition is getting better , but it doesnt make for exciting tv that people want to watch .
Me, I hate to say it but I was tired of hearing Tigers name constantly at the top years ago .
A good rivalry is what we need , but with so many tournaments now days and all the guys not having the same schedules , will be hard to do imo .
 
When it comes to TV rating, undoubtedly yes.
 
Was country music good before Garth, or Baywatch before Pamela??? Sonny before Cher, Calvin without Hobb's? We are nothinging without our superstar's!!!
 
SprayTech said:
I dont thing we need A Superstar per say , I feel we need 4-8 dominate players with a rivalry . Like Jack when he came on the scene , he had Arnie , Travino , Chi Chi & a few others . I remember watching golf with my granddad watch these guys battle all the time switching the lead quite abit .
We need Gmac, Fowler ,Bubba , DJ , and a few others constantly battling for the win , to me these guys have FLAIR and make for good Golf TV , and if they all were in contention like back in the day with Arnie , Jack , Travino .
So far this year we have had guys win that are not really known , and makes for boring golf for some , due to not knowing the guys playing .
Its great that the competition is getting better , but it doesnt make for exciting tv that people want to watch .
Me, I hate to say it but I was tired of hearing Tigers name constantly at the top years ago .
A good rivalry is what we need , but with so many tournaments now days and all the guys not having the same schedules , will be hard to do imo .
Click to expand...

a rivalry would be great, but those golfers you mentioned were all superstars in their day. We need that again.
 
coolbreeze said:
a rivalry would be great, but those golfers you mentioned were all superstars in their day. We need that again.
Click to expand...
I said I dont think we need A superstar , meaning 1 , we need several Superstars ! :D
 
blugold said:
Wrong. I love hockey. But the are relatively unknown to outsiders. The Great One was a star - a celebrity. Hockey has no celebrities. Great players, lots of fun to watch (except for that Pens-Islanders joke). Just no celebrities.
Click to expand...

I know who the Great One is but I don't know Alex the Great and Sid the Kid. Living in central Georgia we don't have a big regional interest.
 
SprayTech said:
I said I dont think we need A superstar , meaning 1 , we need several Superstars ! :D
Click to expand...

I thought thats what you meant and totally agree.
 
coolbreeze said:
I thought thats what you meant and totally agree.
Click to expand...
Thats also why I said I was tired of Tiger , as he really has been the only 1 for several years and it got old with me real fast !
Dont anyone get me wrong he is/was great , but thats the problem no one else rose to the TOP !
 
SprayTech said:
Thats also why I said I was tired of Tiger , as he really has been the only 1 for several years and it got old with me real fast !
Dont anyone get me wrong he is/was great , but thats the problem no one else rose to the TOP !
Click to expand...

If golf could get 4 superstars who battled almost every major like Arnold, travino, Watson, And Jack they would have something special
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top