Increasing LPGA popularity and how to solve problems if any

[JohnnyCashForever]

> @Hubijerk said:

 

> The more I see some of the Korean girls and their dominance the more I think I'd like to see some type of documentary about what's going on over there. What system is in place that's generating so many high level women golfers from such a relatively small area and what's the mindset? Is there a solid accessible junior program, is it rich families paying for live in golf schools similar to the tennis model...? Is women's professional golf viewed easier to break into and earn money in than other sports? Men's professional, even collegiate golf is insanely competitive and honestly it's such a low percentage shot that it's hard to justify taking the risk, especially if you have other options.

 

How old are you? Your insights are good, but you make it sound like all of this is new. Check out the Swedish mens tennis program of the early 1980s that produced Matts Wilander and Stefan Edberg and a host of other players who turned out to be solid pros. The same for the Swedish womens golf program that produced Annika. Another example is the Eastern Bloc gymnastic programs of the 1970s. A negative example, being Nazi Germany and the 1936 Olympics. All of this has been done before successfully...probably all the way back to ancient Greece. The ROK is probably doing the same kinda thing. With one difference. They have Asian Tiger moms. That puts the effort into hyperdrive.

 

[MountainGoat]

> @Argonne69 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @shanx said:

> > > Yet they all send their best to compete in the USA, so that must indicate that the LPGA is the best of the best, no?

> >

> > For now I guess...

> >

> >

>

> Is there some upstart tour I don't know about? The LPGA is in good health, and plays for the biggest purses.

 

I don't doubt this, but I wonder why. The TV ratings are terrible. The US Open final couldn't even beat out bowling.

[Sixcat]

Si-Ri Pak has had a very similar impact on Korean golf to what Tiger Woods has in the US. She generated a national pride that has directly led to what we are seeing now. Golf is a global game and absolutely not centered around the US. Americans aren't entitled to be the best players in the world.

 

I watch a lot of golf with the PGA Tour often being the least of my viewing interest. Boring, cookie-cutter TPC courses set up for bomb and gouge players to shoot ridiculous scores. Not interested! The Women's US Open and the Country Club of Charleston were incredible TV viewing (I never saw a minute of The Memorial last week). The ladies can play the traditional old courses time and technology have left behind for the men. If the LPGA can work out arrangements to play regular Tour events at some facilities like CC of Charleston, viewership and attendance will increase.

[Argonne69]

> @MountainGoat said:

> > @Argonne69 said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @shanx said:

> > > > Yet they all send their best to compete in the USA, so that must indicate that the LPGA is the best of the best, no?

> > >

> > > For now I guess...

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Is there some upstart tour I don't know about? The LPGA is in good health, and plays for the biggest purses.

>

> I don't doubt this, but I wonder why. The TV ratings are terrible. The US Open final couldn't even beat out bowling.

 

You're focusing on U.S. TV ratings only. The LPGA pulls in a lot of revenue from the foreign TV deals.

 

[OldTomMorris]

> @GSDriver said:

> Sorry but also agree that having to append one's names with a number just isn't helping.

 

It's helped Lee6, she's embraced it and its almost like her brand now. I will certainly remember her name.

[MelloYello]

You know, TBH, I still don't think I completely understand Korea's thing with women's golf.

 

When I asked why women's golf was so successful in Korea folks explained to me that Se Ri Pak was highly influential. I can say confidently I learned something. I did not realize what a pivotal figure she was. However, it doesn't really explain everything when you think deeply about it. We're simply creating another question. Namely, what conditions within Korea allowed a figure like Pak to be so influential and why did golf take off there and not other places to the same degree?

 

Pak (now 41) has 29 LPGA victories and 5 majors which is a remarkable career. There's no doubting that. She went into the HoF in 2007. But just for kicks I looked at Juli Inkster to find that she has 31 LPGA victories and 7 majors. She went into the HoF in 2000. Granted she's 58 and so she's a generation older but why did Americans not view Inkster as the Koreans did Se Ri Pak? What about somebody like Kerr? She's got 20 wins and 2 majors? She could be in the HoF when it's all said and done. What about Karrie Webb and Australian women's golf? Webb is pretty much the same age as Pak and Kerr and yet she out-paced them both with 41 LPGA wins and 7 majors. Why aren't the Australians dominating? We could point to Lorena Ochoa as well although she only got to 2 majors before walking away. There certainly may have been some cost to not sticking around.

 

So, it would sure seem to someone on the outside that Korea was just different. That they got excited about women's golf not just because of a single great player but because of something internal. Pak helped spark something that just doesn't appear to be as powerful in most other countries.

 

So why did this happen? Could it be that women's golf in Korea simply began on more equal footing with other sports whereas here in the U.S. golf is less popular and often viewed as a last resort? It's probably true that many other sports get to cherry-pick the most driven and ambitious female athletes. In all reality though, I just don't know. But that's what I'm curious about.

 

Telling me they have a better program explains the _how_ but not the _why_.

[Sixcat]

> @OldTomMorris said:

> > @GSDriver said:

> > Sorry but also agree that having to append one's names with a number just isn't helping.

>

> It's helped Lee6, she's embraced it and its almost like her brand now. I will certainly remember her name.

 

I love it given my nickname and GolfWRX username!

[MountainGoat]

> @Argonne69 said:

> > @MountainGoat said:

> > > @Argonne69 said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > @shanx said:

> > > > > Yet they all send their best to compete in the USA, so that must indicate that the LPGA is the best of the best, no?

> > > >

> > > > For now I guess...

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Is there some upstart tour I don't know about? The LPGA is in good health, and plays for the biggest purses.

> >

> > I don't doubt this, but I wonder why. The TV ratings are terrible. The US Open final couldn't even beat out bowling.

>

> You're focusing on U.S. TV ratings only. The LPGA pulls in a lot of revenue from the foreign TV deals.

>

Yes, and I think this is the essence of the discussion. It's tempting to conclude that the US LPGA tour only succeeds because of its ability to acquire foreign TV deals and international sponsorship. Doing that requires the success of foreign players. I don't think a company like ANA is broken-hearted because these events are being won by players from Pacific Rim countries.

 

[OldTomMorris]

> @MelloYello said:

> Again, scheduling a tournament so as not to conflict with the PGA Tour is not really the problem.

 

OK I suspect you are much better informed on the LPGA than me but surely its a factor. The PGA Tour has basically organised its schedule to avoid a conflict with another sport so logically there must be a similar effect with the LPGA. I'm not advocating every event be re-scheduled but surely it would be worth an odd one here and there as an experiment. With respect I don't think your viewing preference reflects most TV golf viewers when presented with the same binary choice. I think the majority would chose to watch the PGA Tour almost 100% of the time.

 

Its not just TV its media headlines etc. too, almost everything on Sunday evening/Monday morning was Patrick Cantlay not Lee6. Avoiding a conflict in order to increase visibility/exposure seems like it might be worth a try.

[Argonne69]

> @MelloYello said:

> You know, TBH, I still don't think I completely understand Korea's thing with women's golf.

>

> When I asked why women's golf was so successful in Korea folks explained to me that Se Ri Pak was highly influential. I can say confidently I learned something. I did not realize what a pivotal figure she was. However, it doesn't really explain everything when you think deeply about it. We're simply creating another question. Namely, what conditions within Korea allowed a figure like Pak to be so influential and why did golf take off there and not other places to the same degree?

>

> Pak (now 41) has 29 LPGA victories and 5 majors which is a remarkable career. There's no doubting that. She went into the HoF in 2007. But just for kicks I looked at Juli Inkster to find that she has 31 LPGA victories and 7 majors. She went into the HoF in 2000. Granted she's 58 and so she's a generation older but why did Americans not view Inkster as the Koreans did Se Ri Pak? What about somebody like Kerr? She's got 20 wins and 2 majors? She could be in the HoF when it's all said and done. What about Karrie Webb and Australian women's golf? Webb is pretty much the same age as Pak and Kerr and yet she out-paced them both with 41 LPGA wins and 7 majors. Why aren't the Australians dominating? We could point to Lorena Ochoa as well although she only got to 2 majors before walking away. There certainly may have been some cost to not sticking around.

>

> So, it would sure seem to someone on the outside that Korea was just different. That they got excited about women's golf not just because of a single great player but because of something internal. Pak helped spark something that just doesn't appear to be as powerful in most other countries.

>

> So why did this happen? Could it be that women's golf in Korea simply began on more equal footing with other sports whereas here in the U.S. golf is less popular and often viewed as a last resort? It's probably true that many other sports get to cherry-pick the most driven and ambitious female athletes. In all reality though, I just don't know. But that's what I'm curious about.

>

> Telling me they have a better program explains the _how_ but not the _why_.

 

Maybe it was simple as the fact that the country lacked a superstar in womens' sports. Look how the U.S. embraced gymnastics and ice skating when a U.S. player made it into the spotlight. By the time Juli came on tour, there were already stars.

[Sixcat]

> @MelloYello said:

> You know, TBH, I still don't think I completely understand Korea's thing with women's golf.

>

> When I asked why women's golf was so successful in Korea folks explained to me that Se Ri Pak was highly influential. I can say confidently I learned something. I did not realize what a pivotal figure she was. However, it doesn't really explain everything when you think deeply about it. We're simply creating another question. Namely, what conditions within Korea allowed a figure like Pak to be so influential and why did golf take off there and not other places to the same degree?

>

> Pak (now 41) has 29 LPGA victories and 5 majors which is a remarkable career. There's no doubting that. She went into the HoF in 2007. But just for kicks I looked at Juli Inkster to find that she has 31 LPGA victories and 7 majors. She went into the HoF in 2000. Granted she's 58 and so she's a generation older but why did Americans not view Inkster as the Koreans did Se Ri Pak? What about somebody like Kerr? She's got 20 wins and 2 majors? She could be in the HoF when it's all said and done. What about Karrie Webb and Australian women's golf? Webb is pretty much the same age as Pak and Kerr and yet she out-paced them both with 41 LPGA wins and 7 majors. Why aren't the Australians dominating? We could point to Lorena Ochoa as well although she only got to 2 majors before walking away. There certainly may have been some cost to not sticking around.

>

> So, it would sure seem to someone on the outside that Korea was just different. That they got excited about women's golf not just because of a single great player but because of something internal. Pak helped spark something that just doesn't appear to be as powerful in most other countries.

>

> Could it be that golf simply got to begin in Korea on more equal footing whereas here in the U.S. golf is a last resort as many other sports have been able to cherry pick the most driven and ambitious female athletes? IDK. But that's what I'm curious about.

>

> Tell me they have a better program explains the _how_ but not the _why_.

 

Why wasn't Bill Casper more beloved in the US? He won 51 times on the PGA Tour and 3 major championships. There is no rhyme or reason to it. It just is what it is! Se-Ri Pak lit a fire under Korean parents to get their daughters into golf at a very young age. It hasn't translated in huge numbers for Korean men, in part, because Olympic sports are still king in South Korea. Especially for their male dominated society.

[Sixcat]

> @OldTomMorris said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > Again, scheduling a tournament so as not to conflict with the PGA Tour is not really the problem.

>

> OK I suspect you are much better informed on the LPGA than me but surely its a factor. The PGA Tour has basically organised its schedule to avoid a conflict with another sport so logically there must be a similar effect with the LPGA. I'm not advocating every event be re-scheduled but surely it would be worth an odd one here and there as an experiment. With respect I don't think your viewing preference reflects most TV golf viewers when presented with the same binary choice. I think the majority would chose to watch the PGA Tour almost 100% of the time.

>

>** Its not just TV its media headlines etc. too, almost everything on Sunday evening/Monday morning was Patrick Cantlay not Lee6.** Avoiding a conflict in order to increase visibility/exposure seems like it might be worth a try.

 

You weren't trying very hard just to be honest! I literally listened to a half-dozen podcasts Monday morning that have enormous followings. They each briefly mentioned Cantlay and spent an hour talking about Lee6 and Country Club of Charleston. For insight, go listen to the Women's US Open recaps from No Laying Up and The Shotgun Start.

[Titleist_PT23]

> @smashdn said:

> So my point, my guess is there is a strong cultural influence of not tolerating failure and continuous work towards getting better and a work-ethic (healthy or not to be debated) that we simply cannot match or fathom.

>

> (The Japanese also apparently go to school 6 days a week. We asked one of the Japanese engineers to go play golf with us on one Saturday but he declined and explained to us that he had to take his young (five-ish) daughter to Japanese school in a larger city so she did not fall behind in her schooling as compared to what she would receive in Japan.)

However, many of these cultural characteristics are common across Asian countries. Yet it's mainly the Koreans, for whatever reason, that are doing so well in women's golf.

 

There is no doubt that the school environment is much different in Asia than in the U.S. I'd say that the work environment is and it isn't. For some of the most competitive U.S. industries I think it's not that different.

 

One thing that confuses me though is that athletes everywhere generally seem to be hyper competitive people. Especially at the top. Hence, maybe I get why Korea has more players in the top 20. But I don't fully agree that this means the U.S. can't have the #1 player or the same number of players in the top 5-10. Maybe it's just random but lately the top U.S. talent/prospects have not been able to compete at this level as well.

[LICC]

I think a lot has to do with the personalities. Get a few compelling personalities and rivalries going and if those women play well, ratings would go up. Maria Fassi may help but for now there aren't a lot there. It's the same with the men. When Tiger is playing well ratings are up.

[MelloYello]

> @OldTomMorris said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > Again, scheduling a tournament so as not to conflict with the PGA Tour is not really the problem.

>

> OK I suspect you are much better informed on the LPGA than me but surely its a factor. The PGA Tour has basically organised its schedule to avoid a conflict with another sport so logically there must be a similar effect with the LPGA. I'm not advocating every event be re-scheduled but surely it would be worth an odd one here and there as an experiment. With respect I don't think your viewing preference reflects most TV golf viewers when presented with the same binary choice. I think the majority would chose to watch the PGA Tour almost 100% of the time.

>

> Its not just TV its media headlines etc. too, almost everything on Sunday evening/Monday morning was Patrick Cantlay not Lee6. Avoiding a conflict in order to increase visibility exposure seems like it might be worth a try.

 

Well, I don’t know your age but I'm 33 so I expect a lot to happen over the course of my lifetime when it comes to how we watch TV and how we follow sports.

 

For one, the only people I know who even have cable/DirecTV are either seniors or guys like me who watch certain sports (and have a bit of cash they don't mind burning). Most folks under 40 either don't want TV or can't afford it. And strangely enough, they don't seem massively disappointed by this.

 

So I'm not entirely convinced that sports as a whole aren't in for a massive dip. The only sports I follow now are golf and football and my interest in the NFL is rapidly waning. Truth is, I only care about college because I went to Clemson (whoop-whoop!).

 

Guys like me will DVR tons of stuff and watch it as they want to. So IMHO, the days of live sports are gone except in the case of maybe football. But even that is still something I’ll DVR so that I can watch it at my leisure and fast-forward through commercials.

 

So first things first. Within 15-20 years virtually nobody is going to have cable/DirecTV. That’s out the window. So I doubt the LPGA is really wise to obsess about TV schedules. The future will be a watch _what you want, when you want_ experience where you DVR or stream your content. Everything will be available at all times. In fact, we'll probably start getting to be more selective about what we pay for as well. Time tends to do that.

 

Within a niche sport like golf, it's been my experience that people just want to stay up to date. So when/where somebody views last week's tournament doesn't really matter. Whether they watch it or not is more a reflection of interest rather than timing.

 

So personally, I think your old-school TV-based description of "competing" is kind of moot. As I'm already doing now, I'll DVR both the PGA and LPGA Tour and watch them based on my own preferences. I pay for them both, record them and watch them as I see fit.

 

So really we're talking about is a far more subtle thing that involves _personal preference_. It's going to be about whether you enjoy watching something like the LPGA or not. If you do, you'll find time to watch a bit of it. To that end, my comments about the telecasts being more laid back and the sport being altogether different make sense. The LPGA isn't competing with the PGA the way you're thinking. It’s chocolate and steak.

 

It's not like the same person can’t enjoy both but we don’t say that candy and meat "compete." They serve different duties and as a result we want both.

 

So to that extent, the LPGA just needs to continue doing what it’s doing. The war you're describing that deals with chasing massive audiences ended a long time ago. Women's golf lost to men's golf. Golf as a whole lost to football. All of that has already been decided. We're not revolutionizing any of that. Golf is already a niche sport. Women's golf is a niche within a niche. To even begin with the presupposition that women's golf is going to somehow compete with Tiger and Rory is beyond insanity, IMHO.

 

Nobody here thinks there's a chance of that. Not me. Not you. Not anyone, LOL.

 

At best, trying to "popularize" the LPGA to PGA fans seems unsustainable because it's not honest. It feels like trying to pull he wool over their eyes.

 

When I think about it, the LPGA is kind of like the sport golf in general. Out of the entire population, only a small minority enjoy playing golf. We all "get it" but it's hard to explain to someone who doesn't like it. I think the LPGA is the same way. If somebody has seen it and they're just not into it, there's really nothing I can do to convince them.

 

You can try to get more eyes on it but that's not the fault of the LPGA. As I explained, The Golf Channel just doesn't cover their stuff as well as they might by sticking their coverage on during off hours. And when the tournament is half-way around the globe, what do you expect?

 

At the end of the day, I just think it's kind of pointless to talk about selling the LPGA. Like golf in general, it sells itself to the degree that it can be sold.

 

 

[smashdn]

RE Koreans as compared to other Asian countries

 

Do you think it is the availability of golf to them? I know I was a little shocked to find out that most of the Japanese guys I worked with played golf but had never really played golf. Meaning they played at driving ranges because having access to an actual golf course was prohibitively expensive. Some of those guys had great swings but it took them some time to adjust to actually playing off the varying lies in the real world and how they effect ball flight.

 

Korea "class structure" is similar to the US is it not? Upper, middle and lower class with a strong and expanding middle class? I really don't know I am asking and postulating.

[DavePelz4]

> @Sixcat said:

> > @OldTomMorris said:

> > > @GSDriver said:

> > > Sorry but also agree that having to append one's names with a number just isn't helping.

> >

> > It's helped Lee6, she's embraced it and its almost like her brand now. I will certainly remember her name.

>

> I love it given my nickname and GolfWRX username!

 

George Foreman's sons names are George Jr, George III, George IV, George V and George VI and it appears they have equally embraced their numbers.

 

Now, his daughter BellaNuttella might think differently.

[OldTomMorris]

> @Sixcat said:

> > @OldTomMorris said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > Again, scheduling a tournament so as not to conflict with the PGA Tour is not really the problem.

> >

> > OK I suspect you are much better informed on the LPGA than me but surely its a factor. The PGA Tour has basically organised its schedule to avoid a conflict with another sport so logically there must be a similar effect with the LPGA. I'm not advocating every event be re-scheduled but surely it would be worth an odd one here and there as an experiment. With respect I don't think your viewing preference reflects most TV golf viewers when presented with the same binary choice. I think the majority would chose to watch the PGA Tour almost 100% of the time.

> >

> >** Its not just TV its media headlines etc. too, almost everything on Sunday evening/Monday morning was Patrick Cantlay not Lee6.** Avoiding a conflict in order to increase visibility/exposure seems like it might be worth a try.

>

> You weren't trying very hard just to be honest! I literally listened to a half-dozen podcasts Monday morning that have enormous followings. They each briefly mentioned Cantlay and spent an hour talking about Lee6 and Country Club of Charleston. For insight, go listen to the Women's US Open recaps from No Laying Up and The Shotgun Start.

 

Golf podcasts are a niche market for golf addicts but my point relates to mainstream sports media. I'd class myself as a golf nerd but I don't find the time to listen to golf podcast on a regular basis let alone 6 on a Monday.

[MelloYello]

> @OldTomMorris said:

> > @Sixcat said:

> > > @OldTomMorris said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > Again, scheduling a tournament so as not to conflict with the PGA Tour is not really the problem.

> > >

> > > OK I suspect you are much better informed on the LPGA than me but surely its a factor. The PGA Tour has basically organised its schedule to avoid a conflict with another sport so logically there must be a similar effect with the LPGA. I'm not advocating every event be re-scheduled but surely it would be worth an odd one here and there as an experiment. With respect I don't think your viewing preference reflects most TV golf viewers when presented with the same binary choice. I think the majority would chose to watch the PGA Tour almost 100% of the time.

> > >

> > >** Its not just TV its media headlines etc. too, almost everything on Sunday evening/Monday morning was Patrick Cantlay not Lee6.** Avoiding a conflict in order to increase visibility/exposure seems like it might be worth a try.

> >

> > You weren't trying very hard just to be honest! I literally listened to a half-dozen podcasts Monday morning that have enormous followings. They each briefly mentioned Cantlay and spent an hour talking about Lee6 and Country Club of Charleston. For insight, go listen to the Women's US Open recaps from No Laying Up and The Shotgun Start.

>

> Golf podcasts are a niche market for golf addicts but my point relates to mainstream sports media. I'd class myself as a golf nerd but I don't find the time to listen to golf podcast on a regular basis let alone 6 on a Monday.

 

That's where I'm coming from, too.

 

I think that golf is a niche thing and it's better to develop die-hard fans than to chase a wide audience. I talked previously about how certain announces reflect that. The days of general commentators like Nantz and Buck are gone. Fans want experts who are enthusiastic about the particular thing they're covering: Joe Rogan for the UFC, Herbstreet for college football, Golf Channel's LPGA announcing team, etc.

 

Even niche markets are huge in number these days. So there's still a lot of money going around. Thus the future lies is specialization and customization, not generalization. Just my opinion.

[OldTomMorris]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @OldTomMorris said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > Again, scheduling a tournament so as not to conflict with the PGA Tour is not really the problem.

> >

> > OK I suspect you are much better informed on the LPGA than me but surely its a factor. The PGA Tour has basically organised its schedule to avoid a conflict with another sport so logically there must be a similar effect with the LPGA. I'm not advocating every event be re-scheduled but surely it would be worth an odd one here and there as an experiment. With respect I don't think your viewing preference reflects most TV golf viewers when presented with the same binary choice. I think the majority would chose to watch the PGA Tour almost 100% of the time.

> >

> > Its not just TV its media headlines etc. too, almost everything on Sunday evening/Monday morning was Patrick Cantlay not Lee6. Avoiding a conflict in order to increase visibility exposure seems like it might be worth a try.

>

> Well, I don’t know your age but I'm 33 so I expect a lot to happen over the course of my lifetime when it comes to how we watch TV and how we follow sports.

>

> For one, the only people I know who even have cable/DirecTV are either seniors or guys like me who watch certain sports (and have a bit of cash they don't mind burning). Most folks under 40 either don't want TV or can't afford it. And strangely enough, they don't seem massively disappointed by this.

>

> So I'm not entirely convinced that sports as a whole aren't in for a massive dip. The only sports I follow now are golf and football and my interest in the NFL is rapidly waning. Truth is, I only care about college because I went to Clemson (whoop-whoop!).

>

> Guys like me will DVR tons of stuff and watch it as they want to. So IMHO, the days of live sports are gone except in the case of maybe football. But even that is still something I’ll DVR so that I can watch it at my leisure and fast-forward through commercials.

>

> So first things first. Within 15-20 years virtually nobody is going to have cable/DirecTV. That’s out the window. So I doubt the LPGA is really wise to obsess about TV schedules. The future will be a watch _what you want, when you want_ experience where you DVR or stream your content. Everything will be available at all times. In fact, we'll probably start getting to be more selective about what we pay for as well. Time tends to do that.

>

> Within a niche sport like golf, it's been my experience that people just want to stay up to date. So when/where somebody views last week's tournament doesn't really matter. Whether they watch it or not is more a reflection of interest rather than timing.

>

> So personally, I think your old-school TV-based description of "competing" is kind of moot. As I'm already doing now, I'll DVR both the PGA and LPGA Tour and watch them based on my own preferences. I pay for them both, record them and watch them as I see fit.

>

> So really we're talking about is a far more subtle thing that involves _personal preference_. It's going to be about whether you enjoy watching something like the LPGA or not. If you do, you'll find time to watch a bit of it. To that end, my comments about the telecasts being more laid back and the sport being altogether different make sense. The LPGA isn't competing with the PGA the way you're thinking. It’s chocolate and steak.

>

> It's not like the same person can’t enjoy both but we don’t say that candy and meat "compete." They serve different duties and as a result we want both.

>

> So to that extent, the LPGA just needs to continue doing what it’s doing. The war you're describing that deals with chasing massive audiences ended a long time ago. Women's golf lost to men's golf. Golf as a whole lost to football. All of that has already been decided. We're not revolutionizing any of that. Golf is already a niche sport. Women's golf is a niche within a niche. To even begin with the presupposition that women's golf is going to somehow compete with Tiger and Rory is beyond insanity, IMHO.

>

> Nobody here thinks there's a chance of that. Not me. Not you. Not anyone, LOL.

>

> At best, trying to "popularize" the LPGA to PGA fans seems unsustainable because it's not honest. It feels like trying to pull he wool over their eyes.

>

> When I think about it, the LPGA is kind of like the sport golf in general. Out of the entire population, only a small minority enjoy playing golf. We all "get it" but it's hard to explain to someone who doesn't like it. I think the LPGA is the same way. If somebody has seen it and they're just not into it, there's really nothing I can do to convince them.

>

> You can try to get more eyes on it but that's not the fault of the LPGA. As I explained, The Golf Channel just doesn't cover their stuff as well as they might by sticking their coverage on during off hours. And when the tournament is half-way around the globe, what do you expect?

>

> At the end of the day, I just think it's kind of pointless to talk about selling the LPGA. Like golf in general, it sells itself to the degree that it can be sold.

>

>

I'm in my mid 40s and have been playing/watching golf for 35 years plus. High level golf male or female always gets some of my attention, of course some of it more than others. I wish them well, I think its a good product but everything can be improved even if its only marginally.

[Argonne69]

I agree with @MellowYellow. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what time the LPGA airs. I record it, and watch it when I can. It's rare that I watch an event live, e.g. the final few holes of this year's USWO. One must keep in mind that the tour plays in some pretty small markets. Attendance is usually pretty minuscule on Thursday and Friday. Imagine what it would be like on a Monday - Thursday? Also, the tournaments can't run without volunteers. I have to image that the number of volunteers for a midweek event would be much lower.

 

[Argonne69]

> @LICC said:

> I think a lot has to do with the personalities. Get a few compelling personalities and rivalries going and if those women play well, ratings would go up. Maria Fassi may help but for now there aren't a lot there. It's the same with the men. When Tiger is playing well ratings are up.

 

Rivalries are nearly impossible to manufacture. It takes two players in the hunt for extended periods of time. With the level of play now in both tours, and the rotating #1's, it just doesn't seem like you can get two players at the top of their game for a long enough period to have any hope of a match-up on a regular basis. Heck, on the men's side it's getting rare to see more than a handful of top players in any event.

 

In the men's game, there's so much money that I don't sense any real burning desire to beat their competitor's brains in. Back in Arnie's, Jack's, and Lee's days they were playing for an actual living. Today, the top 100 are all millionaires, so picking up a 2nd place check for $900,000 isn't going to ruin one's week.

[Sixcat]

> @OldTomMorris said:

> > @Sixcat said:

> > > @OldTomMorris said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > Again, scheduling a tournament so as not to conflict with the PGA Tour is not really the problem.

> > >

> > > OK I suspect you are much better informed on the LPGA than me but surely its a factor. The PGA Tour has basically organised its schedule to avoid a conflict with another sport so logically there must be a similar effect with the LPGA. I'm not advocating every event be re-scheduled but surely it would be worth an odd one here and there as an experiment. With respect I don't think your viewing preference reflects most TV golf viewers when presented with the same binary choice. I think the majority would chose to watch the PGA Tour almost 100% of the time.

> > >

> > >** Its not just TV its media headlines etc. too, almost everything on Sunday evening/Monday morning was Patrick Cantlay not Lee6.** Avoiding a conflict in order to increase visibility/exposure seems like it might be worth a try.

> >

> > You weren't trying very hard just to be honest! I literally listened to a half-dozen podcasts Monday morning that have enormous followings. They each briefly mentioned Cantlay and spent an hour talking about Lee6 and Country Club of Charleston. For insight, go listen to the Women's US Open recaps from No Laying Up and The Shotgun Start.

>

> Golf podcasts are a niche market for golf addicts but my point relates to mainstream sports media. I'd class myself as a golf nerd but I don't find the time to listen to golf podcast on a regular basis let alone 6 on a Monday.

 

Golf is a niche sport/activity. It's never going to be "mainstream." Those podcasts and Youtube VLOG's get more viewership/listeners than much of the content of Golf Channel. I spend 10 hours a day in my office. Multitasking really isn't that complicated!

[BlackDiamondPar5]

The LPGA used to host a wonderfully popular and well attended event annually in Rochester NY for nearly 40 years. They then tampered with the schedule and then made it a major which was too rich for the regional support and the tournament is gone :( How'd that work out for them? Seems the LPGA has shot themselves in the foot a bit over the years.

[WestTex]

> @Argonne69 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > I think a lot has to do with the personalities. Get a few compelling personalities and rivalries going and if those women play well, ratings would go up. Maria Fassi may help but for now there aren't a lot there. It's the same with the men. When Tiger is playing well ratings are up.

>

> Rivalries are nearly impossible to manufacture. It takes two players in the hunt for extended periods of time. With the level of play now in both tours, and the rotating #1's, it just doesn't seem like you can get two players at the top of their game for a long enough period to have any hope of a match-up on a regular basis. Heck, on the men's side it's getting rare to see more than a handful of top players in any event.

>

> In the men's game, there's so much money that I don't sense any real burning desire to beat their competitor's brains in. Back in Arnie's, Jack's, and Lee's days they were playing for an actual living. Today, the top 100 are all millionaires, so **picking up a 2nd place check for $900,000 isn't going to ruin one's week. **

 

We could even expand this to other sports as well. Not saying the competition factor has completely gone, but how often do we hear of players being ok sitting the bench because they still collect? Crazy amount of money in sports. Sure, breaking in is almost impossible, but if you do, you're set.

[North Texas]

> @LICC said:

> I think a lot has to do with the personalities. Get a few compelling personalities and rivalries going and if those women play well, ratings would go up. Maria Fassi may help but for now there aren't a lot there. It's the same with the men. When Tiger is playing well ratings are up.

 

I don't even necessarily think there would have to be a rivalry. Just have one very good player come on the scene that moves the needle big time and I think it would have a positive effect on both attendance and ratings.

[MelloYello]

You can't have sustained dominance in any sport once the floodgates have broken.

 

Once high-level competition is in place and you have dozens or even hundreds (if not thousands) of people all trying to climb up the ranks to live that life you lose stability at the #1 spot. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

You either have Tiger dominating a slew of names history won't remember or you get a bunch of popular guys that all cut each other off at the knees.

 

Both the PGA and the LPGA have far too many "elite" players to see any particular player be a dominant world #1 for more than about a year.

 

We're in a new phase now. The same rules don't apply. This is why I say that chasing after audiences in the traditional manner isn't the way to go. There's not going to be another Tiger Woods. A different set of rules now governs the system.

 

It's an entirely separate point, but it also stands to reason that when we're talking about players bubbling up and becoming content with their status within a relatively short amount of time, you're going to need to run the hype machine even more. First Rory is the next big thing. Then it's Jordan Spieth. Then it's Justin Thomas. Then it's John Rahm. Eventually it gets to be a joke.

 

There's a new problem now. You're never going to get another Tiger who can dominate. The competition doesn't allow it. But there's so much money guys arrive, hit it big and then cool off because of lack of desire. And then you've got the mixed-messages sent by "rivals" making millions of dollars and going on buddies trips together. Nobody really wants to hear that these are all rich kids partying it up together between tournaments.

 

After awhile I have to imagine the bubble of fan support will burst as nobody is quite sure who the heck they're rooting for.

 

This only feeds what I was talking about. There is no more rooting for one guy. As fans, we're going to learn to start jumping from one to another. This further drives home the point that you either watch the PGA Tour or your don't. Same will be true of the LPGA.

 

For a long time I watched the PGA Tour every week but then I saw what it was becoming and lost a lot of interest. I watched Rory become complacent. I saw Rickie Fowler choke away wins. I saw a slew of guys hit it big who really had no battles to face coming up (i.e. Justin Thomas). Guys like Spieth and Rahm just seem arrogant to me.

 

I hate to say the game looks elitist but it kind of does. It's sort of a spoiled rich-guy thing all over again at the top.

 

There's nobody to root for there anymore.

 

The LPGA is less cursed by a lack of hate-able figures. You may not love anyone but there's no one amongst the top-20 who appears arrogant or complacent or entitled.

 

So don't get me wrong, players definitely matter. The quality of the field certainly influences whether I watch an event and that goes for every sport. But I feel like the last decade has marked a turning point where I feel I've been pushed more to enjoy each sport as opposed to singular individuals within them.

 

That along with fantasy sports which broaden the appeal as well as the ability to DVR and watch on my own time has really changed the game.

[Argonne69]

The problem with rooting for one player is that they can easily go through a downturn. Injuries are very common in golf. I have a number of favorites, and a few of them are generally in the hunt on any given weekend. Ultimately I want to see good golf. Some weeks it's a birdiefest, e.g. Sei Young at Thornberry Creek last year. Some weeks it's a butt kicking, e.g. this year's USWO.

[LICC]

> @Argonne69 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > I think a lot has to do with the personalities. Get a few compelling personalities and rivalries going and if those women play well, ratings would go up. Maria Fassi may help but for now there aren't a lot there. It's the same with the men. When Tiger is playing well ratings are up.

>

> Rivalries are nearly impossible to manufacture. It takes two players in the hunt for extended periods of time. With the level of play now in both tours, and the rotating #1's, it just doesn't seem like you can get two players at the top of their game for a long enough period to have any hope of a match-up on a regular basis. Heck, on the men's side it's getting rare to see more than a handful of top players in any event.

>

> In the men's game, there's so much money that I don't sense any real burning desire to beat their competitor's brains in. Back in Arnie's, Jack's, and Lee's days they were playing for an actual living. Today, the top 100 are all millionaires, so picking up a 2nd place check for $900,000 isn't going to ruin one's week.

 

You have Brooks-DJ right now. And still Tiger-Phil. You aren't going to have more than 2-4 at any time. It can only be among players competing for championships. And a rivalry would help ratings with the LPGA but that wouldn't be as important as having some personalities that draw interest AND play at the top of the leaderboard.

[WestTex]

> @MelloYello said:

> You can't have sustained dominance in any sport once the floodgates have broken.

>

> Once high-level competition is in place and you have dozens or even hundreds (if not thousands) of people all trying to climb up the ranks to live that life you lose stability at the #1 spot. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

>

> You either have Tiger dominating a slew of names history won't remember or you get a bunch of popular guys that all cut each other off at the knees.

>

> Both the PGA and the LPGA have far too many "elite" players to see any particular player be a dominant world #1 for more than about a year.

>

> We're in a new phase now. The same rules don't apply. This is why I say that chasing after audiences in the traditional manner isn't the way to go. There's not going to be another Tiger Woods. A different set of rules now governs the system.

>

> It's an entirely separate point, but it also stands to reason that when we're talking about players bubbling up and becoming content with their status within a relatively short amount of time, you're going to need to run the hype machine even more. First Rory is the next big thing. Then it's Jordan Spieth. Then it's Justin Thomas. Then it's John Rahm. Eventually it gets to be a joke.

>

> There's a new problem now. You're never going to get another Tiger who can dominate. The competition doesn't allow it. But there's so much money guys arrive, hit it big and then cool off because of lack of desire. And then you've got the mixed-messages sent by "rivals" making millions of dollars and going on buddies trips together. Nobody really wants to hear that these are all rich kids partying it up together between tournaments.

>

> After awhile I have to imagine the bubble of fan support will burst as nobody is quite sure who the heck they're rooting for.

>

> This only feeds what I was talking about. There is no more rooting for one guy. As fans, we're going to learn to start jumping from one to another. This further drives home the point that you either watch the PGA Tour or your don't. Same will be true of the LPGA.

>

> For a long time I watched the PGA Tour every week but then I saw what it was becoming and lost a lot of interest. I watched Rory become complacent. I saw Rickie Fowler choke away wins. I saw a slew of guys hit it big who really had no battles to face coming up (i.e. Justin Thomas). Guys like Spieth and Rahm just seem arrogant to me.

>

> I hate to say the game looks elitist but it kind of does. It's sort of a spoiled rich-guy thing all over again at the top.

>

> There's nobody to root for there anymore.

>

> **The LPGA is less cursed by a lack of hate-able figures. You may not love anyone but there's no one amongst the top-20 who appears arrogant or complacent or entitled**.

>

> So don't get me wrong, players definitely matter. The quality of the field certainly influences whether I watch an event and that goes for every sport. But I feel like the last decade has marked a turning point where I feel I've been pushed more to enjoy each sport as opposed to singular individuals within them.

>

> That along with fantasy sports which broaden the appeal as well as the ability to DVR and watch on my own time has really changed the game.

 

Exactly why I like them a whole bunch more. You can be rich, famous, and successful without being a raging D-bag.