What will it take?

[RickyBobby_PR]

I watched very little golf growing up but I knew who Jack, Arnie, Trevino, Hogan, Norman, Chi Chi, Couples, Stewart were and a few other names.  A buddy of mine got me into the game in 96 and Tiger really drew me in and had me more interested.

Tiger with his length, being multi racial and his overall aura brought golfers of all ages and races to the game, put more eyes on tv coverage, increased prize money and influenced apparel sales.  He had a lot going for him that helped re-shaped the game.

We’ve seen Rickie have an effect on apparel and maybe some small impact on sales of cobra. Bryson having some influence on one length sales. But nobody has really stood out as that person who can change the game and draw more people especially the younger crowd to the game.

What type of golfer will it take to have a tiger line effect in the game?  

[tony@CIC]

That's an interesting question. I was hoping Rickie would have that overall effect - maybe if he had a few more wins? Otherwise I really don't see anyone else out there from the US. 

 

The other side of it is the LPGA. Why is women's pro golf much more popular in Korea than men's golf. Guess I'll save that for another post. 

[GolfSpy MPR]

As an avid Tour golf fan, we're in a great era right now. At any given time on the Tour, there are a host of guys playing for a living, and a mere handful playing for a place in history. Right now, we have maybe 10–12 guys who are currently relevant on Tour whose names will be remembered in ensuing decades. I'd suggest DJ, Justin Thomas, Rory, Tiger, Spieth, Bubba, Phil are either already in that class or are clearly on their way. Day, DeChambeau, Rickie, and Rahm are just a step down. That's a lot of high-quality golfers and stories.

And there are upcoming players, guys like Cameron Champ, who are worth getting excited about.

All of this is awesome if you're a golf fan. We go into majors, for instance, and there are a dozen guys who no one would be surprised if they won, and then there's a really strong remainder of the field in which anyone can pop up from week-to-week and win. This is all very compelling.

But contrary to popular opinion, parity and competitiveness doesn't draw ordinary viewers. What draws viewers is dominance and story. Tiger obviously had both in truckloads.

Are we likely ever again to see a player who, for a period of years, is bet 50/50 against the field to win tournaments? I suppose it's possible, but I'm inclined to think it's really unlikely. It's unlikely not only because (by definition) generational players don't come along often, but also because I'm pretty convinced that the field strength today just keeps getting stronger.

But because it's unlikely, if that guy ever comes along again, he'll draw the eyeballs back.

[Golfspy_CG2]

I don't think any golfer ever will have the impact Tiger did.  His was a once in a lifetime talent and results.  I'm seriously think about it 80 tour wins in 20 years and most of those were won in his first 10 years.   The next closest active player is Mickelson at 53 and he's much closer to the end of his career than Tiger is.  After that for active PGA Tour players you've got DJ at 19 and Rory at 14.    So either one of them are at least 10 years or more from catching PHIL..forget about Tiger.

Every young player that comes around with a few wins is halied as the next Tiger, it happened to DJ, Rory, Spieth possibly Koepka after his run the past two years.   Now you have Cameron Champ who hits the ball farther than most is may be getting Tiger like comparisons for his distance domination, and he is wearing the swoosh.   But let's see him win a few tournaments first and maybe compete in the Majors.

Then you've got DeChambeau.  while he has as impressive of regular season PGA Tour wins as anyone in this short time, he's got to win a major or two, to even be considered up there with Thomas, DJ or Koepka.   But his unique approach and stylish appearance may get him some notoriety beyond his game. 

So all that said above, there isn't another Tiger on the horizon.  But that's ok, everyone of those players brings something unique and special to the game, and I think the game is in very good hands for the next 15 to 20 plus years, and I can't wait to watch it unfold. 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

26 minutes ago, tony@CIC said:

That's an interesting question. I was hoping Rickie would have that overall effect - maybe if he had a few more wins? Otherwise I really don't see anyone else out there from the US. 

 

The other side of it is the LPGA. Why is women's pro golf much more popular in Korea than men's golf. Guess I'll save that for another post. 

Se Ri Pak is the bigggest reason imo. I recall awhile back reading somewhere or maybe it was a small piece on one of the GC shows that it has to do with economic chances for success based on the culture there. Golf gives the women there the opportunity to have a career they don’t necessarily get with other fields. Again that’s based on memory and may no be the whole reasoning.

[RickyBobby_PR]

@mpatrickriley @Golfspy_CG2 I agree with what you both are saying and it may be in ouclifetimes we don’t see another Tiger type golfer but how many said that about Jack it Arnie or athletes in other spots. We sometimes fall into that “trap” for lack of better term that no one can top this.  With golf I’m not due what it would take as we see really good players from all over the world right now and no one stands out with either dominance of play, a background of sorts that draws in a specific race or multiple races or age groups.  Guys like Rickie have the charisma and he understands and gets what it’s all about which is why fans of all ages like him but he’s not tiger. 

Im not sure what it will take either as many of the obstacles Tiger overcame aren’t as prevelant these days. 

 

[Golfspy_CG2]

5 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

@mpatrickriley @Golfspy_CG2 I agree with what you both are saying and it may be in ouclifetimes we don’t see another Tiger type golfer but how many said that about Jack it Arnie or athletes in other spots. We sometimes fall into that “trap” for lack of better term that no one can top this.  With golf I’m not due what it would take as we see really good players from all over the world right now and no one stands out with either dominance of play, a background of sorts that draws in a specific race or multiple races or age groups.  Guys like Rickie have the charisma and he understands and gets what it’s all about which is why fans of all ages like him but he’s not tiger. 

Im not sure what it will take either as many of the obstacles Tiger overcame aren’t as prevelant these days. 

 

The bolded is certainly true.  Yes, it seems we have short memories when we see someone of our current era do something spectacular.  When Brooks or DJ or JT wins four or five times in a year, we think that's unprecedented since Tiger's glory days.  Um, but most of us---except for maybe---@niftyniblick weren't around in 1945 when Bryon Nelson only won 18 events out of 30 starts, and oh yeah 11 of them in a row.     I know, I know, different times and different circumstances, but I don't care if you are playing against the men's club of Walden Golf Club, to win 11 tournaments in a row, is well, it's just WELL!!   

So yes to see someone of Tigers talent and obstacles come along may or may not happen, but I'm certain there will continue to be young prodigies come along that catch our attention, it's just a matter of their staying power and how they do against already incredibly talented pools of players. 

[null]

This should tell you all you need to know about Tiger's dominance.  It wasn't his skills that made him great - it was his skills coupled with his ability to sustain success over a period of time that we have never seen and will likely never see again.

https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/stats-incredible-tigers-40-greatest-numerical-records

The Top 5 are just absolutely mind blowing

Quote

 

5. From 1997 through 2008, Woods led or co-led following any round in a major 42 different times. Second on the list in that span was Phil Mickelson – with 13. Woods won 14 majors in that span. 

4. Tiger has 18 career World Golf Championship victories. Second on the all-time list? Ogilvy. He has three. 

3. Woods had 142 consecutive PGA Tour events without missing a cut, from 1998-2005. That is 29 more than the second-longest streak in the Tour’s history (Byron Nelson, 113 in a row). There are only four other such streaks even half as long as Woods’. 

2. In a stretch from the middle of the 1999 season through the middle of the 2001 season, Woods won 20 of the 38 stroke-play events he played on the Tour (a .526 win percentage). In those events, Woods was a combined 472 under, a cumulative score 307 shots better than anyone else. Vijay Singh was second. 

1. From 1997 through 2008, Woods was a combined 126 under par in majors. There are 138 other players who played at least 40 rounds in major championships in that span. Among that group, Woods was a staggering 189 shots better than anyone else. Second on the list: Joe Ogilvie, at 63 over.

 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

6 minutes ago, Golfspy_CG2 said:

The bolded is certainly true.  Yes, it seems we have short memories when we see someone of our current era do something spectacular.  When Brooks or DJ or JT wins four or five times in a year, we think that's unprecedented since Tiger's glory days.  Um, but most of us---except for maybe---@niftyniblick weren't around in 1945 when Bryon Nelson only won 18 events out of 30 starts, and oh yeah 11 of them in a row.     I know, I know, different times and different circumstances, but I don't care if you are playing against the men's club of Walden Golf Club, to win 11 tournaments in a row, is well, it's just WELL!!   

So yes to see someone of Tigers talent and obstacles come along may or may not happen, but I'm certain there will continue to be young prodigies come along that catch our attention, it's just a matter of their staying power and how they do against already incredibly talented pools of players. 

We are definitely in an era were we get to see lots of guys hit bombs, stick wedges and many look like athletes that can play numerous sports. No pure dominance but what it dies provide is exciting golf most weeks with some finishes coining down to the last putt on Sunday. I don’t recall seeing this many playoffs every year across PGA, Euro and LPGA. Many times I don’t care about the names on the leaderboard when the back 9 on Sunday is a race to see who goes the lowest

[GolfSpy MPR]

9 minutes ago, jlukes said:

This should tell you all you need to know about Tiger's dominance

https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/stats-incredible-tigers-40-greatest-numerical-records

The Top 5 are just absolutely mind blowing

 

I love reading lists of Tiger stats; they make me laugh in amazement.

And here's my favorite: there were 89 consecutive rounds in which Tiger's score that day beat the field average. Just think about that for a moment, and how crazy that is. He didn't just not have bad tournaments. For over 20 tournaments, he never had a bad round.

https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-consecutive-rounds-streak-might-be-better-joe-dimaggios