Is the LPGA more popular now or in the past (1990s/2000s)?

[Ironman_32]

Last night on golf channel they ran a special on the 1998 US Women's Open, won by Se Ri Pak over Jenny Chuasiriporn (who was an amateur at the time). Pak won the tournament in a sudden death playoff that followed an 18-hole playoff (Pak famously took off her shoes to hit a shot while standing in a pond on the 18th hole in the 18-hole playoff).

 

Just from the video and the coverage, seemed like there was a very high attendance,(esp on a monday playoff), and seemed a little more alive to me than the major the LPGA had a couple weeks ago. They ran an article in the WSJ couple weeks back about how women's sports are now more popular than ever.  But just watching from the documentary, just made me think, was the women's game more popular than or now? I know the money and sponsorship was definitely less than today; but it seems like there were more dominate players and the focus was on the game itself. Now it seems, there's less connection of whose the better players outside of Nellie Korda, and some people would probably rather golf with women golf "celebrities"; than actual players (as I say, the problem with the women's game is Cheyenne Woods gets endorsements/sponsors/commercials and isn't actually a player/member). 

[golfinbrad]

My vote is now.  The LPGA is definitely more global which puts a lot of people off.  However, I think being more global increases the quality of play.  No question you see more TV coverage than before.  The issue is marketing and getting more interest in non-major events to get the casual fans to attend.  Seeing them play in person gives you a better appreciation for their skills.  I'm seeing more and more female junior golfer and college players, which has to have impact moving forward.

[Naptime]

Many competing demands for viewership in women's sports, e.g. WNBA, soccer, college sports etc.  In the 60s you might see a womens event (figure skating or maybe downhill skiing) on Wide World of Sports once in a while.  We attended the US Women's Open at Indianwood CC in Michigan in 1994.  I don't recall it being particularly crowded at the venue, compared to the Senior Tour events in the same time frame in Michigan.  

Edited May 2, 2023 by Naptime

[Abh159]

28 minutes ago, Ironman_32 said:

Last night on golf channel they ran a special on the 1998 US Women's Open, won by Se Ri Pak over Jenny Chuasiriporn (who was an amateur at the time). Pak won the tournament in a sudden death playoff that followed an 18-hole playoff (Pak famously took off her shoes to hit a shot while standing in a pond on the 18th hole in the 18-hole playoff).

 

Just from the video and the coverage, seemed like there was a very high attendance,(esp on a monday playoff), and seemed a little more alive to me than the major the LPGA had a couple weeks ago. They ran an article in the WSJ couple weeks back about how women's sports are now more popular than ever.  But just watching from the documentary, just made me think, was the women's game more popular than or now? I know the money and sponsorship was definitely less than today; but it seems like there were more dominate players and the focus was on the game itself. Now it seems, there's less connection of whose the better players outside of Nellie Korda, and some people would probably rather golf with women golf "celebrities"; than actual players (as I say, the problem with the women's game is Cheyenne Woods gets endorsements/sponsors/commercials and isn't actually a player/member). 

 

Based on the dates it looks like this was held on July 4th weekend which would probably explain why a Monday was well attended (it would have been a holiday).

 

But to answer your question... It's more popular now and it's not even close in my mind.

[So_Cal]

8 hours ago, Naptime said:

Many competing demands for viewership in women's sports, e.g. WNBA, soccer, college sports etc.  In the 60s you might see a womens event (figure skating or maybe downhill skiing) on Wide World of Sports once in a while.  We attended the US Women's Open at Indianwood CC in Michigan in 1994.  I don't recall it being particularly crowded at the venue, compared to the Senior Tour events in the same time frame in Michigan.  

I personally enjoy women’s golf much more than NBA.  Does anyone watch that?  Anyway I like where the LPGA is right now and am optimistic about its future. 

[8602081]

In USA, probably not..

International. definitely yes..

[postfold]

Globally the answer is now and it is not remotely close.

 

In the U.S., I think the answer is still now, though it's a little closer question.  There are more communities invested in the game - thanks Tiger Woods and Se Ri Pak and the Thai players etc.  The LPGA still isn't as popular as it could be, but on balance I think it is a bigger deal now.

 

I wouldn't read too much into comparing specific tournaments, especially a USWO versus any other event. 

[SEP1006]

I think now as well. I have always enjoyed watching the LPGA way more than I do the PGA. Besides the obvious reason their swings are just so smooth and they get so much out of them.

 

I do think the LPGA will feel the effects of Michael Whan leaving. He definitely made a lot of progress while commissioner and was well liked by the players as well.

 

 

[MelloYello]

I don't think it's night and day. I do think there are more players now who are more marketable than before. I'm seeing an LPGA player in nearly every OEMs ads or on their website. Companies are careful to highlight somebody they have from the LPGA and I think that's a step forward but the tour itself still seems to be it's own niche thing (for better or worse). 

 

As others have rightly pointed out, it's exploded in Asia but from a purely US perspective I'm not sure how much progress there's really been. 

 

I can't speak for what it may have been in the 90's but I would guess it's younger today. That could also be a bit of an issue making it a "niche" thing. I think that's sometimes uniquely challenging to market. The LPGA has moved towards youth in a pretty major way and I think it's hard for a lot of (non-devotee) guys to take the LPGA seriously as a "women's" tour when so many of the game's top players have emerged as teenagers who by nature just aren't seen as "women" the way that emerging male stars are seen as "men" because they're virtually always in their mid- or late-20s.

 

It definitely is a different dynamic watching the LPGA and I think it slows down popularity if/when the age thing moves too fast and the whole thing gets too strong a "girls' tour" vibe which at times it's leaned towards. Morgan, Lexi, Lydia, Brook, Jeeno...there always seems to be some teenage star. And when you get rarities like Lucy Li at the US Open some time ago it's not really particularly appealing for a lot of potential viewers coming from the PGA side of things who are use to adults and may feel somewhat strange watching folks who are younger than their kids.

 

.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by MelloYello

[ChronicSlicer]

5 hours ago, MelloYello said:

I can't speak for what it may have been in the 90's but I would guess it's younger today. That could also be a bit of an issue making it a "niche" thing. I think that's sometimes uniquely challenging to market. The LPGA has moved towards youth in a pretty major way and I think it's hard for a lot of (non-devotee) guys to take the LPGA seriously as a "women's" tour when so many of the game's top players have emerged as teenagers who by nature just aren't seen as "women" the way that emerging male stars are seen as "men" because they're virtually always in their mid- or late-20s.

 

 

 

.

 

 

My take on your take is the LPGA is a niche sport because the competitors are girls and not women. Guys don't take girls seriously, but they would take middle aged women seriously. Sorry if I got that wrong..

 

 

[Shilgy]

5 minutes ago, ChronicSlicer said:

My take on your take is the LPGA is a niche sport because the competitors are girls and not women. Guys don't take girls seriously, but they would take middle aged women seriously. Sorry if I got that wrong..

 

 

In this case one thing can be true but the “opposite” not true. As a “girls” tour it may lose a bit of its potential popularity but not enough that it would make a huge difference if the competitors skewed older.

[Phreddy]

I don't know the answer, but any sport and golf in particular, benefit when you have an absolute butt kicker dominant champion to draw eyeballs.  Annika.  Lorena.  People tune in to see them play and be a part of the run.  And/Or when you have a couple players who are...... ornery.  A Suzanne Peterson or Stacey Lewis.  People may or may not like them, but people watch to see if the steely eyed gunslinger wins again or gets cut down.  Right now we have a large group of very talented super polite ladies in the top 20.  But none that truly galvanize attention.  I'm not making a value judgement so much as an observation from my couch.

 

Phred

[Pepperturbo]

I don't believe it's ever been popular with the masses.

 

My wife and I have watched the LPGA, but it's not often.  We can't figure out how the LPGA can pay it's players, when TV camera scanning of galleries shows sparse attendance.  To be fair, we've attended and consequently think the same regarding the Champions tour.  It's my opinion, neither tour has really popular on-camera personalities. 

 

Recently, we had a house full of golfer guests to a BBQ and watch PGA Tour golf tournament.  The popularity of the LPGA came up.  Mind you, all men and women were golfers and NOT one person could say they watched the LPGA, nor did anyone know the top players.  The women said they like watching the PGA and the men said the same.  Half the men had indexes under 12, 5 single digit and 2 plus.  Most of the women held 12–16 indexes with a few single digits.  May be tied to why every year many tournaments have new title sponsors.  Good tax deduction of advertising budget but only good for a few years, maybe.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Pepperturbo

[ChronicSlicer]

3 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

  The women said they like watching the PGA and the men said the same.  

This is what I notice as well. Women golfers always attending mens events, but never womens.

[Pepperturbo]

21 hours ago, ChronicSlicer said:

This is what I notice as well. Women golfers always attending mens events, but never womens.

My wife and a group of her friends, all golfers, recently attended Champions tour event, some of them through their clubs volunteered in various capacities.  Some of them have acquaintances that play on the Champion's tour, and adamant about no interest in LPGA.  Because I have an acquaintance that plays on the LPGA, occasionally we check in on her.

[khalespace]

I wonder why women's tennis is so successful and on the other hand the WNBA is dreadful. Golf falls somewhere in the middle.

[Pepperturbo]

20 hours ago, khalespace said:

I wonder why women's tennis is so successful and on the other hand the WNBA is dreadful. Golf falls somewhere in the middle.

I suspect more women play tennis than golf.  Most of the women at our golf tournament BBQ, including my wife, play tennis, and they watch tennis on TV.

[HMHS]

I don't know, I was not playing golf nor was I even watching golf in those times... well, bec. I was too young 😆

 

Fast forward to 2015-2023 when I started following things closely, I will say there's just so much more fragmentation and competition from not only golf but other sports for LPGA.   So I would say women's golf/LPGA has been "on a long uphill climb but climbing slowly" ceteris paribus  (win more than lose, little by little).  

[iBanesto]

On 5/6/2023 at 7:59 AM, khalespace said:

I wonder why women's tennis is so successful and on the other hand the WNBA is dreadful. Golf falls somewhere in the middle.

 

I believe partly it is because women's tennis has had a longer history than women's golf.

 

The 1st grand slam for women was 1884 whilst golf was only 1930.

 

Also grand slam tennis tournaments play both men and women in the same 2 weeks, so they have always had more exposure.

[Raving Shanker]

I think we are witnessing the year the LPGA died. The reason - the TV coverage is horrible, and near unwatchable.

[Argonne69]

6 hours ago, Raving Shanker said:

I think we are witnessing the year the LPGA died. The reason - the TV coverage is horrible, and near unwatchable.

 

Two hours of TV coverage is pretty weak. 

[Raving Shanker]

2 hours ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Two hours of TV coverage is pretty weak. 

Two hours? You are lucky. What I am getting through Kayo is something like...

A promo - A piece about Founders - Adverts- A few shots - Adverts - A bit about Girls' golf - Adverts  - A promo - A recap - ADVERTS - A shot or two - To the studio of Grant and Morgan - Adverts - A shot or two - Ad...

 

Who could possibly think that is watchable? I suffer it because I am a tragic fan (emphasis on tragic), but no casual observer would tolerate it. If you can't follow the sport, then it dies. They are killing themselves.

 

Also, there is no development of narrative during the event, because so many key shots are lost in this.

[khalespace]

3 hours ago, Raving Shanker said:

Two hours? You are lucky. What I am getting through Kayo is something like...

A promo - A piece about Founders - Adverts- A few shots - Adverts - A bit about Girls' golf - Adverts  - A promo - A recap - ADVERTS - A shot or two - To the studio of Grant and Morgan - Adverts - A shot or two - Ad...

 

Who could possibly think that is watchable? I suffer it because I am a tragic fan (emphasis on tragic), but no casual observer would tolerate it. If you can't follow the sport, then it dies. They are killing themselves.

 

Also, there is no development of narrative during the event, because so many key shots are lost in this.

Since they already have the equipment, personnel (camera men, announcers), why not provide full coverage? I know Golf Channel prioritizes PGA but they can also stream LPGA and show ads. Obviously a lot of LPGA fans are not happy about the coverage.

Edited May 15, 2023 by khalespace

[OBbogey5]

Probably nailed it in the OP. The game seemed bigger back then, with more mature, emotionally expressive players vying for championships. NBC covered the WUSO like it was the most important major in the sport, and one of the major sporting events of the year. All that’s been lost. 
 

With the global growth of the game in Asia, Americans have so many other things to do and watch on tv, I believe tv interest state side in woman’s golf has taken a plunge. By “more popular”, the only thing I can think of is more girls and woman play golf around the globe. Okay.. The tv product is far far far from what it used to be. 

[OBbogey5]

On 5/13/2023 at 1:18 AM, iBanesto said:

 

I believe partly it is because women's tennis has had a longer history than women's golf.

 

The 1st grand slam for women was 1884 whilst golf was only 1930.

 

Also grand slam tennis tournaments play both men and women in the same 2 weeks, so they have always had more exposure.

Not only the same two weeks for most tournaments, but the Women’s Final and Men’s Final are back to back and the ticket gets you in to both matches. Women’s tennis is completely hooked onto the men’s wings. It’s entertaining, and I watch (unless there’s 15 Russians in the round of 16), but there’s no freaking way that as a stand alone sport the women pull in the bucks they get. It’s laughable we have to pretend they would or even worse, should. 

[Raving Shanker]

1 hour ago, OBbogey5 said:

Probably nailed it in the OP. The game seemed bigger back then, with more mature, emotionally expressive players vying for championships. NBC covered the WUSO like it was the most important major in the sport, and one of the major sporting events of the year. All that’s been lost. 
 

With the global growth of the game in Asia, Americans have so many other things to do and watch on tv, I believe tv interest state side in woman’s golf has taken a plunge. By “more popular”, the only thing I can think of is more girls and woman play golf around the globe. Okay.. The tv product is far far far from what it used to be. 

I disagree with this assessment of today's players. I think they are just fine - if only we could get to see them.

[iBanesto]

9 hours ago, OBbogey5 said:

Not only the same two weeks for most tournaments, but the Women’s Final and Men’s Final are back to back and the ticket gets you in to both matches. Women’s tennis is completely hooked onto the men’s wings. It’s entertaining, and I watch (unless there’s 15 Russians in the round of 16), but there’s no freaking way that as a stand alone sport the women pull in the bucks they get. It’s laughable we have to pretend they would or even worse, should. 

 

Exactly.

 

Imagine if the men's US Open and women's US Open were played on the same week and course.

 

I'm sure the viewers number for the women's event would be greater than if it was played on a separate week.

[OBbogey5]

11 hours ago, iBanesto said:

 

Exactly.

 

Imagine if the men's US Open and women's US Open were played on the same week and course.

 

I'm sure the viewers number for the women's event would be greater than if it was played on a separate week.

Pinehurst 2014 was the closest we got to this, correct? With the Dream of all women’s golf Dreams coming true — Wie. The USGA pulled it off. It was cool to watch. Not sure how both tournaments could be played at the same time, but packaging the men and the women is the only way to bring in the number of fans that the women’s golf gurus think they have. 

[Rapidcat]

On 5/15/2023 at 8:31 AM, Raving Shanker said:

Two hours? You are lucky. What I am getting through Kayo is something like...

A promo - A piece about Founders - Adverts- A few shots - Adverts - A bit about Girls' golf - Adverts  - A promo - A recap - ADVERTS - A shot or two - To the studio of Grant and Morgan - Adverts - A shot or two - Ad...

 

Who could possibly think that is watchable? I suffer it because I am a tragic fan (emphasis on tragic), but no casual observer would tolerate it. If you can't follow the sport, then it dies. They are killing themselves.

 

Also, there is no development of narrative during the event, because so many key shots are lost in this.

 

Amen.

 

Let's not forget covering the extended time taken for a player to consult with their caddie over distance, wind direction, slope, rain, lie, turf conditions, what they had for breakfast, have you got Dad a birthday present etc. I timed Minjee on the R4 par 3 hole#6 (her chunk into the water then her follow-up from the tee), from when the coverage cut to her standing on the tee to hitting her follow-up (ball in air) was 5 mins 38 secs.

 

I thought these events were individual stroke play, seems like the modern day caddie does everything for some players but hit the shot, must contribute an extra 30 mins of wasted time per round.

 

So much wasted coverage.

[JungleJimbo]

20 hours ago, iBanesto said:

 

Exactly.

 

Imagine if the men's US Open and women's US Open were played on the same week and course.

 

I'm sure the viewers number for the women's event would be greater than if it was played on a separate week.

 

Let's see if this mixed event = an upwards 'bump' for LPGA viewing.

 

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/case-and-calls-improved-partnership-between-pga-tour-and-lpga